Categories
antifeminism drama kings grandiosity guns imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed white men red pill return of kings rhymes with roosh trump

Roosh: Hillary will usher in a “techno-matriarchy” and ban talking to women in public

Roosh V, trying out the "grizzled prospector" look
Roosh V, trying out the “grizzled prospector” look

With their “God Emperor” way down in the polls, some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters are beginning to face the fact that Hillary Clinton will quite likely be the next president of the United States.

Or should I say the next techno-matriarch?

In a post on Return of Kings, Trump supporter and “ironic” rape legalization promoter Roosh V warns his Trump-happy readers that if The Donald doesn’t win in November, Hillary Clinton will usher in a new dark age for dudes.

All men will be negatively affected under a Hillary presidency in one way or another, meaning that the globalist boot is fast approaching our faces.

After assuming office, President Hillary Clinton will

move to establish a techno-matriarchy where men are second-class citizens to any female, [and] ensure that no movement or organization will be able to challenge her or her establishment cronies ever again. This isn’t a trivial matter of getting banned from a web site like Twitter or Youtube—many of you will be forced to escape the country for no other reason than you happening to be a man who found himself on the wrong side of the establishment.

New laws will ban men from doing man things, like pestering women they don’t know on the street.

Talking to girls in public will be illegal harassment or “hate crime,” and be enforced any time you make a girl feel bad for whatever reason, even if you merely stare at her the wrong way (such laws are currently being beta tested in the UK before wider rollout). Blatantly discriminatory “gender equality” laws in the workplace will lower the incomes of all men so that less qualified females can receive job positions and promotions at male expense.

Meanwhile, those brave souls (like Roosh) who speak up against the New Girl Order will be ruthlessly repressed.

They will target us, the alt right, alternative media, patriot groups, survivalists, traditionally conservative groups, and anyone else who strongly supports Donald Trump, tradition, or masculinity. The purpose of acute attacks is to psychologically break down, impoverish, and imprison those who have a powerful ability to counter the narrative or those who have the strength and organizational skill to resist tyranny with arms.

Wait, what?

Sorry, my head is still spinning a little from Roosh’s quick slide from “countering the narrative” to literally launching an armed revolution against a freely elected government. 

Shooting people because you don’t like the results of a free and fair election is not a form of free speech.

But Roosh still holds out hope that a matri-Hillary-archy can be avoided. If Trump wins, he declares,

I predict that a masculine renaissance will occur … where men can once again focus on their own individual goals with Trump as a patriarchal role model.

In Trump’s America, Roosh will be able to get back to what he does best, advising men how to date-rape women after giving them a fake name meet possible future wives.

I would devote more of my energy to helping men successfully pair bond with women, like I started my writing career with, instead of having to play political defense as masculinity becomes retroactively classified as hate speech.

Hillary cannot be elected soon enough.

Also, FYI, I’ve also been speaking to the same “insiders who understand the globalist master plan” that Roosh boasts he’s been speaking to, and they have revealed to me that in the coming techno-matriarchy all men will be forced to do weird dance routines under the supervision of girls in referee outfits. They even showed me footage of one secret training camp:

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

226 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Saphira
Saphira
4 years ago

Also, when he mentioned “pair bonding,” I thought of something completely unrelated.

That gave me a chuckle. 🙂

I didn’t think of anything unrelated, but I found myself thinking that “pair bonding” is the furthest thing from what “Rapey Roosh” teaches his fans.

Cee
Cee
4 years ago

Are you still living in your parent’s basement?

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Cee

Are you still living in your parent’s basement?

I live in the house, I sleep in the basement

Oh, you meant Roosh. Nevermind then

occasional reader
occasional reader
4 years ago

Hello.

globalist boot is fast approaching our faces

Your face, maybe not. Your ass, on the other hand…

survivalists

Since when survivalists are right-wingers ?

men can once again focus on their own individual goals with Trump as a patriarchal role model

Ah, Egoism, you’ve got what i need… Trump ? Patriarch role model ? Wig for everyone ? Having a skin the color it should have when you have a liver disease ? Well, thanks, but no, thanks.

men successfully pair bond with women

By trying to fuck as many women as possible before dropping them like used tissues ? The only pair you are hopping to bond to women is the flapping one between your legs ! As many have already tell it, you do not know the definition of pair bonding. And i am not sure you can even pair bonding with any of your fellow PUA mate, because self-centrism and egoism are ones of the main features of your “Alpha” way of life.

Have a nice day.

jamesworkshop
jamesworkshop
4 years ago

I predict that a masculine renaissance will occur when men full-scale reject any notions of patriarchal role models.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@occasionalreader

Since when survivalists are right-wingers?

In Murica (may be different in France or whatever), there are people who stockpile guns and supplies in preparation for ‘big government’ tryna take their freedom away. Their rugged individualism and cache of ammo will stop Barack Oblackman, I mean Obama, and his communist goon squad, etc etc. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones have been courting them to some success

rugbyyogi
rugbyyogi
4 years ago

@Alan R – oh for sure, I’ve got no problem with borrowing of statutory phrasing from other countries – it makes sense. Saves work and you get to see how the law has already panned out and learn from the inevitable mistakes of others. My only criticism is that policy makers in the UK seem to look mostly to the US, when there are other places to look – even in English. It’s easy for me to make this mistake I am American and work in policy in the UK, it’s a natural bias for me. What was surprising to me and remains surprising is how many British people do that.

When I was a young researcher and had to do some legal work for my first real English boss he was shocked by how easily I found relevant statute on private renting. I told him “It’s not set up much different from American statute*” and he was surprised by that, too. In turn, I was shocked by some of the missing elements in UK Landlord and Tenant law which are common in the US (to protect tenants) and these are now on the books in the UK.

__
*I’d been in a lawsuit in the US and did my first legal research then.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ rugbyyogi

policy makers in the UK seem to look mostly to the US, when there are other places to look

I wonder how much of that is down to Government types enjoying ‘fact finding’ junkets to nice places.

“I need to do some Christmas shopping. Let’s find out how they address this issue in New York”

I suspect a lot of it is that the US is the most convenient common law jurisdiction. I know we’ve also borrowed stuff from Australia, but that’s quite a way away. Europe is obviously nearer but the UK traditionally has always been a bit more Atlanticist than European in outlook, and I think the language aspects also play a big part.

But yeah, you’re right that there’s two areas to consider; actual policy (which we can steal from anywhere) and then the legislation to implement that. In all fairness our Parliamentary drafting team is pretty good at turning board ideas into legislation. The problem then is that the ‘line by line’ voting that takes place in the House of Commons can really fuck up nicely drawn bills. It’s well understood by lawyers here that the House of Lords produces much better legislation. They take a much more wholistic approach to passing Acts so you don’t get that unforeseen consequences thing.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
4 years ago

@kat

Fear is their biggest weapon, it’s always going to be fear of the ‘other’, the coming Apocalyse (which, incidentally they actually want as in their warped reality, as it will herald Christ’s return) fear of ‘progress’, and fear of what they consider ‘moral decline’ and a hankering for an imagined Golden Age somewhen back in the past when there were no coloured folk running wild and not on a lead, men were manly, women were submissive and the children were obedient and always said their prayers before bed.

I have just been reading Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, still a very relevant read. The fetishisation of tradition, plus the constant state of fear are a part of this.

http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_-_Eternal_Fascism.html

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ kat & Virgin Mary

How is it that they don’t get called on this shit?!

I wonder if there’s a parallel with apocalyptic religious cults. Its seems to be the same mindset. The world didn’t end at 3:27 pm last Tuesday as predicted. Ah well, never mind, here’s the recalculated date.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
4 years ago

@ Alan

There most certainly is, that is why they are behind so many of the biggest Republican lobbying groups, people like Pat Robertson, Tim Lehay and the late Jerry Fallwell. In the Regan era they had what they liked to call ‘the Moral Majority’, now it’s Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, and Eagle Forum. Most of these groups can be categorised as ‘Christian Reconstructualist’ in that they seek a return to the laws of the Old Testament, and the resulting punishments, (ironically this is the same as Shariah Law) and are post Tribulationist, in other words they want the planet to get WORSE, as a coming cataclysm will bring about the Second Coming. This is why they are against environmentalism, deny global warming and are pro nuclear weapons, and support apartheid in Israel.
They are obsessed with using ‘moral’ policies to push ‘Christian’ voters to vote Republican because their economic policy stinks. They have twisted the arm of voters to vote against their better interests because they will threaten them that they are voting against God if they vote for candidates who support gay marriage or abortion rights etc. as most Christians live in abject fear of the coming Apocalypse, this tactic is very effective.

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
4 years ago

@axe

When Republicans say they want a reduced government, this is why.
Like criminals would like less cops.
Take away government intervention, and you leave the corporations to do whatever they damn well please.

comment image

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 years ago

@Alan : also, there is the “Obama was bad instead of catastrophic because we worked hard to try to keep him in check”. Similar to sun priests who assure that it’s their sacrifices that made the sun come back.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 years ago

@Virgin Mary : I fully agree with that description despite being pro-capitalism.

Proper regulation is absolutely tantamous to the whole capitalism thing to even have a sense. Ultra liberalism is a bit like “okay, so we will play football. But to male the match much more balanced and interesting, we will remove the ban the blue team have on hand use, hand weapons use, or wall building. We are in discussion to remove the ban on the blue team to use military vehicles, in order to make it even more balanced.”

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ ohlmann

remove the ban on the blue team to use military vehicles

That would be one way of making football interesting.

Em
Em
4 years ago

It’s gross that these alt-right types associate cry baby, deeply insecure, unable-to-take-criticism Donald Trump with masculinity. That’s not my idea of traditional masculinity. I don’t get it, personally.

GreySkye
GreySkye
4 years ago

Is it me or is Roosh really committing to a “More Manson than Manson” look lately?

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)

Is it me or is Roosh really committing to a “More Manson than Manson” look lately?

Now I have More Human than Human stuck in my head.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

@Alan, @Ohlmann:

In the interests of saving lives, but make things more interesting on the field, those military vehicles should be roughly the same size as those motorized children’s play-cars and about the same ‘horsepower’. Linebackers get the jeeps, they need the extra room. 😛

curious
curious
4 years ago

The TechnoMatriarchy of America sounds like a utopia name…

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
4 years ago

Or this could work, too:

Knights in Bumper Cars….



AAAtheist
4 years ago

techno-matriarchy

Why is it that MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, and their assorted ilk always unironically come up with the best names for alt-rock bands?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ msexception

Linebackers

Heh, I think Olhmann and I were referring to the type of football that’s boring; rather than the one that’s boring and incomprehensible. 😉

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

@Alan

Oh *that* football. The one we decided to give a different name (soccer).

It wouldn’t be so boring if the teams were more like the All Blacks, even though that’s a rugby team.

paul tidwell
paul tidwell
4 years ago

I voted for Bernie in the primary and felt kinda bad as a feminist who loves your work Dave but I just remembered.

Trump represents the very kind of machismo I find so nauseating I entered feminist spaces like this in the first place.

trumpelstiltskin must be made to lose. To a Girl. Because http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42802/toxic-masculine-discourse/

Lori
Lori
4 years ago

I have to believe that Roosh’s purpose in life is to serve as a constant reminder that ingesting paint chips is never a good idea.

1 3 4 5