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

Why Women Destroy Civilizations

I’ve been watching Black Pigeon Speaks. This guy is great. He and I must be reading the same stuff, because I find myself in agreement with him to a large degree. He only has a handful of video out so far, but his production and content are top notch. This is a guy to watch.

His video, Why Women DESTROY NATIONS* and CIVILIZATIONS  (embedded below), is an excellent summation of the consensus that is forming among the Propertarian crowd. The video does a great job at wrapping up the following relationships:

  1. Monogamy (sexual restraint in society) and civilization — Sexual restraint of females is a precursor, a necessary pre-condition, for the creation and maintenance of civilization.
  2. Monogamy (sexual restraint in society) and patriarchy — Patriarchal dominance is necessary for enforcement of sexual restraint, therefore patriarchy is a precursor to monogamy.
  3. Monogamy (sexual restraint in society) and democracy — Women’s suffrage is, in effect, women’s liberation. Women’s liberation is the release of women from sexual restraint, it is the end of patriarchal dominance, and it spells doom for the civilization.

It took thousands of years to build Western civilization, but it only took 100 years of women’s liberation to destroy it. I find myself in agreement with Jack Donovan: it’s time to become the new barbarians. Who cares how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Conquer or die.

Peace was never an option.

#FeministFail

Did you hear the latest outrage?

Some guys just landed a frickin’ spacecraft on a frickin’ comet!

No, that is not what the feminists are outraged about. A lead scientist wore a bowling shirt with sexy cartoons on it. He of course tearfully apologizes, rather than saying Hey, I just landed a frickin’ spacecraft on a frickin’ comet! Go pound sand! If you want attention, then go earn it like I did!

So, rather than this accomplishment (and notable advancement in science) being celebrated as scientific progress, this guy is being torn to shreds in the femo-o-sphere by SJWs for holding back progress. You cannot make this stuff up.

I think what is holding back progress is that feminists are more interested in fashion than in scientific achievement. Isn’t the stereotype of fashion-obsessed-women something they are supposed to be fighting against? #FeministFail

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress