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:
@jefrir
I haven’t been camping for years!
It sounds like Drumpf is only going to allow Mexicans in his internment camps. What a rip off.
jefrir:
He still has time! Almost literally, in fact, given his access to a time machine. We know from Trump’s spokesperson that Obama was responsible for Humayun Khan’s death in Iraq and responsible for taking America into Afghanistan, both of which happened before he became president. Ask yourself this: why hasn’t Obama traveled back in time and killed Hitler?
To be fair, it should be illegal for Roosh to talk to women, ever.
Again with the globalists. Why are they so obsessed with globalism?
(He asks, knowing full well the answer is that they’re racist xenophobes)
Question: When did “globalist” become the go-to insult? And how is it an insult? I seem to have missed when this happened but I’m seeing it everywhere, especially in Trump supporters completely coherent and cogent FB comments (my brother’s in-laws are retired Trump supporters and appear to have nothing better to do than like and comment on every bit of YAYTrumpism that they see so that it spams my feed).
@GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina
It’s a little worse than that, imho. This artificial distinction describes the sum of human traits. But in a society biased towards males, all the valued or cool stuff(agency, strength, etc) is labeled “masculine”, and the small amount of ‘weak’ or at least undervalued human traits are labeled “feminine”. This of course is horseshit and no wonder it causes such pain in people’s lives when they try to conform to it…we are after all social animals, it’s natural to try to conform on the assumption we will be accepted and happy….but being asked to betray yourself will never lead to happiness… What I find particularly disgusting is that this bs is dumped on the minds of small children who have no point of reference to psychologically defend themselves.
Ah well. I’ve also been dealing with it way too long. I finally decided that society can go fuck itself and I can be whatever type of woman I want to be. (People will still assume I’m male in winter clothes unless my hair is down–I assume its the shoulders. 😉 )
Beyond what David said about armed revolt, who in the alt right has ANY organizational skills? Though it is fun to imagine a rally where lacking a bloody shirt, someone is waving a beer soaked wig.
@Ceiros:
I think that, like “cuck”, “globalist” is an insult that is only insulting to the group that uses it. The person they’re insulting with it is most likely to just raise an eyebrow and think “what”
And remember: you can “unfollow” people in facebook. They remain on your friends list, you just don’t get any more of their stuff in your feed.
@brian Ah, that makes sense. I mean, I’m pretty proud of having lived and worked abroad and hope that it gives me a more global perspective, so my reaction was “Thank you. Wait, that was an insult?”
I’m mostly FB friends with them for pics of my niece and nephews. At least seeing the Trump stuff keeps me up to date on what is being slung around and the specious arguments being used. It’s amazing how much of it is clickbait stuff though! “Hillary said this but she never expected THIS response!!!11!1!!” 😉
@Scildfreja:
Excuse me, I need to clean some tea out of both my keyboard and my sinus cavities. Where should I send the bill?
@Alan:
Of course legal systems borrow from each other; and given how many modern legal systems were derived from British Common Law, a lot of them already have the same base to draw from, making that even easier.
(Wasn’t there a case several years back where the alt-right flipped their lid because a U.S. Supreme Court justice was talking about advice for countries writing new constitutions, and suggested that there were better examples out there than the U.S. Constitution? Ahh, yes, there we are, Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” She pointed people instead to the 1996 South African constitution as a more modern example; Canada’s 1982 constitution has also been used as a reference by others now. The attitude I’ve been hearing in a lot of places is that while the U.S. Constitution was quite literally revolutionary for its time, that time was over two centuries ago, and we’ve learned a lot more about what does and doesn’t work since then.)
@ jenora
The immutably of the Constutution does seem to be a very USian mindset. The nearest thing we have to a written constitution in the UK is the ECHR (we have an unwritten constitution but it’s fun working out what it actually is). The ECHR was specially designed to move with the times. There’s also an implication that it’s meant to get more ‘progressive’ as things go on. The phrase used is that “it’s a floor not a ceiling”
From an ECHR ‘mythbusting’ site:
@ jenora
I guess you know about the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the drafting of the US Constitution. Not so much on the substantive issues (although things like freedom of religion are in there) but on the procedural aspects (quora for decisions, electing delegates etc.)
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm
Funnily enough the electoral college rights vested in the women of the tribes. I’m not sure if that’s matriarchy or just an acceptance that men are rubbish at getting their shit together.
@Alan : well, immutability of the constitution isn’t a big thing in Europa, but “the law works, let them be” is a common argument when laws change societal things. In France, it was especially prevalent when the PACS (a marriage light, who in particular allowed homosexuals, but also non-sexual couples like brother and sister, to have a formal arrangement), and later the extension of marriage to homosexual were debated.
Funnily, I never have seen them protests that current laws work when people propose repressive laws, especially ones that would disproportionaly hit minorities. Funny how it work.
@ ohlmann
The ECHR is a bit of an anomaly in European jurisprudence because it’s a very common law idea (it was drafted by British lawyers). Most of Europe has the civil law ‘Napoleonic Code’ aspect (based on Roman Law) where judicial interpretation and evolution of law is discouraged. European law tends to be much more codified and the idea of ‘precedence’ (stare decisis to be technical) is pretty alien.
There’s always a tension in legal systems between certainty and flexibility and the European preference gives more weight to certainty (that’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s a fundamental principle, of criminal law especially, that people should be clear on what is and isn’t legal.). Civil law systems put much more emphasis on legal changes being a job for the legislature, not the courts.
@Alan : you’re right, but civil laws systems are still fastly evolving system. Regardless of whether it’s by a judge or the government, the law evolve with the society.
I would also add that the french constitutional court is a french court who in the past was mostly useless but is now dedicated to create precedence and make binding interpretation of the law. For example, they permanently made it so that it’s illegal to tax someone over 75% of his income on the basis that it’s the meaning of “taxs should not be confiscatory” in the constitution. There’s also more initiatives to put general principles in the law ; one of the more discussed point in the recent french labor law is a list of general principle of labor laws that need to be respected, which seem a common law idea.
Lea said
and I have started a “quotable quotes” file in Libre Office Writer!
@Alan:
Yes, I had heard about the Iroquois Confederacy being one of the major influences on the U.S. Constitution. One of those things that the loud ‘Constitutional Originalists’ don’t seem to know about, in general.
And, well, Canada didn’t have a Constitution until 1982; before that there was the British North America Act of 1867. (Which technically is still law of the land for anything that hasn’t been explicitly superseded.)
A lot of the political and legal effects of the ‘re-patriation’ of the Constitution a generation ago are still settling out, and are likely to remain that way for a while. “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.”
@ jenora
We have an interesting situation in Cornwall. Cornwall used to have its own legal system (the Stannary Courts) and laws. The recieved wisdom is that the laws were abolished when the courts were closed in the nineteenth century. However all the relevant Act actually does is transfer the powers of the stannary courts to the county court; it’s silent on the laws themselves. Chances are the laws are abolished, but we were able to threaten the use of a stannary law procedure (tin bounding) to get someone to sign a contract. There was just enough chance that the court might have said that the old law still applied for the other side not to risk it.
ETA: The incorporation of limited companies is something that originated from Stannary Law.
“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.”
No one needs to target you guys, Roosh. The numbers of your demographic go down daily.
“Do they not have the basic understanding of how our government works that we all learned in about… oh, I don’t know, 4th grade? You know, the Three Houses of Government and all that? Checks and ballances? Do they really think Hilary can get elected and immidiatly start issuing decrees like a despotic monarch?”
No, they don’t. They figure they’ll project the things Trump would do onto Hillary.
Everyone else has said it so well, so all I have to add is:
Roosh is a stupid dumbass. That goes for Terrance, too.
Juanita Broaddrick: the Clinton problem that doesn’t want go away:
Interview with Juanita.
I dislike how the interview consider the couple Clinton as a single fused entity. Hillary Clinton have proven enough she’s not just the voice of her husband, so questioning her on that is about on par with saying that the wife of Trump is a racist by association.
In other word, I feel it’s the thing that try to be a problem, not the problem that doesn’t go away.
Late to the party, so I don’t know if this has been said/addressed already, but:
And when Hillary gets elected and literally none of T-Bagz fever-rants come to pass, what are the odds that he’ll recognize that he was wrong about his predictions?
I’m thinking 0%…
Oh dear. Gert is shit stirring again. This is beginning to be a pattern.