This is benevolent dictatorship.
Roosh has a plan to save Western civilization. It’s not bad. In fact, I’d call it a good start.
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.
“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
Territoriality is hardwired into males, but not females. I’m talking primates here.
In the video above, we see that is the male chimps which patrol, making a circuit of their territory, defining and defending the resources within the territory, including the females. Only males engage in this behavior, which suggests that the behavior is selected for only in males.
Why would the behavior only be selected for in males? From Chimps, Too, Wage War and Annex Rival Territory:
When the enemy is encountered, the patrol’s reaction depends on its assessment of the opposing force. If they seem to be outnumbered, members of the patrol will break file and bolt back to home territory. But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten.
Notice that the males and infants are killed, while the females are generally released. We see this behavior in other animals, such as lions which fight for territory. Once the lion has killed or defeated and run off his rival, he will often kill his rival’s cubs. When chimps kill the infants, this frees the female from having to provide resources to the infant and if she is nursing her milk will dry up. This then allows her to go into estrus sooner. The rival male chimps genes (the infant) are removed from the competition for resources, and the female can be ready to breed that much sooner.
The males are killed, obviously because they are direct competitors for resources and for the females. Expansion of one group into another group’s territory will necessitate the death of most or all of the adult males.
Either way, the females will be bred by the most aggressive and dominant males. Aggression, dominance and territoriality are selected as the genes of the victors (who display these traits) are propagated. The genes of males who are less aggressive, dominant and unable to hold territory are deleted from the gene pool. In this way, territoriality is hardwired into males.
Females, on the other hand, can best propagate their genes by submitting to the victors, even the ones who killed their infants and their infants’ fathers. In this way, lack of territoriality and loyalty is selected for in females. Those females who adapt and submit have their genes propagated, while those who fight and do not submit are more likely to be killed or die from lack of resources.
Females can’t into territory. 😉
To expand this to humans, we see female defense ministers in Europe and female leaders such as Merkel in Germany. And these women do not appear to be doing a great job defending their territory. Instead, they seem to actually be welcoming the mostly fighting-age male ‘refugees’ into their territory. Why would this be? Because it is in the female nature to submit to the most aggressive, dominant and territorial males. They are hardwired for it.
Why is the Arab invasion of Europe so hard for European males to watch? Because it is the males who will be killed and bred out of existence. Their genes will be deleted from the gene pool, as genes for aggression, dominance and territory are selected. While their women will be bred. But, they will have the consolation of being able to write “At Least He Wasn’t a Racist” on their tombstones, before some Arab knocks it over and pisses on it.
European males around the world, face an existential threat from more aggressive, dominant and territorial males invading their territories. There is a reason that there used to be laws against interracial marriage in European countries, because the dominant males of those territories had institutionalized their control over the women in their territories. Then those dominant males were dethroned by whining females and allowed themselves to be cucked by non-Europeans in the countries that their ancestors had built.
European females are not going to stop the invasion of Europe. Only European males have the evolutionary hard-wiring or the evolutionary incentive to do so. Tolerance is an evolutionary dead-end. Anti-racism is an evolutionary dead-end. In chimps and humans, nature rewards aggression, dominance and territoriality in males, and submission and non-territoriality in females. Sure, we can trade with the rest of the world and cooperate profitably, but only if they stay out of our territory. Any males who come into our territories without our permission are fair game.
Happy hunting, fellas!
Philosophies and ideologies are nothing more than post hoc rationalizations of genetic self-interest, as I pointed out in a recent post. I believe this is what Eli is saying when he writes “progressives are always lying, even when they’re telling the truth” or “progressives are always wrong, even when they’re right”. I have Eli’s full post reprinted at the bottom.
It is in the genetic self-interest of some of us to lie. It is in the genetic self-interest of others to tell the truth. Westerners depend on truth, because Western Civilization itself it built on truth. Western Civilization cannot withstand these lies, we have all the evidence we need of this. Humans will serve their genetic self-interest, even when they believe they are telling the truth, but are simply trapped in their own biases and wishful thinking. But not all of us are unintentionally lying. As Eli points out in the post below, some of us use lies as a strategy, where the strategy is to saturate the informational commons with lies, to simply make it too difficult to discern the truth.
On Eli’s post, someone asked the question “What, if changed, would cause a leftist to rethink what they thought they knew to be true?”
The answer to this is that there is no idea or argument that will cause the liars to rethink their strategy. Why? Because truth does not serve their genetic self-interest, that’s why they lie. Lying is profitable for them. However, just because the liars cannot be persuaded via argument to examine their positions honestly, it does not mean that they cannot be persuaded not to lie.
How do we persuade the liars not to lie? By raising the cost of lying. As we incrementally raise the cost of the strategy of proliferating lies, it will alter the calculation of genetic self-interest. Raise the costs of lying high enough, then truth will become more profitable than lies. At this point, the liars will have been persuaded not to lie. There is no other mechanism to achieve this result, because it takes an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than to create bullshit.
How do we raise the cost of lying? Use your imagination. Suffice it to say that this task will be carried out by Dreamy bad boys doing dreamy bad boy things.
Know this dear reader: this is the cost of Western Civilization. The restoration of the Patriarchy and of Western Civilization will be acquired at a price, it cannot be purchased at a discount through clever manipulation of ideas and language.
Here is Eli’s full post on lying as a strategy to saturate the informational commons:
Leftists don’t engage with serious questions or criticism because the left is dishonest, often deliberately so. They rely on frequency and volume to overwhelm the intellectual commons and saturate it with their ideas, making it hard for normal people to wade through all the bullshit to find the truth.
Even for smart people, it’s too cognitively demanding and too time consuming to dispel *all* the bullshit, or find *all* the truth (such as is available anyway.) So it effects even us. That’s why I paint with an extremely broad brush and say things like “progressives are always lying, even when they’re telling the truth” or “progressives are always wrong, even when they’re right” because it’s the only way to immunize myself against their lies (though even that is not foolproof.)
Leftists don’t benefit from serious debate, argument, scrutiny or criticism, because invariably, sooner or latter, it shows them to be not just bankrupt, but duplicitous.
They’re better off looking for some fresh suckers to lie at, than answering tough questions or debating anyone with a clue.
The thought leaders are surely willful in their dishonesty. The rapidity and predictability with which they dishonesty frame issues suggests they know what they are doing.
Most of the rank and file are just dupes and useful idiots. But they are immunized against truth by fractal wrongness. They are so wrong, about so many things, on so many scales and levels of resolution, that to convince them of any particular truth you’d have to start all the way from the beginning. Generally, ain’t nobody got time for that shit.
And it becomes a cascade of self-reinforcing social signaling. They don’t adopt those platitudes and bromides out of logical or emprical rigor, but because those are the kind of things sophisticated and enlightened people think, and say. And that’s what they are, or wish to be, and so that’s what they think and say. To question those platitudes and bromides would be quite unthinkable, because it amounts to much more than questioning a fact, or a theory, but to questioning their very identity, and their loyalty to the group that shares that identity.
Now, much of this is true also of the right. And you will find a lot of stupid, kneejerk, conservatives as well. They have to be. Not everyone is smart enough to have their own opinions. But they follow the cues of their tribe.
The difference, and the tell, is the higher up you go on the intellectual scale, the more serious and sincere you will find conservatives and right wingers, and the less so you will find leftists and progressives.