Elliot Rodger, Sexual Entitlement, Father Abandonment, And The Anti-Boy Therapy Culture

Elliott Rodger’s father Peter Rodger did not acknowledge Elliott as his son! He would say he has “a son” as in one, but he actually had two sons, but Elliott was the one who “didn’t count.” Horrible! Have a mixed race kid, then don’t acknowledge he exists! I know men who became WN’s later in life, but fathered HAP kids earlier in life, and they still acknowledged and supported their mixed race kid. Even Strom Thurmond took care of his mulatto daughter. But this piece of shit Hollyweird director couldn’t live with his mistake. Quote from Heartiste:
Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.

Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.

Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.

In other words, complete family dysfunction.

Chateau Heartiste

CH continues to explore the Elliot Rodger story because it reveals cracks in our culture that go beyond one man’s murderous rampage. In the days that have followed, the Hivemind has been busy concocting twisted narratives to see which one best tarnishes its free-thinking enemies. I examine their accuracies and fallacies below.

Sexual Entitlement

This theoretical gambit is a favorite of feminist fruitcakes, who blame the killings on Rodger’s thwarted “entitled” belief that he was “owed” sex with hard 10s, a feminist-friendly analysis that provides a handy springboard upon which they can launch into attacks on “pickup artists” who are learning how to become sexier men in order to date higher quality girls.

The fallacy in this feminist hypothesis was astutely noted by Liger (recently upgraded from Lamb) of the Blogosphere, who wrote that sexual and romantic entitlement is a natural condition of humanity, and that without it men…

View original post 1,968 more words

Advertisements

About mindweapon

A mind weapon riding along with Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.https://en.gravatar.com/profiles/edit/#
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Elliot Rodger, Sexual Entitlement, Father Abandonment, And The Anti-Boy Therapy Culture

  1. zhai2nan2 says:

    I don’t condone the young man’s anti-blondist violence, but the available evidence suggests that his father’s insane anti-Christian and anti-blond mentality warped the son with tragic results, and thus the father’s responsibility should be re-examined.

  2. PureEvil cont. says:

    Firstly, d-bags like Elliot’s father would receive an officially sanctioned state beating when the proper order is in place. Secondly, if one is entitled to nothing in life, then what is the point? Food, sex, etc are at the base of Maslow’s hierarchy. That is why traditional societies furnished them. Without basic entitlements you won’t have a society and you’ll deserve to be overrun by invaders. Basic entitlements are just that. People confuse entitlement with welfare or tons of cash etc. No, those are not entitlements. Food, shelter, sex, an identity and a place are. He was a victim of the movies- pass it on gents.

  3. Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.

    Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks.

    1. I have never understood why anyone would submit to having TV cameras invade their personal life during a tragedy or even some positive event. The father humiliated the son horribly here, denying him on camera while talking about his other son. That is brutal and unimaginably hurtful to the other son. Still, I have a hard time feeling any sort of sympathy for this freak.

    2. I scoff at all the “anti-conspiracy theorists” that project a self image of tough minded realism because they *believe what they see on TV and mistake video for evidence.* They are filming a “reality TV show” and what do you know, the TV show then becomes real. In this particular case, I have no reason to believe it’s anything other than what it appears to be. But if some group of Hollywood producers wanted to, they could film some reality TV show and convince 99% of people it was “real” – and we would have the laughable pseudo-skeptics crowing about “conspiracy theories” and swearing up and down it’s totally not fake.

    Gulf of Tonkin Incident, anyone? Remember the Maine? LOL. There’s a sucker born every minute.

    As for feminism in general, it’s just women bitching about shit. Just the female version of MRAs complaining about whatever it is they complain about. No one is entitled to sex, but in our current you-go-girl slut culture, you pretty much have to try to not get laid. Women objectify men and, in fact, feel *entitled to attention and provisioning from men.*

    Listen to a middle age woman complain about *invisibility* and how men *don’t even see them anymore* – that’s entitlement. No one is more entitled than a woman. If I was a whiny little girl, I’d complain about “misandry” – hatred of men, which is endemic among many women. But I’m not a whiny little bitch, so I won’t.

    • PureEvil cont. says:

      Right on Hipster Racist, but I would urge you to maybe reconsider slightly your stance on entitlements to basics. Entitlement to provisioning= entitlement to sex, period. Entitlement leads to community, then society, then nation and even empire. I don’t want to make too much of it, but I hope you see my point.

      • mindweapon says:

        In the Mormon church if a young man has a deformity or is, for example, very short, they will work very hard to find a wife for him anyway, and they are very successful at it. So there is mutual entitlement and responsibility in that church. It’s too bad they destroyed their own strongest trait back in 1979. The prohibition against mixing is why they are so powerful and huge today.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        @MW

        Interesting, I didn’t know that about the Mormons. That is how it should be. We just laugh at the ‘freak’ and then he kills us. Then we cray and disingenuously ask “why” and have candle light vigils and add more street cameras.

  4. Entitlement to provisioning= entitlement to sex, period.

    The men able and prepared to provision – personally – and the women “exchanging” sex for provisioning – personal provisioning, not through social policy – already understand this.

    But really it’s only young men that think the exchange is “sex” for “provisioning.” Sex is what people do for fun, there is no “exchange” other than mutual pleasure.

    It’s *babies* for provisioning. Like fish can’t see water, birth control has become so ubiquitous we can’t even see how the entire sexual morality of western culture has become essentially obsolete. Hence, all the old compromises no longer apply. We’re in the middle of a major transition and new forms of evolutionary selection and it will be interesting to see who winds up the “fittest” in the new era.

    You can’t tip-toe around freaks just because they might go off one day. This dude was a mixed race son of upper class Hollywoodites. He’s not in any way a part of my tribe so I simply see him as a competitor male in our territory.

    • PureEvil cont. says:

      The old rules will have to be imposed. The “fittest” who would evolve otherwise will be vile scum, not the strong, righteous, beautiful, moral, etc. If whites are to have a real civilization again then this will have to be done. Ugly, useless dudes with ‘game’ are not going to produce a great glorious future, that is the type that can do best under the present circumstances. The present circumstances are contrived, as will be the top down patriarchal rule I’ve described.

      We don’t need to tip-toe around freaks, but we must not cry when we are confronted with consequences either.

      • as will be the top down patriarchal rule I’ve described.

        We already have a top down patriarchal rule, the men complaining about the state of things are the men who are not at the top directing the patriarchy. It’s a polygamous system, hence the manosphere complaints that the “top 20%” of men are having sex with the “80% of women.”

        I used to dispute these figures but no longer. I’ve accepted my place in the top 20%.

        I guess I really am an “Alpha Stud.” I’m fine with that.

        As oog has often noted, multi-culturalism is just a particularly cruel for of eugenics.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        That was not what I was referring to, but no matter. Such a system, if it goes no too long, will produce a bunch of garbage. It is temporary now, in order to survive, but it let’s the current contrived system off the hook. I get laid too buddy, but so what? What are our results? Nothing. Restriction of female shenanigans, enforcement of mores and consequences is way better than sneaky half-measures and ruling behind the scenes. The history of whitey is the history of overt rule.

      • mindweapon says:

        Restriction of female shenanigans, enforcement of mores and consequences is way better than sneaky half-measures and ruling behind the scenes. The history of whitey is the history of overt rule.

        I agree, but for now, sneaky half measures and ruling behind the scenes is as good as we’re going to get. Heck, I’d love to get that much!

        I’m going to email the email you put in for your comment. Email correspondence might get you up to speed quicker as to what’s going on with this blog. If you have been lurking for several months and have read at least a few dozen posts, you know what’s going on, but if not, you need to be brought up to speed.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        Check out this:
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2621769/Ireland-Baldwin-passionately-kisses-bisexual-rapper-Macklemore-singer-Angel-Haze.html

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2636345/Student-19-shoots-dead-weeks-dabbling-amateur-porn.html

        Now since you are in the top 20% who are ruling, what are you and your fellow rulers going to do about it? Can you make this not happen? Can you return all these the their people? What are the “patriarchs” going to do to stop this?

        What about inter-racial assaults, what have the “top-down” ruling 20% percent done about that? It’s very simple, we need a top-down patriarchy (a state, not a bunch on Mystery Method look-a-likes) that intervenes legally and with minions, in the physical realm in order to establish what is appropriate. Hedonists will do be enough.

    • Anon says:

      “Like fish can’t see water, birth control has become so ubiquitous we can’t even see how the entire sexual morality of western culture has become essentially obsolete. Hence, all the old compromises no longer apply.” – not as much as you’d think, women still have their healthiest childen in their twenties, so the women that do that will have an advantage over the women that do not. Likewise wrecking your pair bonding mechanism isn’t productive to family formation. Sex isn’t yet totally separated from reproduction, though that day may come.

      I’d bet on the old model to win out over the long term.

  5. thordaddy says:

    The “default elite” desires to keeps its hands as clean as possible which means it “preaches” Liberalism as “freedom” and thus facilitates a mass self-annihilation. So of course, with the homo-sexual being the archetype biological self-annihilator, it “preaches” the “equality” of homo-sexuality. It is now clear that the masses agree to such a diabolical “equality.” But looking deeper, one then realizes it is really young white males who are naturally the greatest stumbling block to overcoming such sexual “bigotry.”

    What we don’t see and what our “default elite” won’t say is that these last few mass murderers were prolific self-sexualizers — true homo-sexuals — destined to a life of deviant self-sexualizing and eventual self-annihilation. Such personal revelation is bound to send one into a homicidal rage as so many of the most prolific mass murderers/serial killers were driven by sexual deviance.

    Whatever internal or external forces exacerbated Elliot’s final murderous rage, such rage was almost certainly rooted in a personally acknowledged and disgustingly rejected sexual deviancy, i.e., his homo-sexuality.

  6. jrackell says:

    not sure if this has been responded to here or if you’ve read all of the comments on that thread, but regarding the father not acknowledging his son, there were some interesting comments that sort of rebut the accusation. I was pretty shocked when I heard about it and glad that apparently it didn’t occur.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/elliot-rodger-sexual-entitlement-father-abandonment-and-the-anti-boy-therapy-culture/#comment-569649

    “Torn and Frayed

    Sorry but I speak French and have watched this clip and it is not as you say. First it is a show about the stepmother (the one with the nice ass) and not about the father. They show a scene with her son and the father at the dinner table because that is normal and that was their family at the time. The father never says he has “one” son and if he did this would be immediately contradicted by the fact that in each show he is shown with Elliot at the opening for Hunger Games. in fact what is weird is his daughter never appears on the show. I’m not saying he was a great father by any means just that your “source” is full of shit.”

    “Torn and Frayed

    There was no option for Elliot to be part of the show. It was a show about Soumaya and she has no relation to him. He only appeared in the opening scene because they were building up his father’s Hollywood cred and it just so happened that in such an important moment of his life, Peter included his son Elliot. That scene was not filmed for the show but was just footage of the event.”

    “Exurban

    I speak French also. I listened closely to the clip and I agree with Torn and Frayed. Soumaya, the Moroccan second wife, is the subject of the clip (hey, it’s Real Housewives, not Real Husbands) and she’s just as shallow and narcissistic as you would expect. Peter Rodger never actually specifies that he has only one son. Soumaya refers to “nous trois” (the three of us) but that appears to be because Peter, Soumaya, and Jazz (a ridiculous name, but also about what you’d expect) are living in the house being filmed, while Elliott is likely living with his sister and their Chinese birth mother at their house in Woodland Hills.

    Yes, fairy tales abound with wicked step-parents. They didn’t pull that out of thin air. Today’s “blended families” blend some kids right out of the picture.”

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