"I've got this killer up inside of me... I can't talk to my mother, (friends, women, coworkers, associates, affiliates, city council, the internets, the homeless or even your mother) so I talk to my diary."

-that Scarface song from Office Space

The Fourth Ripened Durian Award:

“‘Ego,’ as we understand and use it here, cannot be even vaguely confused with, nor is it remotely related to, egotism.
No would-be organizer afflicted with egotism can avoid hiding this from the people with whom he is working, no contrived humility can conceal it. Nothing antagonizes people and alienates them from a would-be-organizer more than the revealing flashes of arrogance, vanity, impatience and contempt of a personal egotism.”

-Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Random House, Vintage Books, New York. 1971, pp. 60-61.

I: Preface

The Fourth Ripened Durian Award goes to Melissa A. Fabello for her resounding achievements in “media literacy.”

As easy it is for one to create and distribute ubiquitous propaganda in this age of information technology, Melissa “Kali Yuga” Fabello goes above and beyond the less strident adherents of similar perspectives to ultimately secure her skewed, “professional” flotsam as reticently ugly and ultimately offensive enough to just barely stay afloat a catastrophically oil-wrecked sea of inflammatory misinformation about the state of the First World.

If only she had Ray William Johnson numbers, Melissa “team player” Fabello might have been in the social and financial position to not see Anita “Sarkee” Sarkeesian as a professional threat, perhaps, and thus would have supported her through the rough road ahead; by proxy of her comparatively dismal, yet independently substantial audience, she could have maybe turned her personal limelight in solidarity towards Sarkee, whose amassed pathos and grandeur, after the release of her latest video (gloriously ahead of schedule), culminated in that crested end of August 2014, with dour and dire digital-death-threats of a home-evacuating magnitude.

She did not do so. Nor did Laci Green or Jessica Valenti; both virulent “career feminists,” in the same ballpark of popularity as Anita Sarkeesian (Laci Green’s youtube (~6:1) and twitter base actually do outnumber Sarkee’s). Don’t simply trust me on this. Check all of their twitter accounts yourself around and post August 25th: “Hurrah!” for personal politics; to hell with female solidarity.

…or whatever feminism was supposed to stand for a hundred years ago.

(I did find that Sarkee recently tweeted about Laci Green’s “Victim Blaming” video on September 7th (also another weeks later), and Laci directly retweeted this nod in what appears to me as a fading glimmer of politically ethical camaraderie.)

(Valenti has even more recently, all two months later and possibly due to the unexpected sustainability of GamerGate, weighed in on the side of Sarkeesian, and tweeted about Sarkee’s Utah State cancellation, at least after theverge.com and others reported on it. My idea is that her egotism imploded when she realized that someone like Sarkee, with far less journalistic clout than herself, could gain absolutely far more notoriety by simply cancelling a talk rather than saying what she had planned to go there and say to begin with; so she is now hitching her own wagon to this epitome of success. Her article comes unfashionably late to the scene, betraying a blatantly opportunistic air in reiterating a fear mongering, poorly researched schematic that is beyond played; notice that Valenti’s first three citations lead to Gawker media websites, which are, by nature, less than impartial seeing as kotaku.com’s integrity stands as one of the ongoing punchlines of GamerGate.)

I have confirmed, however, Melody Hensley (google “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder” + “twitter” for more relevant info), as having twitter-supported Sarkee before and after this incident; my cynicism kicks back out of neutral and into first gear though, when also seeing her support for the burgeoning Thought Police Force at freethoughtblogs.com, which I know well for consistently patrolling the public discourse of more popular entities like vigilant blood hounds, especially of those they purport to revile, snuffling for a “scoop” to ignite it’s rank and file’s own moral indignation, all with the ethics and aplomb akin to The National Enquirer. (Read this and a bit of it’s comments section, then watch this and draw your own conclusions about FTB.)

This video is highly recommend viewing for anyone who wishes to get an immediate grasp on Princess Fabello’s character in the shortest amount of time (in very inverse proportion to the number of aneurysms it may cause if you have a shred of self esteem). Attempt to stomach as much of it as you can; if you are a person who finds themselves swayed by or even actually attracted to this congealed cesspool of two prominently displayed yet highly irradiated X chromosomes, you should immediately seek professional therapy in order to determine why it is you are intellectually or sexually drawn to condescending guilt-mongers that do, in no way, attempt to respect you as an individual. This possible clue to a BDSM “fetish” may instead be an unhealthily severe character flaw.

(Warning: avoiding the previous advice may lead to a soul crushing marriage from which there is no return; an utterly aimless and unsolvable midlife crisis only present after a decade or two of normalized domestic violence and endless bickering; or bouts of incurable depression subconsciously reinforced by years of feeling unheeded and thus, innocuous: all regardless of gender. This is only a speculation, I admit, as I can not imagine emotionally attaching myself to a person with a cataract-afflicted scope of reality and it’s in-due-course malignancy.)

What I am in no way saying is that one should be unable to agree with her perspective; I am saying that to willingly endure criticism and then consequently accept guidance from someone who talks so derisively towards you, all while being flippantly narcissistic, is a significantly self deprecating concept, even in our “modernized,” politically correct world. I have absolutely no problem with BDSM: as long as it’s completely sexual, as opposed to intellectual.

Hey Now! Let’s not draw metaphorical conclusions from a single video. Though, if you do need to decompress from having watched the former, this may help.

What I have so far discovered with people who might be identified as E-profiteering from the mystical concept of “social justice” is, not so much a real variation in the rhetoric used but rather, more interestingly, the placement and combinations of the four-letter-words given in response when one’s questions happen to strike an already heavily tapped vein. As a result, one may, in turn, receive said invectives over a skeleton of the insultingly concise, but tepid species, “you’re part of the problem,” as an early warning shot; a strange response, especially if one is questioning specifically to gain better insight into what the problem even is. In other, more transparent cases, it’s the off-the-cuff, irritated snap of something like: “I’m not here to fucking educate you,” that attempts to resolve any a sensitive query. Sandra, our protagonist, got an interesting taste of both, which is far more rich and smooth having come from a self-proposed “educator” with a “Masters in Ed.”

I would have enjoyed quoting Muldoon in Jurassic Park aloud while writing this to call Mel Fabel a “cleveh gahl,” but I can not. If she were as intelligent a manipulator as the brilliant Sarkee who’s @FemFeq account, rather wisely responds to no one, she would also have her own fully private twitter apart from it; instead of planting a minefield of redundantly mean tweets and muckraking nonsense on her professional “M.Ed.” account, she would have a public consciousness that only sends it’s momentum upwards by signal-boosting the very momentum of less popular feeds in attempt to imbibe their social media base, rather than griping downwards to her own underlings and supposedly irrelevant critics, doing the former when applicable to “the cause.” Gripes go up the chain of command; shutouts go down. (An example is Sarkee using Zoe Quinn’s pre-GamerGate attention to give her own relevance an adrenaline shot; thus, she usurped the spotlight. Check the chronology of articles written about her from August 2014 until and perhaps beyond this publication date for evidence of the upswing.)

In contrast, Mel-Dibson answered to Sandra’s questions instantly and with fervor… so Fib-ello clearly does not yet have what it takes to be the champion of capitalizing on human fear and guilt (my personal description of her “qualifications”). But… this does make her a ripened, plopped-from-the-tree-and-left-in-the-hot-sun, stink effusing and rather huge Durian. Hopefully she might read this and then, can understand how to better utilize “social justice” guilt tactics as a recourse toward personal prosperity: Sarkeesian is kicking your histrionic ass at being untouchable, not to mention highly prolific (in terms of garnering traffic, not producing content). She is the “Unkickable Durian”; you fell out of the tree in a stiff breeze. But that could be you one day, so instead of feeling overwhelmed by Sarkee’s business savvy, dream about the potential glory and get excited; a large contingent of popular culture, could perhaps be, à la Fabello one day. J.U.I.C.E. by Mel-Fab! J.U.I.C.E. by Mel-Fab!

For now, Melli M.Ed. is getting kicked for being the Durian she is, not the Durian we deserve. And by “we” I mean whoever eats that stuff… anyone who does, I think, definitely prefers it to be stinkin’ hard.

II: Flesh of Durian

“Communication on a general basis without being fractured into the specifics of experience becomes rhetoric and it carries a very limited meaning.”

-Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Random House, Vintage Books, New York. 1971, p. 95.

Being an apogee of communication, Axl-Rose Fabello did happen to win the first round. She was not yet a Durian candidate until proving that her ideology had some unintentional Tony Robbins/T.J. Mackey capitalism to it; the preying on weaker individuals by presenting themselves as some lucidly unassailable savior.

My first attempt to get some “education” from her was a few months ago, in which I did not hide the fact of my near irredeemable manhood, but did add some honest caveats which may serve to make my supposedly stark “privilege” questionable, at least. Over the next month the great “educator” graced me with… no answers. So yes, her victory was ensured, ironically, by not communicating. The only responses I did receive were from other dissenters of her impossibly self-interested and flawed philosophy, which is seemingly derived solely from an overstretched, blanketing use of the word “privilege.”

I attempted to sound as honest as possible because I wanted honest advice, as a thought experiment, about how a person in my particular position would be able to practically utilize this view of life; understand that sounding genuine is rather difficult when one is asking such an unanswerable and illegitimate question of an intentionally impracticable, obfuscated ideology.

I include the responses and my replies to them from her youtube “discussion” page, as I think we three summed up her attitude and motives succinctly at the time, which can, to date be found here.

Of course my initial query sounds absurd; but it should become a legitimate question to one who throws the word “privilege” around at everything (thin privilege, white privilege, house-trained privilege, alpaca privilege, ad infinitum). This was posted prior to my “in depth” use of twitter; so if I had simply abused myself with exposure to her twitter feed instead, I would have saved myself exactly one fools-quest for evidence of philosophical consistency.

The responses are circle-jerk at best and one of them seems to not know English well enough to properly deal with this mendicancy (although I think I understand what @dexterousmanus meant and do agree). However, it appears that her philosophy does espouse that only white men are graced by this rather lucidly defined “privilege” and after this Durian is composed I will continue to provide evidence that this is her perspective. White man, she says… well, that’s an obvious choice, really. It can’t be simply “white privilege” that she harps on, as she does seem to be pretty… pretty… pretty white. There will be more on that lovely and convenient avoidance of self indictment in the future, I assure you.

“Sandra VanGarten” here seems to have taken offense at this statement; let us wonder the “why” of it. Perhaps some far gone male lover was, or a good friend of her’s is bearing the 21st Century, tumblr edition of “The White Man’s Burden,” and she still manages to retain his “point-of-view” as important to her own perspective. Maybe she is currently in love with someone who is only “part white,” or whatever the hell old folks who still point out this nonsense call it (“person-of-half-color”, maybe?) and feels Supreme Leader Fabello’s treating of his “white part,” as something to be reviled, is fundamentally flawed and perhaps also, at it’s core… evil. I do not doubt at all that you, Herr Fabello,  care not about the implications of your ideology to these distinct and realistically diverse situations.

It does sound like Fabello-be-Thy-Name was essentially saying that no one of gender entry –male– who happens to also be of complexion entry –subjectively un-dark- has anything of worth to offer to her intellectually, in any manner, ever. Also here, is a subtle hint that these abhorrent, swinging-dick non-darkies are beating down the foyer door of her ivory tower, like discontent Martin Luthers, to offer M’lady their orders of reform: in droves, no less.

Where is that happening, exactly? If she is hanging out at moron bars around morons, a guy (that she doesn’t happen to find immediately physically attractive) coming up to her, trying to take her home with a moronic pickup tactic is not indicative of an intellectual crusade against her identity (so I’m going to need a real example of a “white male” point of view that actually oppresses her own). She should know by now, as a secure defensive mechanism against this, or any social interaction in her life outside of the internet, that she can simply say any of the things she types onto twitter or preaches in her videos, to anyone, in person, and they will most definitely begin to avoid her. Privileged POV “problem” solved.

However, on September sixth, the-year-of-our-Fabello 2014, the savior herself deigned to respond to Sandra, noticeably a blessed by design “white woman,” who happened to believe that a tweet by this Aphrodite reborn was… overstated and rude. Oh Sandy, don’t disgrace yourself by playing the gender card just to get an audience with The Great Old One!

Here’s a “Pro tip” for Blood-of-the-Lamb Fabello: don’t request that someone be more polite when inquiring about a statement you’ve made that, to a person who isn’t indoctrinated into white/middle class self-loathing, may appear as virulently insulting to a collective gender cursed with the politically incorrect amount of melanin in their skin (“race” is a human construct and a tyranny of the discontinuous mind), regardless of your befuddling future attempts to mask it as virtuous. I think Sandra did you quite a favor by soft-balling it: asking a comparatively civilized question rather than tracking you down and pissing on your arrogant face.

“Blackness is not a true genetic dominant like smoothness in peas. But social perception of blackness behaves like a dominant. It is a cultural or memetic dominant. That insightful anthropologist Lionel Tiger has attributed this to a racist ‘contamination metaphor’ within white culture.”

-Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale: a Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Houton Mifflin Company, New York, 2004, p. 402

If you want to deal with racism by being a “reverse racist” against whites, as I’ve heard it called (as well as being told it doesn’t exist), on the vanguard in defense of some ironically aggregated “People of Color,” simply understand that you are actually just being a racist. When you see and define a person or group of persons based on their skin color to then be either castigated (non-“coloreds,” in this case) or used to vindicate your political agenda (“WOC” and “biracial” people whose “oppression” is later stated as being “obvious”), that is racism, and clearly indicative of the polluted, white-guilt binary: whites vs. non-whites. You’re no better, no more “progressive” than your ancestors, regardless of whose side you wave the flag for: this progressiveness is akin to revving a muscle car in a closed garage, churning your pistons but going nowhere, absent minded of the CO displacing the breathable air behind your solipsistic defilade.

If, instead, you simply are a self-loather on the principal that you wish that you had the leave to claim your own ancestors as oppressed, study your family tree and get back to me on how this is a racial (“coloreds versus whites”) issue and not a cultural one (that you and the inheritors of impotent, first-world boredom are winning). If you are Italian (taken from the tweets I’ve seen where she flippantly calls herself a “guid”), then you can surely find enough white oppression, caused and afflicted upon the immigrants heralding your own ungrateful heritage by other “whites” to carry you through the next year of social media interaction (if only it were a popular intimation to express). I don’t believe that America has as much of a history of white solidarity as you think it does, nor Europe on the whole.

There’s no need to be so disingenuous and claim that “white men” have absolutely no “point-of-view.” That’s overdoing it. I would argue that Elie Wiesel has a scope of existence you will always be too privileged to be humbled by, as just a far beyond obvious example.

Unless, of course, your endgame is simply to take the stage as a righteous, long overdue “Reparations Hero”; paying yourself off in emotional derision, vicariously accepted on behalf of “People of Color” that you’ve never offended and who never asked you for such condescension. The only people that will buy into this just want to take that same stage before you do… or at least be the first one to deliver you a bouquet after curtain call: and there is no drought in either category.

Fab Fabello’s hefty response continues hence:

In this first run of answers, what I first notice is Fast-talk Fabello implying that she has the “ability to think critically for” herself, after having stated that there is a “power structure” that “white men” use to talk down to especially “Women Of Color,” a backhandedly-bigoted (thanks to 4ButtonSoul for that term) way to address one’s own white-guilt, who then abuse the power of their white-male “points-of-view” to “reinforce the status quo.”

Again, where is this happening? Where is any of this happening on a massive scale in you, the reader’s life? It certainly is not happening to Almighty Fabello on a mass scale: her twitter is entwined with back-patting from plebeians who want her attention, directly opposed to this assertion of receiving purely incisive dissent. Men are not an organized group who’s political platform is to deride or even pay attention to her and her socially harrowing, yet “important” opinions (this made especially clear by her less than ubiquitous subscriber base), regardless of whatever binary skin-complexion template she attempts to lump them into.

Her own point of view regards “actively fighting against” the consequent reinforcement of the “status quo.” What is this “status quo?” Doesn’t every individual culture which is even moderately different from another have it’s own “status quo”? Doesn’t a movement or revolution in it’s own right define “status quo” based on what it’s attempting to revolutionize? What exactly do you mean by “status quo,” Kim Jong Fabello? Watch a few episodes of Bizarre Foods for yourself and realize how “status quo” is resoundingly subjective, even in the cultural arena of regional cuisine. Telling another person that their perspective is nullified and voided because it is representative of what you consider to be “the oppressive norm” is a solipsistic and amazingly childish method of writing-off those who disagree, shrugging their criticism. Or, perhaps, it is a political tactic for gaining power in some prospective venue.

In using one’s own “point of view” as an argument for raising supposedly objective social issues I think, near immediately, that whatever is being said should be taken in a politically rhetorical sense, ie: “There are things I don’t like that I want to be changed by arbitrary power (which I currently have none of) into things that suit my immediate wants.” Or, the more simple, “I want people to trust in me so I can procure the reigns of that arbitrary power.” She, Hallowed Be Her Fabello, doesn’t care about “the status quo” or what a status quo even is, she merely wants that massive, societal meme to represent her own fringe views of reality; this is how I read her response, as a smoke screen, emotionally goading anyone with the undigested stone of discontent sluggishly resting in their stomach, towards some tiresome admission of victim-hood.

It seems that her “critical thinking” stops when someone she has marginalized as “too privileged to be accounted for” starts asking questions; or it just kicks itself right off when looking at all sides of an issue happens to distort or even expose her agenda.

Sandy’s response:

“…mouthpiece for your version of the status quo…” Correct, that’s about what I was thinking. Goddess-Walking-Earth Fabello is attributing “status quo” to white men, so of course their opinions (all of them, it seems) are going to end up representing her sublimely accurate version of what the status quo is, in any attempt to portray it’s perspective as potentially less “privileged” than her own. This, as data, is completely useless in terms of understanding and dealing with social issues. There are tons (an exact figure) of “white” men who are gay. Are their individual “points-of-view” status quo? What about the poor “white” men that overwork themselves into mental oblivion at humorless places of business in bottom-rung positions out of an obligation to financially support their children and wives? Are they included in this white-male “status quo” metric that Crown-of-Thorns Fabello and her Disciples perceive as indicative of privilege? If they are, is it correct that she “fights” against them by denying their point of view? (This is proxy hyperbole, using her own speech; I don’t think she successfully fights a damned thing; activism really seems to be a dying art, so to speak.)

If  she had said “I accept the point of view of gay, white males as more important than that of heterosexual, white males,” would that not come off as crass political generalizing? I’ve never myself attended a course in concerted bigotry, so we may have a different response to the coming attempt at discourse.

There are too many questions, so little time and this masturbatory philosophy has the creaky support of rotted beams; well, this answer to Sandra’s inquiry at least sums it up:

…and Sandra gets stonewalled right after mentioning how people with agendas, armed only with rhetoric… tend to stonewall. So here, Sandra gets some arrogant preliminary to the “I’m not here to educate you, you need to do your homework on my personal ideology.”

That would be correct, if her youtube page did not state that she has a Masters in education. That’s exactly why she is asking you. If she already knew that you would resort so quickly to impractical academic axioms like “Power vs. oppression,” she wouldn’t have to ask you questions at all. She’s since researched the 101 entry course syllabus and learned it teaches a person that, as long as you can guilt another person into believing you’re oppressed, you’ve won an ethical victory over them. Rather germane it is to this philosophy, I agree.

It rolls on:

This happened before Sandra was, via concussion, at the receiving end of the blunt-force ideal purported here that only white men are to blame for all things criminal, but her point is valid: if this philosophy is based on “power vs oppression,” then aren’t people with less power more oppressed? And Fastidious Fabello only made this statement of dogma (but partly to “cock block” the point) in regards to the defense of white men. So if a person is “half white,” as elderly, World War II veteran aged individuals who might still use the phrase “people of color,” would say, does that mean that Il Duce Fabello will simply listen to half of what they have to say before telling them their “point of view” is irrelevant and horridly reinforces the “status quo”? I sincerely want to know how this fanatical system works in reality, with actual social consequences. Are white men who identify as women in a transgender sense no longer treated as white men by the callous, overstated and frankly embarrassing statement: “If I never have a white man try to explain his “point-of-view” to me again, I’ll die happy”?

It boils down to my real question, which is: how in the individual fuck does a person live like this, stating and defending these kinds of ludicrous remarks? If done so for academic appreciation and a fertilization of career opportunities, I understand; but what my follow up question would be is: how, while spreading this much inherent malignancy, would one ever sleep bereft of nightmares, if even at all?

I think there has to be a pillow and mattress set available to the most exclusive Sharper Image members (discounts given to the alumni of west coast academia) which drains and evacuates most to all moral guilt from it’s depositors nightly, in effort towards soundly elegant dreaming. That is literally my only guess.

Before I continue, I will say that during the ensuing section of this conversation, Sandra was missing some of Fabby’s text blocks because of twitter’s obfuscated conversation system. So the points that were ignored by Facepalm-Fabello herself and those not addressed by Sandy, I will do so here, in phase. This is her finale, in one big money shot:

Comically speaking, one of my favorite parts of this ending section is that, someone who is antagonistically anti-male enough to claim all white male perspectives are invalid, colloquially called Sandra “Dude.” The other is, knowing that I am “multi-racial” (again, people who grew up during the 1950’s pay more attention to this aspect than even I do) and using her own logic, I could say that she was oppressing and marginalizing me by refusing to answer my initial youtube query with white, female-privileged, diploma-touting disdain… but that would necessarily make me a racist, reparations seeking, backhandedly entitled coward who’s only virtue is in attempting to hold someone else’s ancestry against them. This is all a schoolyard philosophy, at best.

Apparently so vapid to think that people who fall on her side of the “overdoing it with the blatant gender bigotry” fence are okay with being called “dude,” she continues with: “obviously, those people are oppressed?? So…. ? What?”

“Dude.” You are the one who stated “power vs oppression” as a dichotomy, with, by your own language, race and gender as a heavily consequential factor if not the only factor. This would have to mean that as one gets power, that person becomes less oppressed; however, I only choose to apply this to white men. Unless she means this ironically as “power and oppression 101,” whereas one (such as herself or her cohorts) gains power the more one becomes (or claims to be) oppressed, I disagree with the whole aborted axiom. Then again, this is all a hypothetical where anyone outside of being a Gender Studies graduate actually talks like this to other non-Gender Studies graduates. Sandra brought up African and Middle Eastern women because, in this dichotomy, due simply to their comparative Royal Flush of “racial oppression,” Fabello the Great’s “point of view” would be one of the many that should never be explained to them, lest they not die happy. Does she not understand this? Well, perhaps she did and her college degree rhetoric went fairly close to Defcon 2.

Right below, as a response to this is: “Are you asking whether or not the POV of WOC are more valid than that of WW?” And of course, she “doesn’t” (but clearly does) have time for this. Yes, that is what Sandra was asking. Why is it not more valid? If Fabby says, “When a person of power reasserts the status quo  and calls it their ‘point of view,’ they’re being oppressive,” does that not mean every time Fabby buys makeup and electronics imported from China, Taiwan or manufactured in any other a country with a lackadaisical appreciation for human rights, that she is being oppressive by reasserting the “status quo” of American companies utilizing these governments’ disdain of their own citizens’ personal liberty, a value she takes absolutely for granted? If Factual Fabello says, “so what if some of my makeup and clothing is manufactured in China?” isn’t that her oppressive “point of view”? Or is it only the “status quo” of, “I was taught in college to not like men“?

“I honestly think you missed the entire point of the original tweet.” No kidding. Yes, Sandra might have “missed the point.” How could you tell? Since she hasn’t been indoctrinated into creating an umbrella of her own self-denial and hatred to place over a largely encompassing group of human beings which she’s never met is why she might have asked, in the most polite manner as possible, considering: “what the fuck did you mean by that ignorantly regressive statement?”

“I would quite like it if white men would stop thinking that they need to explain their “point-of-view” to me.” …where? Again, who are these “white men,” what is their “point of view” and where is this forum where they are fully indulged in trying to make you privy to it? The comments for your videos are turned off, and Sandra is the only person in the last week or so of tweets by you that I’ve seen to be wholeheartedly disagreeing with you. I call bullshit on this, especially because it implies that you are saying, Fabello, that every non-white/non-male’s perspective is worth hearing, even if they disagree with you. You proved that to be wrong in two dialogues with Sandra. She was shown to be irrelevant only by fiat of your own modern fascist theorems, despite being female.

Not to mention that “white men” is plural, therefore they have points of view, not a point of view (to be fair, she did pluralize “point” in the beginning, which only helps to obfuscate where the rhetoric begins and ends). Any dogmatic rigmarole to the tune of “all white men are cultural drones that uphold the status quo” to the counter is objectively bullocks, especially coming from a middle class (lower middle at lowest), American, college graduate and “white” woman, which is a runner-up in this Oppression Olympics hierarchy of “most able to morally and legally get away with saying and doing horrible things to others under the banner of ‘justice.'” I call status quo on you, Melissa “Abstract Thinking Disabled” Fabello.

I think living in and being educated by a first-world country with near uninterrupted access to eons worth of compiled information via technology you choose to not understand (nor need to in order to utilize it) and what is necessary to build it, but are thus “bored” enough to use the extended lifespan it also awards you to lament it’s creators over social media in the name of “minorities” who never asked for your pity, is a “privilege” not so easily remunerated by keyboard activism. Whatever particular strand of guilt that leads a person down this philosophical road is such that it cannot be afforded by anyone who never learned to so malevolently harness the term “status quo,” even in defense of their own existence; academic rationalization is expensive and few have access to it.

“I don’t WANT to have an intellectual debate. THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT.” I know you don’t. Your worldly education and “lust for knowledge” abruptly halted as soon as your University of Phoenix Masters in Education Diploma was emailed to you and was done printing out. Sandy should probably have said “intellectual discourse,” but seeing as Queen Fabello was firing off so quickly, Sandy could barely keep up while even being this choosy. Bello Faccia doesn’t need to “debate” with white men “reinforcing the status quo,” and she can’t “debate” with a woman who disagrees with her without resorting to rhetoric or flying off the handle; literally ringing off the hook like a cartoon rotary phone, using capital letters to overtly stress a clearly non-existent idea.

Yes, that is the “fucking point.” As an “educator” you don’t want to have intellectual discourse with anyone; which actually means that you aren’t an educator at all: you’re a propagandist. A teacher of arithmetic that teaches children times tables but silences and repudiates any student that asks “why” one number multiplied by another number makes another specific number, is also a propagandist, a destroyer of minds: teaching a fertile intellect simply what to think instead of inspiring it in terms of how to think and how to understand.

Countess Fabello is yet another, I say, playing as The Pied Piper, strictly to a gallery of the ignorant and those disenfranchised by the first-world and it’s overabundance of amenities.

Here we have it then, the statement of statements, the one that rounds it all off: “I was not put on this earth to make white men feel valued.”

Firstly. If she doesn’t “give a fuck if it’s ‘mean-spirited,” in context of the original statement, she should not give anyone “pro tips” on how to properly engage in conversation, the self-entitled jerk-off. Continuing, so much is said with that former, petite sentence. I would like to quote one of my favorite lines, “you have to have gone to college to say something that stupid.” But again, I cannot so easily draw from my betters. This is not simply the sum of any amount of left-wing collegiate brainwashing. Her statement is possibly borne by some trauma, stirred by middle class guilt with a hefty half tablespoon of impotent outrage. The whole errant philosophy is concocted out of something akin to this mixture. That very sentence is literally something she needs to be saying to a therapist, not to strangers on twitter.

That line also begs so many questions. What exactly is it that she feels she was “put on this earth for”? Does this mean that she is fine with making “colored” men feel valued? What makes her think that even one white man needs her to feel valued? Yes, all of these questions are repugnant if not irrelevant; but they directly follow from this statement.

I can imagine an African freedman during the Reformation making her statements, “If I never have a white man man try to explain his “point-of-view” to me again, I’ll die happy,” and then, later, “I was not put on this earth to make white men feel valued”; only he or she would be justified because the context, in retrospect, is more than obvious: that slave had no choice physically or socially but to be a value to white men (white women as well, Mizz Fabellah) and yet hold no value for themselves. But you, as a middle class white American have a choice, yet you use choose to fill weak minded people with a self-denigrating philosophy stating that, if they are not white men in particular, then they, disenfranchised, should blame white men for every thread of negativity in their lives; if they are white men, then, to loathe themselves and give of their only mortal soul and dignity as reparations to your aristocracy of justice: all so you can have a meandering, middle class career that makes you feel right as rain about the horrors that people far less fortunate than you may endure.

So thus, a Ripened Durian Award goes to Our Majesty Queen Melissa A. Fabello IV for:

“Welcome to the social justice world. This is how we operate.”

The noxious cracks in her spiny shell became abundantly odorous when the “fucks” started coming into play: the unabashed anger at not being taken seriously. “This is how we operate,” indeed.

She is a Durian… and the Durian can not inherently smell itself. This is called The Durian Condition. It differs from The Human Condition at the level where, I think, most human beings can, through emotive discussion, become empathetic and thus begin to understand one another, regardless of ingrained ideology and past prejudices; an already complicated condition that is diffusing into a further maddened state, as human interaction is being more and more digitized and personally alienated. But I can definitely imagine her talking to someone just like this, face to face; and then pissing herself, red-faced, in juvenile futility when someone laughs at her assertions.

Not lacking the abhorrently low amount of self confidence which Heir-to-the-Throne Fabello conceded to with that last trying statement of exactly why she was not put on this earth, Sandra could only respond in one manner:

She ends by protecting herself with a catch-22, the common one that I mentioned in the preface by essentially saying, “if you think I’m being a bigot against white men, you’re reinforcing the white male power structure,” ie: “if you don’t agree with me, then you’re part of the problem.” Another contrived convenience used to deflect criticism by mongering guilt that Sandy V was beyond immune to.

To date, there hasn’t been a response to this. I can only hope that it stuck in her craw for a few minutes, at least.

This is what it comes down to: a woman with no victim complex can not be indoctrinated into the Fabellosphere; strong, self-identified women (or men who aren’t in need of a master) are of no use to her and are cast off as “uneducated,” which is newspeak for “uninitiated.”

If Mao Tse-Bello were instead teaching her listeners and followers to respect themselves and to question everything, including what she herself says, that perhaps their own actions are their own responsibility, and about the power that eventually comes from this understanding… then they would no longer need her at all. Would this audience, which she invokes by mimicking solidarity, perhaps strike out into reality; start fixing their own personal problems by utilizing realistic solutions, rather than using her cluttered, rhetorically-laced criteria for the strict search and seizure of universally personal problems in order to blame everyone but themselves (white men would apparently receive some vicarious internet reprieve from this) for their own shortcomings?

How about, o’ Holy Fabello, Born of a Virgin, Presented to Mankind in Swaddling Clothes, if you actually care about human beings and their individual social status, doing your “educational” work in the presence of a poor community, helping the “unprivileged” people one-on-one; those that are not only literal victims of sexual assault and abuse, but women and men who are economically oppressed by underfunded public schooling and the eventual poverty/crime cycle that is its ultimate resolution?

In this extremely hypothetical scenario, when you’ve eventually found that the expensive axioms college sent you into the world with, say, “power vs. oppression” and other nihilistic statements such as “white men have no perspective,” get you nowhere with anyone below your own unacknowledged “privilege level,” I’m sure you could then make yourself feel a mite better by self-justifiably knocking on the door of some rickety, fifty-plus year-old house, adjacent to or surrounded by State Housing tenements, where actual social work is simply too difficult and extraneous for your ilk, to tell the dead-eyed, tank-top wearing white man in his late twenties with a wife and multiple children, answering the door after years of sixty-hour factory work weeks in attempt to eventually own the shit-shack barely standing above them while also being able to afford cheap food and heat, using your rhetoric and academic condescension, in person, that you, Lord of the Flies Fabello, feel the full extent to which his point of view is wholly irrelevant.

not pictured: someone who should be lecturing others about the definition of “oppression”

3 comments to The Fourth Ripened Durian Award: “Media Literacy Versus Female Solidarity”

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>