Memes on Elliot Rodger’s murder of four boys and two girls

Disturbing gender supremacism has rarely been more evident than in reaction to the killings carried out by Elliot Rodger, a kid who hated all women, hated all men, fantasized in turn about killing both sexes, and eventually went on a murderous rampage, ending the lives of twice as many males as females. And, Feminists have callously stepped over those murdered boys to make their calculated and counter-factual political point about “anti-woman attitudes.”

Rodger’s hatred of women was dangerous, but so was his hatred of men. Hatred of both genders is not misogyny, it’s misanthropy and psychosis. To recast a deranged misanthropist like Rodger as a misogynist is to say that half of his hatred and two-thirds of his murder doesn’t matter.

This is the subtext of the reaction to this incident: Feminism means hating and murdering men doesn’t matter. Does that sound like “equality” to you? And, this isn’t the radical fringe of Feminism. This reaction to the Rodger murders is mainstream.

How many males would have to die before Feminists would feel ashamed to brush their corpses under the rug in order to make their damselizing talking points seem reasonable? The 58 boys, aged 11 to 18, who were shot, hacked to pieces, and burned to death by Boko Haram didn’t stop them from recasting an anti-Western terror group as an anti-girl’s education group.

Feminism is a bigoted, supremacist hate movement disguised as an egalitarian civil rights movement. It’s time for reasonable people to wake up.

THESE ARE THE VICTIMS OF ELLIOT RODGERWonkaRodger-01 WonkaRodger-02

This entry was posted in Memes, News. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Mitchell Pratt
    Posted June 1, 2014 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Did you even SEE Rodger’s manifesto? You don’t mention it once in your post.
    Also, you do realize that he was on his way to shoot up a sorority, right?
    Look, it doesn’t matter how many girls he killed verses how many boys he killed. Shocking as it may sound, it’s not about the victims – it’s about WHY they died.
    Those four boys and two girls died because Elliot Rodgers, on top of being mentally unsound, believed that WOMEN OWED HIM SEX. Not those four boys, not even those two specific girls – just WOMEN IN GENERAL. The only reason he hated other men was because they, in his view, were HAVING MORE SEX WITH WOMEN than he was.
    See, the only reason we’re so fixated on women in this issue is because HE WAS.
    Get it?

    • Posted June 1, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      Again, your interpretation is biased toward female victimization. Firstly, he did not feel that women owed him sex and never said this. This is a straw man that has been thrown around by Feminists and is drawn entirely from their own fantasies of a Global Patriarchal Conspiracy. In fact, the masculine hegemony analysis simply doesn’t match the killer’s own words: “Why does he deserve to get this experience and not me? ,,, It’s not fair. Life is not fair.” He felt women were rewarding the wrong male behavior which, as twisted and misguided as Rodger was, is an ethical rather than patriarchal argument on his part. One could make an argument, based on his actual reasoning rather than some Feminist foregone conclusion, that he felt entitled as a rich kid, but not categorically as a male, because he resented the fact that males he considered lower status were being rewarded. That evidence simply doesn’t support the Feminist paradigm. It’s not a pro-male, anti-female attitude. It’s a pro-wealth attitude. Like a typical cultist, you’re seeing what you want here despite the fact that the evidence doesn’t support it.

      Secondly, the sorority was his second target and not necessarily his last. He murdered his room-mates (males) first with fantasies of creating a kill room for later use, and had plans to slaughter people after the sorority, including everyone at a house where he was injured last year. The sorority was neither the first nor the last on his disturbed list of targets. By making it the most important one, Feminists like you reveal more about your own biased evaluation of human life than Rodger’s. The pathological fixation is yours, not his.

      • Mitchell Pratt
        Posted June 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        “One could make an argument, based on his actual reasoning rather than some Feminist foregone conclusion, that he felt entitled as a rich kid, but not categorically as a male, because he resented the fact that males he considered lower status were being rewarded. That evidence simply doesn’t support the Feminist paradigm. It’s not a pro-male, anti-female attitude.”

        And you accuse ME of only seeing what I want to see? If he was JUST entitled as a rich kid, and not a rich MALE kid, and if he was all about pro-wealth, how come he only shot his fellow, upper-middle class, college-attending peers and not, say, homeless people on the street? There’s simply no grounds for the ‘misogyny wasn’t a part of it’ argument.
        Again, it doesn’t matter how many people he killed on either side of the gender binary. If he never killed anyone, his postings and his worldview would still reflect male-entitlement and an idea that women are only there to be fucked. And in a world where 1 in every 4 women has been raped, as opposed to 1 in every 33 men, who needs the confidence boost here?

        You claim that you don’t favor anyone and that you don’t hate women. Fine, I believe you. But ask yourself – just who are you helping?

        And calling me a ‘typical cultist’ is a pretty foregone conclusion, if you ask me.

        • Posted June 13, 2014 at 1:54 am | Permalink

          The fact that he murdered other college kids counts as evidence, but the fact that he killed more males than females doesn’t? Thanks for demonstrating your bias.

          Moreover, his writings did not reflect male entitlement. He complained about other males having sexual access. His writings reflected affluent entitlement. The fact that you see what confirms Feminist dogma even when the facts clearly point to something else is the evidence of cultism.

          And, who are we helping? Men and women who are both being lied to by Feminists as part of a supremacist political power struggle.

  2. Kelli
    Posted June 1, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    LOL If Rodgers acted like women owed him sex because he’s a man he would have gotten sex from somebody. There’s always girls who will go for that sort of confidence. He was exactly the opposite of what you say!! Why are feminists so dumb? He was just whining because nobody treated him how he wanted because he had money like that affluenza kid.

  3. Posted June 3, 2014 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    I’ve covered this too: here

    As did Cathy Young

  4. Mirrors
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    He tried to kill the women there, and ended up killing a few men along the way.
    Not only that, but he murdered women off campus as well, and the four men he killed? Three of them were Asian, and he intentionally killed them because he couldn’t STAND the thought of Asian men hooking up with the white women he thought he owned. He just had the same misogynistic, whining, entitled, spoiled idea of owning women and the bizarre victim complex that MRAs such as yourself hold.

    You guys are pathetic.

    • Posted September 4, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      First, we’re not MRAs. We’re anti-Feminists.

      Second, Elliot Rodger was himself half-Asian.

      Third, there’s nothing in anything we’ve written here that is misogynistic, whining, entitled, spoiled, or suggests that anyone “owns” women. Oddly, Rodgers also never said anything to suggested a sense of ownership over women, or even entitlement to them based on being male. He expressed a sense of entitlement to certain treatment by both men and women because he felt he was affluent.

      Fourth, the fact that you’re reading so much into this just to prop up a series of slanders against people you disagree with demonstrates that you are in fact the sexist, whining, entitled party, who feels that Feminists “own” the debate on gender relations.