Update from Hate Central

Those of you who live in the real world might not have realized that the events in Aurora, Colorado have spurred a number of lively discussions that haven’t been given their due in the MSM.

Five days after the horror, when news venues, desperate to report something inspiring and uplifting, were focusing on the stories about the brave theater-goers who shielded their girlfriends with their own bodies, The Wall Street Journals’ James Taranto let loose with this astonishingly sour and unchivalrous tweet: “I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.” He was pretty-much universally reviled for it and had to issue an apology the next day, in which he contortedly explained that he was merely expressing his wish that the women would redeem their boyfriends’ sacrifices by using “the gift of their survival well–to live good, full, happy lives.”

In the world of misogynistic Mens Rights advocacy (and no, not all MRAs are misogynists), Taranto’s faux pas wouldn’t have even borne notice. At A Voice for Men, my old friend John the Other didn’t mince words. Under the headline “Three Cheers for Three Male Corpses. Heroes.” , he explained that the so-called heroes were merely victims of their biology (men are hard-wired to protect women) and social conditioning (which tells men that “in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat. They matter more than you. Your best and most honorable path ends in you on a slab in the basement of your city’s morgue”). Had they not died, he added, “the preening, strutting, amoral whores of the mainstream media” would have described “them as cowards and shirkers; failed men for not doing their manly duty by dying for the convenience of others.” Their sacrifice was merely a victory for misandry, the principled hatred of males.

Over at the Spearhead, W.F. Price is enraged that Bill Bennett not only deigned to attribute the men’s actions to a code of honor, but cited an essay by Hanna Rosin. “Bennett gets it totally wrong on a number of points, which is about what you’d expect from a guy who relies on feminists to divine the motivations of young men.”

They were solid men; the kind that families and communities have always relied on when the going gets tough. It wasn’t because they held some belief or political position, it was because they were men that they acted as they did. It is simply what men do, and that’s why they deserve honor, which Bennett is incapable of bestowing on anyone.

No, instead of honoring these men, Bennett continues to measure them according to their utility to women.

Meanwhile, the conspiratorial world was quick to style Aurora–as it does virtually every other catastrophe that has ever dominated a news cycle–as neither a human tragedy, nor a wake-up call about guns, but as a dark international conspiracy that has the fingerprints of Barack Obama all over it.

As early as July 23, Gawker had collected the most egregiously insane theories. Basically, what it comes down to is that the government programmed an innocent neuroscience student with drugs and other behavior modification techniques to create a gun-related outrage on the eve of the negotiations over the UN Small Arms Treaty. As Mother Jones reports, at least one fairly high profile (albeit pretty marginal) group has signed on:

Larry Pratt—the president of Gun Owners of America, a far-right Second Amendment group that’s backed by prominent people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—has a different theory. Pratt believes the timing of Holmes’ rampage, which left 12 people dead and 58 wounded, seemed designed to coincide with the upcoming negotiation of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. A press release sent out to radio bookers on Tuesday advertising Pratt’s availability noted that, “In an article posted at The New American…one expert even outlined a theory that Holmes didn’t act alone, but was possibly ‘enlisted’ to carry out his violent act.” Pratt, the publicist stated, was free for interviews on Holmes’ “impeccable” timing.

Pratt was forced to leave Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1996 because of his purported ties to white supremacists (ironically Buchanan’s own connections to some of the same groups were overlooked for another decade and more).

Just today, a story has surfaced that says that Holmes is the wrong man. Over at Above Top Secret, a poster sees a link with a Lil Wayne video, which includes an image of skeletons sitting in a movie theater. “Since James Holmes father (Robert Holmes) was a banking elite, I do not find it ambiguous to have connection with this industry,” he opines. One constant in Conspiracy Theory is that the perpetrators compulsively advertise their plans. So if the bankers needed to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, they’d probably broadcast their intentions in a rap video.

PS Goldwag completists might want to look at this post at the SPLC’s Hatewatch, which takes off on some of this material.

If you enjoyed this post, please go to my Facebook page and “like” it (there is a button that will take you there on the top right hand side of this page). You can also follow me on Twitter.

Itanimulli

6 thoughts on “Update from Hate Central

  1. I wonder if that is the first time that Bill Bennett has been accused of being an apologist for feminists? I have heard this theory on this being some sort of government operation that had to do with conditioning this Holmes person. LOL I mean we do know the ramifications of HAARP-now don’t we? LOL Larry Pratt used to appear on news cable shows a great deal in the 90’s-I used to see him on CNN. If you were ever hear him actually hear him talk-he never came across as a fanatic -he never lost his temper and he was came across as articulate-I imagine he used different tactics when speaking to his peers. There was a letter to the editor of one of the local papers today that warned about this UN Small Arms Treaty-and its ultimate “plan” to register and confiscate weapons. The other letter to the editor talked about world ending and accepting Jesus. This is 2012-would you have predicted 20 years ago that any of this assinine nonsense would be taken seriously? I must have overestimated the intelligence of Americans.LOL

  2. Let me see if I get this straight–there were men in the Aurora who made the choice to cover others (male and female) to try to protect them, and there are other men who posit that some women or womankind deserve blasting for the decision that these men made for themselves? Boy, it seems some men really need to be the supreme victim of the earth even when we are talking about really brave, selfess, caring, empathic decisions made by grown ups for themselves? This is patently insane, backward and reveals an extremely skewed way of viewing themselves and their worth in the world. Zero sum people are scary. Male dies, female lives BAD BAD BAD, is basically the logic.Yup it should have been every “man ” for himself where “men” like this writer steps on and over others to save themselves. But, really, why would that be a good thing? Who needs such unhuman beings? no one does. Not in Aurora and not in print on the internet, as they add nothing to life. Authentic appreciation for the beautiful sacrifice in service of life and of of others is a blessed thing. Presumably these men were born to women who suffered greatly to bring them into the world–they likely ought not have gone to the trouble. The men who tried to protect their “brothers” acted in the most human and most sane way in horrendous circumstances and they will FOREVER stand as an example of what it means to be a beautiful being and to have a life worth remembering and celebrating.

  3. “No, instead of honoring these men, Bennett continues to measure them according to their utility to women.”

    Could not help but notice you did nothing to refute that.

  4. “In the world of misogynistic Mens Rights advocacy (and no, not all MRAs are misogynists)…”

    I’m proud to have a misandric bigot call me a misogynist. As opposed to you, though, my “hatred” doesn’t involve pushing women to kill themselves for the benefit of men. Yet I’m sure a mind like yours, capable of such sadistic desires, won’t comprehend what you look like. Men are not inferior to women. Your usage of egalitarianism as merely a front to push female supremacy will end up destroying your cause. It’s already starting to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s