“It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles, and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. . . . I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. . . .

“The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone!”

— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

The Apostles of Equality and Progress, who have done everything in their power to destroy whatever vestiges of courtesy, decency, loyalty and honor remained in American society, now presume to disavow the Age of Hatred and Violence they have unleashed upon us. What Burke called the “barbarous philosophy” of the French Revolution — whereby “a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order” — has prevailed as he foretold, and the horrifying consequences are everywhere.

Lesbian feminist Lisa Needham believes all men are Elliot Rodger:

[T]his might be mental illness, but it is an illness that is not unfamiliar to women who routinely and disproportionately are the victims of harassment, neglect, violence, and death at the hands of men. Rodger’s actions were an extreme manifestation of a cultural view that is not actually uncommon: that women “owe” men attention, that women who don’t put out are bitches, that women who do put out — for other guys, of course — are sluts, and all these women get what they “deserve” — violence from men.

Right. Women are victims “routinely” of “a cultural view that is not actually uncommon,” and a psycho creep who kills six people is just an “extreme manifestation” of this “not unfamiliar” illness.

Marie Antoinette could not be reached for comment.

The chivalry that once inspired “manly sentiment” died long ago, and customary deference has been replaced by raw Power, the only currency recognized in the Age of Hatred and Violence.

Yet the hashtag #YesAllWomen is trending, one liberal describing it as “meant to open eyes to the real problems with the injustice in society . . . instigate change, and open up the eyes of both women and men; women in a show of solidarity . . . men to make a strong statement that these are not isolated incidents we see on the news, but rather, ongoing problems that, if left unchecked, will ultimately lead to a much bleaker future.” Not a word (and probably not a thought) from liberals that maybe how we got into this godawful bloody mess is because fools trying to “instigate change” didn’t bother to think through their radical syllogism to its deadly conclusion.

Los Angeles Times headline: #YesAllWomen: Isla Vista attack puts a spotlight on gender violence — and never mind the fact that four of the six people Elliot Rodger killed in his murder rampage were men: Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20, Cheng Yuan Hong, 20, George Chen, 19, and Weihan Wang, 20. If the facts don’t fit the liberal narrative, liberals will just ignore the facts, and will bristle with indignation if you dare to point out the cognitive dissonance.

“You have to hand it to the liberals: they never miss an opportunity to convert tragedy into political gain,” and who can disagree?

Ginning up hatred is always “political gain” for liberals, and this is what the hashtag #YesAllWomen is about: Convincing women that men are their enemy. The standard Tweet format is for a woman to say that A Terrrible Thing happened to her because of a man (or men in general) and #YesAllWomen — a slogan framed as a reply to “Not All Men,” which is a feminist pet peeve: Whenever they complain about men in general, someone is always certain to point out that the generalization is unfair:

NAMALT – internet (feminist) shorthand for ‘Not All Men Are Like That’. . . .

NAMALTs usually happen within the context of explaining how widespread a problem is with males; male supremacy; or male violence. If too many women are agreeing that this is indeed a widespread problem with males in general, then one or more NAMALTers rush in, and, well, just NAMALT.

Once the NAMALTing starts, it becomes a tsunami of NALMATing, NIGELs and UNICORNs.

NIGEL is feminist internet shorthand for NIcest Guy who Ever Lived. And Unicorns . . . are apparently these very special pro-feminist men that are shoved at radfems, who are understandably skeptical that such pure creatures exist.

Radical feminists do not hesitate to include all men in their condemnations of the “patriarchy,” and NAMALTing is not allowed:

The phenomenon of NAMALTing is also the phenomenon of stating NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That), ie, not being one of those nasty manhater types of feminists. Yeah sure, we get it. Your ‘feminist’ politics are ‘man friendly’. They are also bullshit. Feminism is the only political movement that prioritises women’s rights and needs above the mainstream (ie male domination). If you cannot do that, then don’t call yourself a feminist.

In other words: No Feminist Can Ever Say Anything Nice About Men.

Understood in this context, #YesAllWomen is a chip on the shoulder, daring anyone to claim not all men are responsible for violence against women — to frame rape and abuse as a collective victimization of women for which men are collectively to blame.

The Apostles of Equality and Progress have brought us here, and the logic of their “barbarous philosophy” leads in exactly one direction — toward anarchy and oblivion. The Age of Hatred and Violence has merely begun, and it ill behooves those who have delivered us into utmost savagery to disavow the handiwork of their labors.

Marie Antoinette could not be reached for comment.





Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments