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:
Wasn’t there another troll recently who thought that putting “ladies” in scare quotes was the most biting insult he could level at the people on this website?
Or was that actually still just Terrance?
I mean, it probably was Terrance even if he had a different nym, since apparently alt-righters have nothing better to do than ineffectually troll websites they don’t like, but you know.
Hang on…
If Hillary Clinton is Yellow Diamond, then who is Trump? My gut wants to say…Lars. Unpleasant, heavily orange-tinted, and utterly insignificant compared to the techno-matriarch.
Terrance: another equal opportunity racist. A ‘meta racist’, as it were…
Don’t insult Lars like that. He’s more like Marty
@dslucia
Tim/Mark/Terrance has come on here to post the exact same spiel about how marriage is an evil matriarchical plot to steal men’s resources, women are the devil, etc, on several different article comment sections. During one of these threads he admitted that Tim/Mark were the same person (because he has to use a pseudonym because otherwise the evil matriarchy will literally throw him in prison), and Terrance posts the exact same bullcrap as TimMark did. So, yeah, you’re probably remembering one of TimMarkTerrance’s other posts.
You make an excellent point, Handsome Jack. Perhaps Marty crossed with Lars crossed with that unseen monster from the “Hotdog Dufflebag” short that was spitting black sludge everywhere?
@Catalpa:
In fairness, most manosphere-type rants seem to be pretty indistinguishable even when they do obviously come from completely separate people. I’m convinced they have a form letter or some MadLibs thing that just gets cycled around to everyone who ever posts on an MRA/RedPill/PUA/MGTOW/alt-right/Gator website/subreddit.
My guinea pig’s name is Terrance. He left a glob of “boar glue” in his pen this morning for me to clean up. It’s exactly what it sounds like and about as useful as what our troll Terrance is leaving around here.
I’m pretty sure my guinea pig is better informed about gender politics, though.
@Jack “I mean, I don’t even really know if I really do fluctuate between being feminine or masculine. ”
I’m an old guy who’s been dealing with this issue all my life.
The thing is, “masculine”: and “feminine” are not real Things. They are artificial patterns that society would like to persuade you (or, if that fails, coerce you) into following. As a child, I didn’t like to fight, and I was often called a “sissy” and a “mamma’s boy” because of it. Luckily, when I was a sophomore in college, I came across Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex which explains how femininity is a social construct, and it was easy to see that masculinity was also a social construct. Basically “feminine” is the way traditional society expected and encouraged women to act, and “masculine” is the way traditional society expected and encouraged men to act.
But we are all unique individuals, and we are all a combination of “masculine” and “feminine” attributes, and we shouldn’t have to choose one or the other and try to squeeze our unique selves into one of those misshapen little boxes that society wants to cram us into. I’d suggest to use that you’d probably be better off throwing “masculine” and “feminine” into the trash, where they belong, and don’t worry about which side you might be sliding toward at any given moment.
Now getting rid of the effects of past socialization — that’s the hard part. That will probably take you the rest of your life.
@Mary
No it is not. Not even remotely. Industry dislikes unions and works to subvert them? Obviously. All the time. Since forever. Not McCarthyism. McCarthyism is when the government indicts people for sedition, on account of having ‘ties’ to socialist or communist groups, without evidence for the crime let alone the ties. Known members of unions being ‘scabbed’ by private companies isn’t at all like what happened in this country with the House Committee. I’d thank you not to equate them
Here’s how that slope worked in this country. We’ll compare it to what’s going on in your country today and look for similarities, eh?
1)1910: bombing by agitators in Chicago leads to a goose chase, and the conviction of 8 anarchists. The public blames the marching unionsts
2)1917: the Bolsheviks win and leave WWI. Muricans, who were fighting and dying in that war, weren’t happy
3)1919: some anarchists blow up a bunch of people and the 1st Red Scare ensues
4)1920: anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti kill some people. Or maybe they didn’t. The trial was bullshit. They were ‘comrades’ of the 1919 bombers
5)1919-20: illegal arrests, race riots, and the deportation of hundreds of ‘leftist’ activists
6)1929: stock market crashes, union membership increases. Socialists and communists come outta the shadows to not entirely cold reception
7)1941: Russia fights Germany, everyone likes Stalin until…
8)1945: turns out Stalin’s an asshole. Everyone else is dismantling their empires and he’s expanding as he pleases. We just dealt with a despotic fucker with an urge for world domination after all. Also nukes
9)1947: Truman tests federal employees for ‘loyalty’
10)1947-57: the House Committee starts rounding people up to grill them on trumped up bullshit, creating the blacklists
Decades of commie/pinko/socialist terrorism coinciding with anti red sentiment and legal persecution, exacerbated by a World and then Cold War (mutually assured destruction). Meanwhile, the current leader of the opposition in the UK self identifies as a socialist. If and when I see the signs of a slippery slope, I’ll be the 1st to speak out on your behalf. That story just ain’t it
Right, by the numbers this time.
Wrong. 54%, as above. You believe this to be much higher because of confirmation bias.
Wrong. Lower-income families rely on public services. This is true regardless of racial background. More confirmation bias.
Wrong. Socialist countries (or, more properly, mixed economy countries) have lower rates of violent crime, poverty, and corruption, and enjoy a higher level of education and quality of life.
Wrong. If you’re referring to people immigrating to the United States, the US has very stringent immigration requirements. If you’re referring to fleeing refugees, the vast majority of refugees move into neighbouring countries. As for the US/Mexico relation, more illegal immigrants are travelling from the US to Mexico than the reverse.
Wrong. Feminists – the people you’re railing about in this quote – have always been very clear about what they do want. Individual feminists might spout nonsense, but the basic platform is about justice, and is very clear about wanting equivalency. The right to have fair reward for their efforts, and fair protection when needed. Read a book.
Wrong. There are enormous numbers of studies showing that society as a whole values the work of women less than the work of men, even when that work is qualitatively and objectively equivalent. They can compete fairly – if they are allowed. This is what Feminism is about. Try to put yourself into someone else’s perspective.
Wrong. Your error is hyperbole.
Wrong. You underestimate how much Americans love their country. You also assume that all men think as you do. You are wrong on both counts.
Wrong. Many women include the right to enlist in the combat arms as a plank of the Feminist platform. Equality, remember?
I’d do the others, but, egh. It’s all the same. A mealy pablum of confirmation bias, unfounded outrage, and hurt-feels emotions. Gross.
If you didn’t clue in from the above, Terrance – you’re wrong. About everything.
<3 Jack, and Grumpy. You both have been instrumental in some self discovery of my own, in fact. Thank you.
“A mealy pablum of confirmation bias, unfounded outrage, and hurt-feels emotions.”
Okay, what are the odds of Terrance slinking away until he hopes we’ve forgotten about him, vs him strutting back in here and pretending his man-logic is superior to our Earth logic?
:3 Oh I do hope he returns. I have a heapin’ helpin’ of invectives for him if he wants them.
@GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina
Yeah, I know, but it’s the easiest way to explain how I feel. I know they’re not “real” concepts in the fact that men have to be masculine and women have to be feminine but I don’t want to act masculine or feminine, I want to be perceived as masculine or feminine or neither. It’s also the easiest way to explain why I would like to be called “they” and don’t mind being called “he” or “she” some days or why sometimes it bothers me.
Mostly, I think the problem isn’t the concept of femininity and masculinity, it’s the concept that femininity and masculinity are assigned to genders which are assigned to genitals and body parts or even chromosomes or hormones, and people think only certain combinations of genitals, hormones and chromosomes exist when they don’t, so everything is just either one or the other when that goes against the nature of everything.
It’s also really hard to be agender and not have a gender neutral body. I’m not androgynous in the least. People will always just assume I’m a certain gender when I’m not any gender just because of how I look. It’s upsetting sometimes.
Yeah, it’s very hard, especially when people misgender you all the time, and I’ll likely have to deal all my life being misgendered unless people decide to start using gender neutral language before I die.
Re: Terrance: Why is this ass still holing here? He’s as boring as all the rest of them. Mork calling Orson, come in Orson…troll termination requested!
Bryce-
As an Australian, I can tell you that Australia is the worst of them all!!!!!!! Not really. Australia is pretty awesome. ? Hmmm….. Maybe socialism is not so bad after all. ?
Amandajane5 nailed it.
That is true of misigynists and racists.
Their greatest fear is that one day the tables will turn and they’ll find themselves being treated the way the people they hate are treated now.
They can’t conceive of equality because they know how desperately they cling to their priviledge and they lack the ability to empathize enough with others enough to understand that we aren’t all as selfish, entitled and cowardly as they are.
They’re afraid of us because they assume we think the same way they do. That’s what so much of the projection is about. Surely, given half a chance, we would be just as shitty as they enjoy being which is fine because they are shitty to other people. But we would be shitty to THEM and that makes it wrong.
So, there is alot of projection involved in their hatred. There is also alot of denial. In order to think like Doosh or Terrence, you can’t just be ignorant. You have to be in complete denial of large swaths of human history as well as how countries are actually run and laws are made.
White men have stolen labor from women and brown people for centuries. Then they turn around and call both lazy or unfit for difficult (also often prestigious or well paying) work. They did everything they could to prevent anyone not white and male from being educated, powerful or wealthy and then claimed we lacked ambition and fortitude. When in reality it is evident that they were the ones afraid to compete with us.
Some of them are still afraid to.
@Terrance
Okay, stop right there.
It’s DemocratIC party.
If you can’t even use the proper name of the party, let alone accurately describe its constituents, why should anyone take your opinions seriously?
As a matter of fact, whites make up a greater percentage of welfare recipients than blacks, and the 10 states most dependent on federal assistance are red (Republican) states.
Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting Legos for you to step on.
@Mels
Or a mediocre line of MRA briefs (aka Uptighty Whiteys).
Oh, Terrence, Terrence, Terrence.
It will never cease to amaze me how often MRAs insist that women are oppressing men because for most of history women have not fought in wars.
For most of history, women have not been allowed to fight in wars.
The US removed prohibitions on women serving in combat roles in 2013. 2013, Terrence. That means that women were specifically prohibited from fighting in wars like men, from the founding of the United States of America to three years ago.
You can’t actively prevent people from doing A Thing, and then blame them for Not Doing The Thing, Terrence. The technical term for that is being an asshole.
^ Well, if women REALLY wanted to join in combat roles, they shouldn’t have let the restrictions placed on them by men prevent them from dying alongside men in combat! They should have joined anyway, perhaps dressed like men. But of course no feeble female would ever do such a…
I’m receiving reports that that is indeed what multiple women throughout history have done. Well how about that.
But I suppose those women don’t count, because of reasons.
Terrance talking about anyone being “the new Jews” is silly given how many strains of the fringe right still hold antisemitic views of one sort or another, and he seems to be coming from that side of the fence.
As for Roosh V he might want to reconsider his support for Trump. After all a good chunk of Trump’s fanbase would consider him an “Eh-rab” and want him deported, or at the very least watched by the authorities, and those people are the ones Trump keeps pandering to. The fact he isn’t a Muslim(or if he is he’s pretty much an apostate one) and was born in the US won’t make a difference, he’s still one of “them” to the nativist crowd that love the Donald.
@Terrance
Finally someone noticed that I am not a terrestrial!
So excited!
Sweetie, I grew up on Venus. It’s all women and we respect and love each other and our one and only home, Venus. Planet Earth is suffering right now because of human stupidity, aka the patriarchy. I’m here as a messenger.
And you?
@Terrance
You get more charming with each post I (belatedly) read.
You are welcome, Terrance!
Okay, PUAs, I’ve given this more thought. Beyond the whole bunking-it-with-Assange-in-London thing, here are two more ideas:
1. Argentina! It’s a classic for Nazis. You neo-Nazi PUAs already know that your heroes Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann ended up there. Maybe Argentina will take you in for old time’s sake? (Warning: President Juan Peron, who had all the sympathy in the world for Nazis, is long dead.)
2. Okay, this one is bound to be controversial, but hear me out.
The White House!
The guy who looks to become the first First Gentleman was (is?) a PUA himself! You are his peeps. He’ll definitely want to protect you from harm. And where better than right where he can keep close watch on you?
Okay, guys, that’s it for now. I’m always keeping your welfare in mind!