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:
I initially read “beta tested” as “tested by betas”, of course.
All this is news to me, and I’d have thought that there’d be a fair amount of discussion about such legislation if it had even been mooted, much less actually passed. Perhaps WHTM’s British legal correspondent Alan Robertshaw can shed more light on this?
Of course, we have a female PM now, but we also had one for eleven years back in the 1980s, and I don’t recall a raft of anti-male legislation being passed back then. In fact, Margaret Thatcher was more notorious for discriminating against women: the number that served in her various governments was tiny, she pretty much wrote her mother out of her official history, and she was noticeably more solicitous of her son than her daughter, despite Mark Thatcher being actively loathsome and Carol Thatcher merely irritating (and given her ancestry, that’s excusable).
Long live the Techno-Matriarchy!
http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy190/MetalAmaya_photo/readImage3.jpg
I’ll stop now, I’m sorry.
Shit! I’m no Hillary fan but I’m tempted to vote for her because A. Our only other alternative is Trump the Rump, and B. to thwart Roosh’s bullshit and make that badass-sounding “techno-matriarchy” a reality
@Nathan: My thoughts almost exactly, except more succinct and intelligible.
@MexicanHotChocolate: Exactly! I don’t know whether to laugh at them or feel a bit sorry for them. Is it possible to do both?
All hail the Techno Matriarchal #NewGirlOrder!
1. Dude’s sporting some serious Elam eyes there.
2. Red pill logic: 43 male presidents don’t prove that there’s a patriarchy, but one female president proves that there’s a matriarchy.
@Violet : honestly, you should vote for her just to avoid a disaster. She may worsen poverty and continue the social statu quo vs he may start WWIII. I think both the best case scenario and worse case scenario are better for Clinton.
(I am not an utter fan of Clinton, and I am a foreigner anyway. But I do have a lot of distress at the idea of a barely sentient orange wig getting both the nuclear codes and law executive power)
(also, it’s just me or are the two independant candidate complete nuts, both of them ?)
I’m getting ready to walk a few paces behind the ‘missus’ in public and be obligated to donning my cap to every woman I don’t personally know!
Your Humble servant, Ma’am!
@Ohlmann:
I get what you’re trying to say, but I wouldn’t use *that* particular word to describe them
Please read We have a pretty strict anti-ableism policy.
I would recommend: extremist or out of touch. I know using “nut”, “crazy”, “insane”, etc. casually is a hard habit to break (one I’m working on myself) but we can do this.
That said, I would definitely pick Hillary over the alternative…I heard that her “body count” is largely bogus anyway.
“Clinton/May, the new Globalist Nexus of Techno-Matriarchy/Feminazism. Wake up, sheeple!”
Johnnie Get Your Gun!
You’re right, it slipped out of my tongue. Sorry.
Yep. Looking forward to Inauguration Day when our first Black President turns things over to our first woman President.
MRA tears will be delicious!
@Ohlmann: It’s ok…we’re all human here, we all have things slip out at times.
@Patricia: Agreed…you bring the MRA tears, I’ll provide the popcorn. I can’t speak for anyone else but I sure wouldn’t be opposed to candy either.
He looks kind of like a dwarf in Once Upon A Time. Though what would be his dwarf name? Pervy? Rapey? Douchey?
Gahhh…ran out of editing time AGAIN!
By “he” I mean, of course, Roosh V.
I also like the name “Creepy” for him.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/1e9a74952a78c501f43b3b00a0a04d3c/tumblr_mudesd5XVo1rl6c79o1_r1_500.gif
Harassment is already illegal or at least frowned upon, but I’m totally up for making it illegal for Roosh to talk to girls, women, men, children, the elderly, ducks at a pond, cats, dogs, Siri…
@Ohlmann: Stein and Johnson are both pretty out of the mainstream ideologically and probably won’t be significant factors in who becomes President.
Stein isn’t polling well at all. A recent poll from PPP (a reputable firm who typically throw in a silly question or two in their polls) had Stein running behind (the late) Harambe the Gorilla.
Johnson is pulling double digits in some western states where the Republicans tend to be more of the libertarian bent rather than religious right or corporatist. Might tip a state like Arizona Clinton’s way but he’s still unlikely to even be invited to the debates (needs to get 15%+ in several national polls).
Wow… so much… so much wow.
For starters, the amazing presumption that the president apparently controls all facets of government and can institute new laws entirely at their discretion. I know the powers of the executive branch keep being inflated with pretty much every new administration, but we aren’t quite to the point of electing actual dictators yet.
My “favorite” bit is this parenthetical though: “(such laws are currently being beta tested in the UK before wider rollout)” because it implies that the ENTIRE WORLD is ALREADY under the control of the “Feminist Conspiracy.” It implies that someone, or some group, said “Hey, we gotta try these laws somewhere… how about the UK first, then if it works, we’ll do it in the rest of Europe and the Americas next year.”
@Latte Cat: LMAO, where is that clip taken from? And also bless you for posting it, I can’t stop watching it 😀
OT: More Zapp as Trump clips have been going up today.
https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest
There is no reason men shouldn’t speak to women in public as long as they treat them as human beings and not as Douche V and his buddies treat them, as ‘meat dispensaries’ and sub human.
That’s much better than I could do, RosedeLava.
Women often stop me in the street, usually to inform me that I have a ridiculously cute dog.
Thus far, I’ve been able to reply with impunity (usually to say “yes, but you don’t have to live with him”), but who knows how long that’s going to last? I gather it’s already all but illegal.
At least Roosh has admitted that a Twitter ban is trivial, instead of some great act of oppression that MRAs usually tout it as.
If people tell you that the way you talk about masculinity sounds like hate speech, how does that not make you pause and reevaluate the some of the things you’re saying?
Also, saving Yellow Diamond Hillary this instant. I never knew I needed that in my life.
Well this is a fun instance of unintentional honesty. What they really want is to go back to a world wherein men aren’t expected to give a shit about anyone but themselves.