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:
@Alan Robertshaw
Starting in grade school, I was taught that the genuis of the US Constitution is its flexibility.
So to have authoritarian types insist on adhering to the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution is infuriating. And of course, those authoritarians will be the ones to decide what the original intent was.
@Gaebolga
I’m not going to bet against you.
The same is true of the entire right wing. They work very hard to frighten people. When the bad stuff doesn’t pan out, they just move on to another frightening scenario.
How is it that they don’t get called on this shit?!
$$$$$.
Ok, since Lex brought up the tea comparison, I have to point out that it’s a terrible example because women are, in fact, sometimes pressured to do activities other than sex when they have clearly said no.
An example from my life that involves tea:
When my husband and I started dating we were planning a trip with his family. This was to be my first time meeting the family, so his mother wanted to go to a fancy restaurant just with the women and have high tea. I was extremely uncomfortable with that because I felt like it was basically a fancy tea party and I don’t enjoy tea parties. Plus the restaurant had a dress code and I don’t like dressing up. I declined multiple times. I asked if there were other restaurants or activities that we could do together that I would be more comfortable with and eventually we decided on a chocolate shop. Still probably picked for gendered reasons, but I enjoy chocolate and it didn’t have a dress code, so I said yes to that. It didn’t end there, though. I kept getting pressured to go to tea and eventually my husband approached me in private to let me know his mom would really appreciate it if I went to tea. I didn’t see any way out of it, so I agreed. As the trip came closer I kept telling my husband I was having a lot of anxiety about the tea date. Finally one day I had an anxiety attack over it, at which point he cancelled it and then asked me why I never said no (for some reason, saying no multiple times didn’t register with any of them) and why I didn’t tell him it was this much of an issue (apparently telling him I was having anxiety wasn’t strong enough, even though he also suffers from anxiety). We ended up agreeing to go to the chocolate shop again but then once the trip finally happened we never axtuallt went to the chocolate shop, so it was all for apparently nothing.
My husband asked me during the anxiety attack why I wouldn’t have tea with his mother if I do drink tea. I explained I wouldn’t agree to have high tea with anyone, that I associated it with little girl tea parties I was always expected to find fun but never did. I pointed out that the activity was picked as a women’s only activity and the only reason I got resistance when I declined was because I was a woman. He said if I was a man dating a member of the family they would have done the same but maybe not tea. I pointed out that was exactly my issue–the maybe not tea part. I think he finally understood.
My point really has little to do with tea, though. Women are expected to agree to all kinds of social things and when we say no people don’t put any weight on our words to the point where my own significant other remembered it as me never having said no.
@Goat
If you’re dead-set on pretending to be a feminist, at least try to remember that Hillary is a standalone human being, not a talking tumour on Bill’s neck.
On which note, has anybody else seen all these? Bloody hell.
@Ohlmann:
Of course this should not be a problem: Hillary is not responsible for the actions of her husband, whatever they may be.
But politics doesn’t follow ‘be fair’ kind of rules. Trumpism will try and milk this for all it’s worth. The timing is unlikely to be a coincidence.
In that sense it’s a very real problem.
@kupo
That’s some mobster shit, right there. That ain’t right
@WWTH
I’m still tryna figure out the impetus for bringing up that story. It ain’t new, so it’s not like 1 of our usual, here’s something you mayn’t have seen, OTs. I’m not seeing where the Juanita allegations were mentioned upthread. No @, so apparently it’s for all of us. Entirely random?
@kupo : I don’t know if you ever had, as a woman, ask a doctor for painkiller. I hope you will never have to, because as far as I can tell, one without a penis need to actually faint from pain in front of the doctor to get something stronger than tea-flavored sugar pills.
@Gert : who care about what trumpist will think ? They gladly believe that Clinton is a witch and Obama time traveled to found ISIS and start a war in Afghanistan. The article is not gonna convince any rational people to not vote for Clinton.
Stay alert, stay safe!
@Ohlmann:
Floating voters/undecideds may still be swayed by more negativity thrown at Hillary. Polls show many people don’t trust her.
Mud sticks in politics. Don’t underestimate it: in a closely fought election every vote counts.
The article was published on 15/08, so quite recent. Some sites are buzzing about it.
Concern troll is concerned. Noted.
@Gert : you really look like a Trump fan trying to stir shit.
Half because you don’t *actually* try to say anything in favor of Clinton. Half because you look like you try to spin the election as close, when in reality what people work on is to lower the odds of an accident from about 1/6 to as low as possible.
@Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger:
There is no “impetus” here: it’s a story about the Clintons and a woman who accused Bill of rape. Period.
@Ohlmann:
It’s not impossible that it’s a close race. It’s not impossible the proto-fascist Trump wins, even.
Few political commentators sound as sure of their case as you do.
How this makes me look “like a Trump fan trying to stir shit” is truly beyond me.
For some reason, it makes me think that someone listened to the song “6969” and somehow took it completely seriously.
@Ohlmann
I dislike opiates and have a high pain tolerance so that specifically hasn’t been an issue, but as I’ve mentioned before my chronic symptoms are always dismissed by doctors and they still have not given me a diagnosis. I’m in pain daily and by about halfway through the day have little energy left for anything, but they don’t seem to see the problem with that. Self-medication is all I have right now.
I truly hope Hillary wins (of course!) but I don’t much care for her politics.
@Gert
What do you dislike about her politics?
@Hairt
Yeah… But why post it? It’s not just a story about the allegations. Something about the article, this thread, or you led you to think it warranted sharing. People don’t really do things for no reason. The reason may not be readily understood, but it’s there. Why did you share this story in this space at this time? Think about it
Lenora Feuer: fun fact about the Canadian constitution: Quebec still hasn’t ratified it.
Nobody under the age of 40 gives a shit.
The old PQ stalwarts however will give you an earful about how horrible it was that the constitution got repatriated under the cloak of night, a complete betrayal of Quebec by Trudeau (Pierre-Elliott, not Justin; Justin is all right).
If you get cornered by one (like my uncle), they’ll impress upon you that it’s something we definitely should spend a couple beers discussing, that’s how important this constitutional issue is. No, there’s no practical effect on anything, but we must continue mulling and whining until when it gets cold we can mull wine to drink while we mull and whine.
For some reason the PQ is not really winning elections very well anymore. Can’t imagine why.
Now I want mulled wine, but it’s too hot out. 🙂
@kupo:
Although she’s now started making noises in the opposite direction (the ‘Bernie effect’) I see her very much as the status quo candidate. There’s little promise of change there. I think the US needs to go in a Democratic Socialist direction.
@Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger:
H.R.Clinton is very much part of this WHTM post. I think it’s relevant, as are allegations of rape, strenuously denied by a powerful man (and that really is an Old story). If others don’t see the relevancy let’s just drop it. 🙂
We can separate Hill from Bill but in the real world of electoral politics that doesn’t always happen.
@Gert
The status quo is change. What you’re seeing is the illusion of sameness. 2012 is dramatically different than today, 2008 even more so. By focusing on a small number of axes of progress, you’re mistaking ‘change’ with ‘change you want’ and dismissing the former from the latter
The question isn’t between change and stagnation. It’s between positive change and negative and who will more likely do more of the former. This isn’t specific to this election or any election, BTW. Also importantly, what form of change are you willing to accept as change? Basically, what’s your sensitivity to good versus bad stimulus?
Only some of those ‘you’s are singular. More as just an idea I’m putting out there in general…
@Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger:
It’s all a little, as they say here ‘academic’. Bar any major mishaps/force majeur HRC will probably win and then we’ll see.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Good night.
I’ve had many Trump supporters assure me that I shouldn’t be concerned about all the unconstitutional things Trump has loudly and proudly promised to do if elected because the President doesn’t have that much power, while also insisting I should be terrified of all the unconstitutional things Clinton hasn’t even mentioned but is totes secretly plotting to do.
I’m n-thing the “techno-matriarchy” thing. I can has Terminator army?
Every time I see somebody say something along these lines – that is about being a REAL MAN – it always seems to translate to being an abusive fuckhead. Not helping the “All Men Are Abusers” stereotype there, bros.
Also, when he mentioned “pair bonding,” I thought of something completely unrelated.