On Roosh’s Moderate Half-Measure

Roosh has a plan to save Western civilization. It’s not bad. In fact, I’d call it a good start.

suffragette

Why stop at removing the vote from women? If we get all these benefits by removing the vote from women, what other benefits would we get if we removed the vote from men of ‘poor character’ and men who don’t own property?

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

I guess we have to start somewhere.

§

Addendum, related:

“A democracy, properly so called, is a political organization modelled in accordance with the law of equal freedom. And if so, those cannot be called democracies under which, as under the Greek and Roman governments, from four-fifths to eleven-twelfths of the people were slaves. Neither can those be called democracies, which, like the constitutions of mediaeval Italy, conferred power on the burghers and nobles only. Nor can those even be called democracies, which, like the Swiss states, have always treated a certain unincorporated class as political outlaws. Enlarged aristocracies these should be termed; not democracies. No matter whether they be a minority or a majority to whom power is denied; the exclusion of them is in spirit the same, and the definition of a democracy is equally broken. The man who steals a penny we call dishonest, as well as the man who steals a pound; and we do so because his act equally testifies to a certain defect of character. Similarly we must consider a government aristocratic, be the class it excludes large or small.”
— Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (1851), Ch XX, § 9

§

Addendum 2:

No automatic alt text available.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “On Roosh’s Moderate Half-Measure

  1. Good point!

    The plural/business vote as well as census suffrage can easily be considered a middle-ground between democracy and neocameralism. In fact, universal male suffrage may actually be more detrimental to the State than a census suffrage system that includes a small number of single or widowed women that qualify for voting.
    These systems existed before partisans of democratisation made suffrage universal. In the UK there was the “forty-shilling freeholders” system well before the Enlightenment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There was also the Prussian three-class suffrage system, which was based on indirect representation divided into income classes with those paying higher tax revenues having their voting power multiplied.

      On the other hand, such a system still blurs the distinction between a property-holding tenant and an actual governor, per se. Property did mean governance in political systems based on customary law, land tenure and seigniorial rights (broadly referred to as “feudalism”), but in more industrialized societies property ownership is more akin to being a freeholder within a unified realm. Hence, it seems a more classical estate system of representation with large amounts of subsidiary decentralization (so as to make voting unnecessary in many contexts to begin with) is better suited here.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Actually women have been the sex voting more rightward in Europe and recent trends in voting have made women swing conservative in general (over men) but Roosh has never let facts intrude on a piece of ‘satire’. Just look at recent elections and referenda, and still he …blames women, a majority of the population with enough numbers to swing it. American women are not typical of the world’s supply and Europeans are sick of reading that particular lie. Essentially, he’s arguing to strip low-commitment, low-loyalty r-types of the right to vote, without naming the r-type (because he is one). We used to do that with property requirements, since r-types are nomadic and property taxes were the only taxes (so you vote for where you money goes or don’t vote). That was not equal, but fair. Also, it wasn’t ‘women’s suffrage’ but universal, women’s suffrage is a feminist myth. Learning history is hard when male power-trip fantasy is so much more alluring than looking at the demographics data of recent elections.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s