Murder cheer-leaders polish their image

It appears that the professional victims at radical hub don’t yet grasp that Pam Oshaughnessy’s call for mass murder, eugenics, and child abuse makes them, and radical feminism in general look like a violent hate organization. Of course, the endorsement by an apparent human rights organization like the SPLC probably emboldens great minds behind a public manifesto for male-exterminating eugenics, along with a lack of legal fallout for the same.


  • Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression
  • We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment
  • I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy


In October of 2011, a group of radical feminists published an article written by the former lawyer and novelist Pam Oshaughnessy, in which the ex lawyer used carefully circumspect language to argue for eugenics and mass murder against men.

Male human rights advocates took exception to the public call for human subjugation and murder. In addition to criticizing the amorality and violence which received support from within the radical feminist community of radical hub, the names of the advocates for murder, child abuse, sex selective abortion, and eugenics were identified publicly in the article titled Underbelly of a hate movement out of concern that such overt and murderous intent presents a threat of real violence if it was not identified.

It is the shared opinion of this site’s editorial board that individuals advocating violence or murder should be publicly identified and their names published. To remain knowingly inactive and silent in the face of public calls for violence and murder would be both irresponsible and complicit.

In March of 2012, when the radio comedian Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a prostitute in commentary of her public claim that the state should pay for her birth control, the mainstream media collectively threw Limbaugh under the bus, focusing on his inflammatory language, rather than the issue of public payment or sexual choices by Fluke.

In an attempt to capitalize on anti-conservative backlash against Limbaugh, the Southern Poverty Law Center drafted a hasty and poorly researched list of new enemies, attempting to justify the SPLC’s continued federal subsidy and ongoing solicitation of donations.

However, because of the political leanings of the SPLC and lack of planning or research, the list of potential hate organizations in their “intelligence report” was little more than a catalog of politically right leaning organizations, such as the socially conservative Concerned Women of America, the conservative libertarian John Birch Society, and Glen Beck as well as second amendment activists. However, in the clear view of hindsight, the SPLC’s list of baddies was a construct assembled in haste and desperation with the intent to fund-raise through fear mongering and included a pick-up artist calling himself Roosh, a victims advocacy organization, as well as some elements of the men’s rights movement, including this site. Interestingly, Charles Cooke, in a telephone interview with the SPLC managed to secure an admission that the apparent human-rights advocates at the SPLC only address right-wing hate groups[1], which is logical enough, considering that their principal activity is fund-seeking.

However, after Reason Magazine[1][2], the American Spectator[3], Business Insider [4], the Ms-magazine-funded Good Men Project[5] and others called baloney on the SPLC’s flabby fear mongering and fund seeking – Mark Potok indulged in some pretty impressive back-pedaling, particularly on the men’s rights section of the content aggregator site reddit.

According to Potok:

“It’s false. We wrote about the subreddit Men’s Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group”

Of course you didn’t, Mark.

Interestingly, the SPLC’s use of the term “hate group” has no legal meaning, as was correctly pointed out by word-press blogger Rkeefe57[7]. It was this same blogger who also noticed that the SPLC’s hate map[8] defines “hate group activities” as “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing”. There are seven activities in this list, and all but one are constitutionally protected expression of freedom of speech and political expression in American constitutional law.

Advocation of murder, child abuse and eugenics are obviously not listed in the SPLC’s definition of hate group activities, which is why a growing relationship between the eugenics-enthusiasts at the blog radical-hub and the Southern Poverty Law Center should raise no eyebrows. After all, it’s not like the SPLC would leave an identified hate organization off their list in exchange for political favors or payment. Except when the organization engages in fund-raising on behalf of the SPLC – as the fine feminists at Radical Hub have done.

SPCL gives shout-out to eugneics enthusiasts (for a few dollars)

Arthur Goldwag of the SPLC swept aside any possibility that this was one-sided non-reciprocal support by tweeting a link to the Radical hub blog, directly to the page on which SPLC fund-raising was promoted by the radical hub bloggers.

Rad-hub fund-raising for the SPLC (you scratch my back, ill scratch yours)

However, as the financial relationship between radical feminist eugenics enthusiasts and apparent human rights attorneys at the SPLC is repeatedly pointed out, it might seem that the blatant hatred, the calls for murder, eugenics, child abuse, and sex selective abortion by those radical fems would be a bit embarrassing to the fund seeking lawyers.

When originally criticized by independent human rights activists, including AVfM, on this murder and eugenics enthusiasm, the admins at rad fem hub responded by establishing a blog on a subdomain of the radical hub site called “a voice for CREEPY men”. [emphasis mine]

Apparently, being publicly identified as advocates of eugenics and a searing hatred built on sexual identity caused no embarrassment at all. When you know beyond any evidence or outmoded, obsolete sense of human ethics that you’re right, trifles such as the planned elimination of major fractions of the human race must seem like minor concerns.

In addition, rather than distancing themselves from the advocates of murder, eugenics, hatred based on sexual identity, and sex-selective child abuse, the SPLC appears to be taking the course of maintaining and strengthening their relationship with radical hub. When everybody knows you stand for human rights and against hatred and violence, actually standing against hatred and in favor of human rights takes a back seat to securing income from donations, no matter the source.


Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: