How To Save Western Civilization

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

The origin of our problems

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

Appeasing women leads to civilizational destruction

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on an tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

The ultimate solution

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirety of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

Conclusion

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.

Read Next: Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men

Related Posts For You

160
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
avatar
  
smilegrinwinkmrgreenneutraltwistedshockunamusedcooleviloopsrazzrollcryeeklolmadsadexclamationquestionideahmmbegwhewchucklesillyenvyshutmouth
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
64 Comment threads
96 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
88 Comment authors
MGTOWCorinth ArkadinMaureen WindischwhortonBeverly Erin Kelly Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Greboada
Guest
Greboada
Offline

I’m afraid that if that worked, Muslim countries would be swimming in gold.

Mark Sweeter
Guest
Mark Sweeter
Offline

I think they are! LOL

UAE… Saudi Arabia.. Dubai… to name a few.

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

All those countries swimming in money, and despite the hoopla over “civil rights” the average citizen in those places are much better off than most Americans. Also its the USA that has the highest incarceration rate in the world, much higher than any of these rich Muslim countries. Even if you factor in capital punishment in these places its still does not make up for what is a prison industrial complex in America.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

The goal isn’t material wealth, and last time I checked, Muslim countries don’t promote homosexuality, abortion, trannies, hookup culture, etc etc.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
Guest

This is why I would love to see you run a Twitter poll with only two options as a thought experiment.

Q: Given no alternative choice, would you rather have a government/culture run by:

a) Feminists/SJWs/LGBTQ and socialist/communists
b) Islam

I think the results will shock even the most rabid anti-Islam thinkers on ROK. When the chips are down, men will go with Islam.

Aurelius
Guest
Aurelius
Offline

Feminist government would be easier to overthrow.

I dont know, i would be an insurgent in either case.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“When the chips are down, men will go with Islam.”
—————
If this new Trumpian revolution thing fails you can bet that’s what men will turn to.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

I think you’re right…

Maureen Windisch
Guest
Maureen Windisch
Offline

If it fails…you mean when it fails…in fact it already is failing. He is a joke. The white house is already apologizing for him. Men who subscribe to this way of thinking are doomed…women are self reliant out of necessity. Sorry you boys don’t see this. Boys that read and believe this should learn to step it up and be the man most women know they can be. Sadly many women have given up on you but I am wishing you all the best in your journey. I believe you can turn things around…peace.

SKR Nadar
Guest
SKR Nadar
Offline

In fact, many are finding masculine solace in Islam.

anon1
Guest
anon1
Offline

the problem is that western traditionalists and chauvinists and muslims have a lot in common with each other but the younger end of muslims got caught up with all the sjw leftist bullshit the colleges told them to think, which soros encouraged to drive a wedge between a pan traditionalist/nationalist view of things. They’re taught bs about the west by far left professors and begin to internalise this bullshit about “Scientific colonialism” and the like. the left has taught young people to think mathematical and science facts are ‘racist’. see-

you are seeing a few hotep type pro trump muslims but its not openly said because they’ll get their shit kicked in by other peeps that prefer perma victim status.

I’d like a pan traditionalist base to occur but realistically it won’t.

The second problem is that with the deus vult revival movement and the geopolitics of the left pushing muslim migrants in without any kind of vetts and checks on compatibility or anything you’re getting a ‘muslims’ from problem regions with a completely backwards view on treatment of women etc being placed in white areas and around vulnerable women.

the sex starved peeps from problem regions where brutality is common bring their ideas back here.

granted its not so abnormal to see the same sort of loutishness on a saturday night outside a nightclub but these people are sober, they don’t have any kind of inebriation led excuse. and they are targeting the young in a way you’d only see in bachi baza [weird fucked up cultural traditions of pederasty in aghanistan] or by elites in political circles or the media [jimmy saville et al]

the thing is on muslims, is that there’s different gradations of people coming in. you can’t say a lebanese muslim or an indian sufi, is going to have the same super strict super authoritarianist view as a wahhabist from saudi or the gulf states.

and while there is a lot of apolitical muslims who maybe very strict with their faith privately, they’re not the ones doing the raping or groping or whatnot that is occurring in places like sweden and rotherham.

similarly there maybe some good muslims from the gulf states as well but its difficult to look at everything on a case by case basis.

i hope there’s a broader pathway between traditionalists from the west and muslim traditionalists to break bread together on, but realistically i don’t think that would happen and the elites certainly don’t want that to happen.

they want to use muslims push them into areas to keep the country in conflict so they can enact further vacuuming up of money and power at the top. they want to specifically allow for illegal immigration of the worst of the rest of the world rather than the many educated legal migrants possibly even from the same areas that are seeking to come in the normal way.

why is this? my only conclusion is that its a practise of deliberate division to keep the elites remaining at the top while society fights amongst itself.

Real talk on where the world is moving:
———————————————-
There’s a war on family, there’s a deliberate scientific, food, water and social policy geared towards increase sterility, infertility and forcing hedonism and individualism over caring for and protecting one’s family and community.

I have no doubt in a few years we’ll learn that wifi signals and other accoutrements we take for granted actually cause impotency. its all part of a plan to weaken the people and reinforce the sick elites at the top.

And don’t even get me started on the normalisation of pedos that the world seems to be doing [first L,G then Trans, next is normalising children as adults capable of consent and then all the slave shit these fat elites are doing in poor 3rd world countries will be be done openly in the west as well]. why was rotherham covered up? probably because the elites do it too, and it was a test case.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

Here’s another one.

Q: Given no alternative choice, would you rather Europe in ten years to be:

(a) Racially European but Muslim religion.
(b) Racially Arab but Christian religion.

I wont speak for anyone but myself on this one, I’d choose (a).

Stadtaffe
Guest
Stadtaffe
Offline

Not sure about that one but if it’s between white ultranationalists and islam I will definitely take the former.

Metin K.
Guest
Metin K.
Offline

“When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest,
And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes,
Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.” (An-Nasr, nasr means help, triumph)

But understand that Islamic countries have problems of their own. Most obvious one in my opinion, again in Koran shortly expressed as:

“Allah will place defilement upon those who will not use reason.” (Jonah 10:100)

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Plus there are many variants of Patriarchy as evident in history. Some work far better than others.

anon1
Guest
anon1
Offline

though this is true, iran forces their gays to turn into post-op trannies which i always thought was indicative of a rather dark sense of humour by the peeps in charge at the top.

no its not castrations, its just ‘gender reassignment’. libs don’t know what to make of it

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/11/05/report-iran-forcing-gays-and-lesbian-into-gender-reassignment-surgery/

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Why Muslim Patriarchy is so dysfunctional in comparison with other Patriarchies like Christianity:

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

That is a picture of Freud on the left, and he was a Jew, most of the Jews have been working against the interests of traditional patriarchy, they completely turned western society upside down with feminism.

DearLife
Guest
DearLife
Offline

Aren’t you muslim, Roosh?

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Islam isn’t the only historical Patriarchy. Christianity has been a Patriarchy most successful until recently.

Not all Patriarchies are equal.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Muhammad effectively had no Father hence why Islamic Patriarchy is so dysfunctional:

Murky water
Guest
Murky water
Offline

dude do you realize the guy in this video tried to kill his own father with a hammer?

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

He repented. But that doesn’t change the facts.

Murky water
Guest
Murky water
Offline

The truth is the master and we are the slave. That’s reality. The truth should not be characterized as a father figure, that makes no sense. We are forced into existence and eventually we will be forced out of it. We are slaves.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

I think you are missing the point of the video.

Murky water
Guest
Murky water
Offline

It is no secret that Islam ended the concept of trinity. God used Muhammad as his messenger to end the trinity, as it was leading us astray. Now we worship God as one- no father or son, just the Holy Spirit.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

If we are flatlanders. Then the Trinity is akin to a 3d object passing through the flatland. We don’t see the complete picture.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

Neither did Germany, UK and the rest of Europe at the height of our power, or the U.S. in the greatest moment of its economic history have women suffrage…

DJohnson
Guest
DJohnson
Offline

That is an erroneous comparison. The muslim culture is completely different. Prior to sufferage, American/Western men had utmost respect for women and treated them “MORE THAN EQUALLY” on a social/family basis! Cop a clue. You have to look deeper into the facts than your dopey superficial statement.

A. Petros
Guest
A. Petros
Offline

You are beating me to it Roosh. I’m currently making a documentary covering some of these aspects. What is unexpected (or expected depending on how red pilled you are) is that the original suffrage movement acted like modern day antifa. They caused petty vandalism, terrorist themed attacks, public threats and were well funded by unknown individuals.

There were also red pilled men that fought against the movement. They knew exactly what would happen and predicted the predicament we are in now.

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“the original suffrage movement acted like modern day antifa”
—————————
Yes, the left has always been violent.
It’s just that their image had always been protected by a professional media class acting in their best interests.
But now with broadband and cameras everywhere people, for the first time, are seeing them for what they really are.
I think that’s the real reason the right is making a comeback.
Not because the internet uncensors the right (as is commonly believed) but instead because it uncensors the left.

Stadtaffe
Guest
Stadtaffe
Offline

People used to theorise about what would happen if restrictions were relaxed, genies were let out of their bottles. The doom-sayers were brushed aside as old-fashioned but it really has unleashed something and is hard to stuff it back in

Laguna Beach Fogey
Guest
Laguna Beach Fogey
Offline

I can get on board with this. Taking away the female vote is much more radical than most in the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite are willing to go, so well done.

Aurelius
Guest
Aurelius
Offline

Even when I was a conservative I was all like women shouldnt vote.

Melissa Jane
Guest
Melissa Jane
Offline

Should gay men have the right to vote? They are often more effeminate, dramatic, and whiny than most females today.

Plus, they buy dildos and cats too.

A. Petros
Guest
A. Petros
Offline

Leviticus 20:13

Melissa Jane
Guest
Melissa Jane
Offline
A. Petros
Guest
A. Petros
Offline

I’m gonna add that to the list:

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”
Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.

Homosexuals recorded a mean of 1.9 sexual partners in the last month (SD 3.4).
(Landovitz et al., J Urban Health. Aug 2013; 90(4): 729–739.)

“(48 %) of the participants reported drug or alcohol use during sex in the past month, and among those, 91.7 % reported alcohol use at the time of sex, 59.7 % marijuana use, 34.8 % amyl nitrate or other inhalants, 30.4 % ecstasy (MDMA), 27.1 % cocaine, and 14.4 % methamphetamine.”
(Landovitz et al., J Urban Health. Aug 2013; 90(4): 729–739.)

Only 4.5% of homosexual males report sexual fidelity.
(McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170)

in the precious 6 months, 46% of male homosexuals had 2 to 10 partners, 20% had 11 to 50, and 5.6% had 50 or more sexual partners.
(Paul Van de Ven, et. al., Queensland Gay Community Periodic Survey: June 1999. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Social Research, 1999, 18.)

“While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men” CDC Fact Sheet
28500 homosexual males contracted HIV in 2010. Now contrast that to heterosexual males ~3800. Considering homosexual males account for 4% of men, that is a HUGE discrepancy.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Originally only men of property were allowed to vote. Or men who were hoplites in Ancient Greece.

Its not a free for all even for men.

Melissa Jane
Guest
Melissa Jane
Offline

Something has to change. A radical change, because the society we have now is awful. It’s a dysgenic society that cannot possibly be sustained much longer.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Rolling back welfare will do wonders.

Eric
Guest
Eric
Offline

Heinlein suggested (in his book Starship Troopers) that service in the military should be a prerequisite to the right to vote. There’s some wisdom there . . .

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Unless the military is utterly pozzed.

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

No voting for gays. Sodomy laws should be reinstated State by State, and enforced the moment some one leaves their house and proclaims they are a pervert.

Slashfund
Guest
Slashfund
Offline

need to get rid of general voting, submissive and emotional women are too perfect as voters for candidates not to include them

AwesomeSauce
Guest
AwesomeSauce
Offline

All democracies end with one side becoming a demonstrable majority then oppressing & genocide-ing the minority. Before Obama left office he said on an interview with a Yahoo journalist, “regardless of Trump, America will become a browner country”. In other words, ticktock cracka ticktock…

Maximus Decimus Meridius
Guest

Roosh… well thought out post and something I concluded a while back. I also think this is going to come to be reality faster than you think. It will either be a take over by conservative, traditional nationalists that will take power BECAUSE the destruction of feminism/LGBT will be impossible to ignore any longer. When that happens, taking away the vote will be a gimme. And if this does not happen, Islam is coming and will do the job in the end. I prefer the former, but won’t reject the latter when it happens.

Aurelius
Guest
Aurelius
Offline

I need an answer to this question:

Is game simply the practice of passing shit tests?

Chris Nystrom
Guest
Chris Nystrom
Offline

No.

Michael Maier
Guest
Michael Maier
Offline

My great-grandparents were RETARDS for letting bitches get the vote. It’s been all shit since.

temmy9 .
Guest
temmy9 .
Offline

You cannot save the dead.

We do not live in the west. We live in the antiwest. Lets destroy the antiwest, then build a new west with they best of the old west.

whorton
Guest
whorton
Offline

Where is John Galt when you need him?

evilwhitemalempire
Guest
evilwhitemalempire
Offline

“Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed.”
—————-
Conservatives consistently overlook the primary cause of liberalism.
Women.
Not dykes or even feminists per se.
Just ordinary women.

Todd
Guest
Todd
Offline

A similar thing happens in Houellebecq’s Submission, where the peaceful Islamic takeover of France uses the elimination of women’s suffrage to act as a stabilizer. Heavily indebted France instantly gets an economic boost when all women are barred from industry and university. Wages go up, and the population is assured of a demographic reversal now that women are forced to become mothers again. The fertility crisis ends, and the future of Muslim France is secure.

Not sure if the 19th amendment can be reversed in America as everything is too fractured on all fronts. Roosh- do you think a balkanized state with a strongman, and a return to patriarchy and tradition without Islam can occur in parts of America? Also what European countries are most likely to attempt to save their civilization? Very difficult to predict the future as the last year has shown, but very difficult to see this playing out without a giant economic collapse/Islamization occuring in the West.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

Good questions, I’ll think about them.

zbyszek
Guest
zbyszek
Offline

Country gets an economic boost as half of the labor force are barred from work and wages go up? This is absolute nonsense and ignorance.

Examples abound. Japan’s economic depression since 1990 happened partly because the women have been kept out of the labor force. In the US, the last time an attempt was made to massively pump up real wages was during FDR’s New Deal and resulted in remarkably weak recovery from the great depression prior to 1939.

I understand that you guys may advocate certain policies at the expense of economic growth and material well-being. But don’t invent bullshit, just like Trump telling his blind supporters during the debate that he’ll make the US grow by 6% and more per year.

Todd
Guest
Todd
Offline

Read my first paragraph again. I stated “In Houellebecq’s Submission,” which is a fictional story. All of the things mentioned are what the Islamists claimed would happen as a consequence from barring women from the workforce. There was initial rejection, followed by submission as they felt it would boost wages and reduce debts/costs, among other benefits. A small segment of the novel, where the more important themes are the impotence of the French population and indifference/latent enthusiasm for the new order. Read the book for further understanding.

redpillyogi
Guest

Japan has arguably the most advanced society on this god forsaken planet. More fake news there pal. Venezuela is a great example of a country in an economic depression, not Japan.

barrowsron .
Guest
barrowsron .
Offline

Agree that the US had a weak recovery in the Great Depression. But it is interesting studying the German economic experience in the 1930s. Their economy was similarly bad in 1933 with unemployment over 30%.

But unlike United States, they hit full employment in 4 years after 1933. Birth rates boomed. Household consumption. Stock market. Farm output – everything I’ve seen so far has been positive.

What did Germany do from 1933-1937? Massive public infrastructure spending, taking Germany off the gold standard, large 0% interest marriage loans/subsidies to encourage family formation, national health insurance.

I’m definitely not on the “Hitler did nothing wrong” meme. Hitler did almost everything else wrong.

But I’m having a hard time finding a good libertarian counter argument that German economic policy in the 1930s was bad.

Everything I find is “evil racist Nazi!” or “socialists stealing money!” rather than an actual argument against the methods Germany used to create material well-being and economic growth for its people pre-1939.

If you want to argue the ethical implications against large government intervention in the economy like that of 1930s Germany, that’s fair. But I’ve yet to see someone tell me why German policies were ineffective, or rather, weren’t as effective as they appear to have been.

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

If women were kicked out of the work force, owners would have to pay the workers twice as much- as they would have to innovate and work harder…The jap women were never IN the work force.

That’s not inventing bullshit, that’s supply and demand, numbnuts.

Melissa Jane
Guest
Melissa Jane
Offline

Women in Islam were at one time looked upon as teachers and scholars of the hadiths. They were used within Islamic society for upholding the spiritual and educational needs of the community. It isn’t like that so much anymore,

This particular book details the history.comment image

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

We would not want Islamic Patriarchy. Its highly dysfunctional due to the fact that its founder did not actually have a Father to model his Patriarchy after:

Cynthianna Sparre
Guest
Cynthianna Sparre
Offline

I would gladly forfeit my right to vote in order to gain the societal rewards this article talks about. Hell, I already only vote the way my husband does, anyway.

MCGOO
Guest
MCGOO
Offline

That’s a good call to make – – “repeal women’s suffrage”. I hear no one else saying outright to BAN women’s suffrage, not anywhere on the left-right spectrum. But it is true the woman vote must be rescinded. It is the ultimate and true position to adhere to. Stick to this position like it was gorilla tape.

When women vote, they always end up voting for the ‘pussy pass’, when in truth the pussy pass should never even be put forth as an option any more than a ballot should be offered voting yay or nay whether or not to burn civilization to the ground and blow the place up. It is proven insanity to let women decide on any matters larger than my thumb. The pussy pass translates to roughly the same thing as incinerating the planet while howling like insane banshees. It is the most perfect madness. No liquor or drugs can ever do that to mankind, only women loosed from the grip of men. Woman cannot navigate space or traverse in three consecutive points in a straight line. She needs the straight edge rule OF MAN to move with her species within the universe. OBSERVE a group of woman independently moving anywhere and the place looks like a wobbly vertigo outbreak. Sounds and vision blur like a hallucinogen was in effect. The place appears as an insane asylum. But it is only woman run amok. STOP HER and put her under man’s rule and voila you see no insane asylum. It was only the thrashings and lamentations of the vagabond female. It was only the woman’s retrograde and rudderless tailspinning.

IN MAN’S HAND and confined within his grip, there is divine order and the woman blossoms. She is the sweet nectar of mankind’s pollination.
BUT LOOSED and wild she is putrid rotten fruit. She scorches everything she touches and the Earth becomes maddened and looks like a dying chuck of charcoal in space. Under woman rule mankind dies and woman rules like a soulless alpha hairless ape. But under the custodianship of man the earth lives and blossoms green with the woman strapped and yoked by the divine rule of the patriarch. With woman properly straightjacketed, mankind can then step off the plane of Earth and evolve higher. He ascends and graduates at last. You see, we humans were placed here on Earth in the first place to conquer the bitch and contain her madness. That’s why we mustn’t fail.

Robert17
Guest
Robert17
Offline

The real problem is single women voting goodies for themselves out of the treasury. Restrict the vote to the married, widowed and those serving in the military.

AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

That makes sense! I would also add that the voting age needs to be raised.

jimmy
Guest
jimmy
Offline

That’s the quickest and easiest thing we could accomplish. By raising it to 35 for example we would stop women in their 20s getting to distort everything.

Then we can move on to stopping single women voting.

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

So in short, it was never your fault to begin with? As always, blame someone else, instead of realizing your own shortcomings. According to you, women are like water, which is to say, they merely reflect their environment, taking on its form. As such then, they can never be at the pole of the cause, only that of the effect. Which would mean that the cause is in the degeneration of western man himself. Women are merely following suit. Given that that is the case, have you personally succeeded in identifying what this specific degeneration is within western man himself, and thus offering a remedy to it? Given your frenetic and highly inconsistent posts, I doubt it. To me, the funniest one was when you alleged that an “agent of lucifer” had been influencing you and causing you to further promote promiscuity among western men via the publishing of your books ” bang “. So:

1. You allege that women are like water, essentially removing any sense of agency from them. How then can any of their actions be at the root cause of your problems??They have no agency, no?

2. Given 1., then the root cause is found in western man, whose vices you only encourage and cultivate. You encourage him to use whatever little intellect he has left to satisfy his instincts. His mind has descended to his stomach and genitals. [game, being a man-whore, your ” bang” series, etc.]

3. You appear to be lost in a sort of conceptual schism. On the one hand, western man should take advantage of the degeneracy around him (even though he is the cause of it) and at the same time, he should try to fight it (how? well by blaming women of course. Western man whom you seem to lust for is after all infallible according to you!)

And on and on it goes. People are stupid and eat shit so long as you wrap it with a golden bow. Your entire franchise is shit, and the golden bow you’ve used to wrap it with is the advocating of the supremacy of the western man. I don’t know whether to commend you for taking advantage of their stupidity and making a living out of it, or to punch you in the face for being a jerk >D.

AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

Wait a minute. There could be something to Roosh’s point. Many of the expansions of national (federal) government power, which came through the Progressive Amendments (16, 17, 18, and 19) and congressional legislation, came at a time when women possessed suffrage in a majority of the states. By the time the 19th Amendment was ratified, women had the right to vote in national elections in 34 of the 48 states. Before you dismiss Roosh’s argument, I think you ought do some research.

I’m not completely on board with the blame women’s suffrage argument but I do find favor with the idea that women are more likely to support policies which expand the power of central government which undermines individual freedom. Prohibition was a women’s movement.

I also believe that a major problem is the form of government formed by the Constitution. Prior to ratification, the Articles of Confederation formed a national government which derived power from the States. After ratification, the Constitution formed a national government with the powers to both grow in size, power, and complexity AND, take away power from the States. Or put simply, the Constitution formed a national government in which States would eventually derive power from the national government.

And then there is the 10th Amendment which is supposed to serve as a barrier to government encroachment upon the power of the States. That was doomed to failure because the Constitution’s general body gave national government the power to encroach upon that amendment, and the preceding 9. The 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, had few meaningful enforcement mechanisms. In other words, the Constitution’s general body is powerfully weighted against the Bill of Rights. What we have to day is the result of this configuration which gave expression to women’s tendency to support expansions of national government power. Indeed, there may be something to be said about Roosh’s anti-suffragist claims!

History lends support to Roosh’s argument. I however, also factor the breathtaking expansion of national government power that resulted from the ratification of the Constitution. I see validity in the Roosh’s argument but, at the same time, I think the greater problem is the amount of power granted to the national government by the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists, I believe, were right.

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

You are merely repeating what he says, without addressing any of the points that I raise. I’ve addressed the points he has raised by pointing out their logical inconsistency with some of the main views he has, especially the failure in properly identifying the cause of all this. Please go through and address what I said, especially the three points that I raised, and then let’s have a candid discussion about it if you want.

AlFromBayShore
Guest
AlFromBayShore
Offline

The only thing I am repeating, or agreeing with, is Roosh’s idea that women support expansive government policies; that when women were permitted the right of suffrage (whether on the state or national level) they voted for such policies. The experience of American history supports this. Are you going to argue that women, as a constituency, do not vote in favor of expansive government policies?

My response to you was pointing out my agreement on that particular issue, and to introduce a feature of our national government which enabled voting preferences formed as a result of suffrage. Suffrage made it possible for women to pursue expansionist preferences at the ballot box.

My “repeating”, which is an agreement, ends there for I also blame the way our national government was reconfigured after the ratification of the Constitution. This reconfiguration provided our national government with the “tools and instruments” to encroach upon the rights of the States. This eventually happened and the United States government has evolved into a consolidated union in which state governments are becoming administrative centers of Washington, D.C. The experience of American history supports this.

In my opinion, the Articles of Confederation provided structural checks upon voting patterns that undermine the rights of the States – barriers used to protect individual rights. The Constitution, on the other hand, provided only parchment (legal) barriers to these voting preferences. Women, as a voting bloc, tend to support national policies that undermine the limited sovereignty of the States provided by federalism. Suffrage created a big government constituency that was enabled by the expansive tools embedded in the Constitution.

The Articles, in my opinion, would have done a better job at “checking” the big government (statist) tendencies of big government constituencies. Women are a big government constituency. The greater share of blame, in my opinion, belongs with the government formed by the Constitution. Do not read this to mean that I believe that women’s voting preferences are not a factor.

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

Alright, fair enough, I appreciate the civil response. But it still does not address any of the points that I have personally raised. If women are incapable of agency then even in those days are they not a reflection of the men as well as the prevailing environment that they lived in? Thus the degeneracy goes back much further than today. The men of those days were already degenerates even though it’s to a lesser degree than the men of today. The women and their actions merely reflected this.

Which brings us back to the main point: that the cause is a degeneration within western man himself whose beginning isn’t at all recent. Going back to ” the way things were those days ” is simply going back to a lesser degeneration and does not cure and do away with the degeneration itself.

It also brings me to another point: that one big issue with the ” manosphere ” is the inability to take responsibility for the state of the west today. It’s always someone else: blacks,Jews,women,Muslims and so on. It’s even evident in Roosh himself who tried to explain his promotion of this degeneracy among men by placing blame on an ” agent of lucifer ” who apparently manipulated him into promoting the vices that continue to destroy the west as a whole today. Isn’t that funny? According to Roosh, it’s also not his fault that he wrote/writes(?) his bang series. It’s always someone else who is at fault…

JuanPeron
Guest
JuanPeron
Offline

I can only hope that despite your name being “dude” that you’re actually a female trolling this site. If you are indeed male, I strongly suggest you read a prior post about low testosterone levels.

dude
Guest
dude
Offline

I am a man, who has pointed out the logical inconsistencies in the entire “ROK” franchise and its failure at providing any valid solution to the prevailing problem in the west. Your personal attacks at me won’t make up for what you lack: which is the ability to logically provide counter arguments to all that I’ve raised. Since in the “manosphere” you are all fond of pointing out that women are incapable of logic, and given your failure at displaying any logic, I’d say that you’re the one who needs to check his testosterone levels, if you are insinuating that mine are low.

jst4fun
Guest
jst4fun
Offline

I liked this post, but not the obvious hostility it projects. You may have pointed out a flaw or some flaws with Roosh’s arguments but that doesn’t invalidate some of the honest and truthful observations he makes. The part about blaming women is a good observation. They are not exclusively to blame. Both men and women share the blame. But at least you agree that there has been a degeneration of society. You admit that somethings from the past were better and there is a problem that needs a solution. To answer your question, the degeneration of men..and women for that matter, is the inability to effectively assimilate new technologies, like “the pill” and machines into society. There have been negative affects that give us, as a society, the choice to follow healthy or unhealthy behaviors. We had less choice before, because of biology, men had to work and women raise the family. Today, not true. Our available choices, were geared toward a healthy family. An example, before the Atom bomb, we had no choice, wars would never lead to global annihilation. Today, every conflict is a choice not to destroy humanity through using a technology that has the capability.

Rafael Alva
Guest
Rafael Alva
Offline

Women currently compose 55% of the electorate. What ways do you suggest convincing them? Should we draft them and see how they like equality?

Sean Toddington
Guest
Sean Toddington
Offline

Some of them get it – for example Pudgy, sorry Judgy Bitch has a piece where she argues women shouldn’t have the vote. Bur you’re right, achieving this via democratic means could be problematic.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

No need to convince. Just do it. What are they going to do?

No More Fakery
Guest
No More Fakery
Offline

No need to convince. Just do it. What are they going to do?

They’d shriek and complain but after a while they’d just sulk and finally accept the new dispensation. Succeeding generations of females would not remember the gynolatrous ancien regime, and would not hanker after it.

The bigger question is who is going to “just do it”? Personally, I’ve long thought that women’s suffrage should be repealed, but whenever I’ve mentioned it to other men, they say, “Ooh, I don’t know about that!”

As usual, the real problem is brainwashed men…

Maureen Windisch
Guest
Maureen Windisch
Offline

The boys here seem hopelessly lonely…sad.

JuanPeron
Guest
JuanPeron
Offline

The right to vote should be limited to males who pass a literacy test and have a W2 from the previous tax year. Once that happens, things will turn around SO quickly in this country and we’ll avoid what appears to be the ultimate demise of Western Civilization.

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

Yeh, sure- proof from the IRS that I paid the vagina/nigger jobs program…

Bryan King
Guest
Bryan King
Offline

What do you think about a modification to the 19th, to allow only property owning single women to vote?

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

It would help, but still only go halfway.

Novos Imperator
Guest
Novos Imperator
Offline

Fantastic work as always Roosh, the suffrage movement was indeed one of the major spearheads to the rise of far-leftism in the Western world. As many positives as repealing this act would have, I don’t think that’s an incredibly realistic goal in North America & UK for the near future. For them to see the destructive effects of unsustainable birth rates, we would have to cut off all third world immigration which would throw leftists into a fit of hysteria stemming from their complete lack of will to live & sustain their culture. I think a broader change of values from within is necessary.

Islamism is most certainly NOT the answer. Western Patriarchy differs greatly with Middle-Eastern Patriarchy and ours is far superior. A modern Western patriarchy would be a place of discovery and artistic expression, but also where the women of the nation state would not turn their backs on their biological duty to create and nurture life in sustainable amounts. An Islamist patriarchy is simply a Theocracy where nobody is free and the aristocrats have more control over the general public than they do in the West (it’s hard to imagine that being possible).

My ideal is 19th century England, the peak of the greatest Empire humanity has ever birthed. The economy was booming, major advancements in science and technology were frequent, and married couples were having an average of 6 children per family. Even London, the urban center of the entire world was experiencing a 2% population growth/year.

I have deep faith in the possibility that we can achieve a balance between the modernity of urban life coupled with patriarchal values that keep our society sustainable and strong. The way to do this is not necessarily to take away women’s right to vote (although that would help a shitload), but support intelligent and free thinking communities like this one and RoK that seek to pursue truth. Eventually they will have to concede that their ways are wrong… they HAVE to be wrong, not a single country that supports feminism is sustainable outside of immigration from patriarchal nations. That fact alone crushes the entire neo-feminist agenda.

I think maybe we need a version of RoK that’s targeted to women so we can properly frame things for them. That way they can come down from the mountain of nonsense they’ve climbed on top of.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

“I think maybe we need a version of RoK that’s targeted to women so we can properly frame things for them. ”

I agree. I’m in the early planning stages for such a project.

Stadtaffe
Guest
Stadtaffe
Offline

I wish I could get wake up my girlfriend to red pill values before her lefty ways cause us to break up, but am not willing to show her this website as much as I like it. Must be some books around for this..

John Freeman
Guest
John Freeman
Offline

That will only get us halfway there. Mass media and liberal males are massive contributors to the social ruin we have suffered. As long as you have a hostile alien elite in control of all mass media, beta males will always be persuaded to vote against themselves.

Matt North
Guest
Matt North
Offline

This is stupid. Women should be able to vote but men should not put up with women who post endless pics of themselves brag about being single mom on welfare. Keep shatting out kids with no fathers. Too lazy to work or clean or cook or take care of kids. Stop watching shows or buys products frim companies that advocate feminist bs or make fun or project men in negative light

BOSSDONMAN .
Guest
BOSSDONMAN .
Offline

All of those ailments you listed (read this part carefully and thoroughly) CAN ONLY be fixed by revoking women’s right to vote.

Jed Mask
Guest
Jed Mask
Offline

“How To Save Western Civilization”

Hmmm… That’s a simple one: bring back the *BIBLE* (King James Version Holy Bible) as the cornerstone of society.

God Is Waiting… Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

No More Fakery
Guest
No More Fakery
Offline

Amen, brother.

Whenever I get so sick of this sewer that I wish I’d not been born, I go and read a passage like Deuteronomy 22, and remind myself how God wants society to be ordered.

One day He will sort this mess out, even if we don’t.

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

Godliness with contentment is great gain.

Hank Davis
Guest
Hank Davis
Offline

I don’t think you’ll eliminate women’ suffrage through your vote. You are better off supporting a dictator to clear house and then, on his deathbed, grant suffrage to property owning native males.

honzik
Guest
honzik
Offline

Roosh, one of the main issues that is at the heart of the destruction of the West is the deep wounding of monogamy, through no-fault divorce, contraception and abortion fueled promiscuity, normalization (or even celebration) of single parenthood and homosexual unions, easy welfare, serial or even de facto polygamy, etc.

Because of this, the normal operation of monogamy, that is, the pairing off and marriage of young woman and men ranked roughly by SMV, has been thwarted. The first consequence of this is bitter, lonely, and/or alienated people. Long term, however, we’ll start to see all the pathologies of polygamous societies set in: aggression and violence, particularly sexual violence, societal distrust, tribalism, endemic lying and cheating, consanguineous marriages, and even, perhaps, genetic adaptations for violence, impulsiveness, and irrationality (e.g., MAOA-2R prevalence).

As the society changes, these pathologies will prevent the operation a western-type society, with its conditional freedoms and implicit call for moral self-restraint, because those adapted to polygamist culture will use freedom to exploit others for SMV or tribal gain, leading to chaos. Laws will become more draconian and governments will become more authoritarian.

In short, the kernel of every high civilization is the family unit based on monogamy. Anything that seeks to destroy this, seeks to destroy that civilization.

MCGOO
Guest
MCGOO
Offline

The term ‘polygamy’ vaguely refers to more than one spouse. Polygyny is one man/2+ women and polyandry is one woman/2+ males. Polyamory is one person simply ‘involved’ with 2+ people and could include the LGBT multiple notch lifestyle and is the closest runner up to the atomized culture of Babylon or of Romans having orgies during their fall.

What we have with the pussy pass and the proliferation of the divorce rape industry is effectively or ‘defacto’ as you say polyandry where one woman controlls the resources of several divorce raped men. The trailer park queen comes to mind with the divorcee who has multiple diamond wedding rings on every finger and a slew of Cadillacs from dead husbands strewn about the premisis. Also one single female slut carouselling is polyamory bordering on polyandry depending on how much sustinence she extrapolates from the males. A legal marriage certificate isn’t required to define polyandry if she takes full advantage of the legal pussy passes and is skilled in sexual manipulation with a plurality of males.

Feminism aims to deflower girls young making them unmarryable, hardened and learned in the art of controlling multiple men with their faculties, facets and orifaces. An ideal feminized woman was educated young in how to make the booty call and also how to execute termination and dispatch of the male much like the preying mantis that bites the head off the male as the ‘signal’ that she has been sufficiently ‘fertilized’.

Welfare whore single mothers often set their daughters up with a series of boyfriends which are vetted bums or ‘motherfuckers’ (referring to men who fuck welfare ‘mothers’) and then they instruct their daughters how and when to execute the chopping block. It is preying mantis training from mother to daughter and is required by the state to maintain occupancy in subsidized mixed race welfare breeding hives or ‘colonies’. Tax base strata communities are also pinned with predatory jurisdiction given to wider reaching family courts but in the projects they own your lifestyle.

Your arguments against ‘polygamy’ are only partially correct. True, no woman should have more than one man. No stable family is sustainable with a ‘used’ woman. Go virgin.

But about the polygyny – or one man having two wives – this should not be persecuted. It is biblical. Two wives make a very strong family unit that is resistant to intrusion and attack from outsiders. Aside from state persecution, the polygynous union of one man with two loyal and cohabitating female breeders is resilient against all other forms of natural threats.

The argument with many that it’s not ‘fair’ for a man to hog all the women is a moot point. Two wives makes raising offspring and securing shelter 300% more successful because down time for the man is eliminated completely. ‘Down time’ is when the man has to drop everything and stop work for the woman having a false alarm in labor or any other errand she has to juggle. The sister wife keeps her company constantly and sisterwives never abandon their nests with a note saying “gone to my mother’s to get some space”. The divorce rape industry and the women’s advocacy nanny state goons can’t get their foot in the door when the girls sit at the table and all parties settle clan issues internally. No one is left alone to go crazy for 8 hrs every day. Just keep the dildos away from them and keep them spanked, pounded and stuffed when you get home. They’re YOURS remember, and it’s no extra stretch of a fit man to keep them both ‘wiggie wiggied’.

Three is a magic number and with no ‘down time’, manly house and car projects are years ahead of the guy that has to fetch diapers on bald tires and 10000 mile sludge for oil. But luckily for the ‘two wife’ man, the 67 Chevelle sparkles in the garage and he gets to bed early, balls always drained, while the monogamons man sweats divorce rape threats if he can’t start the broken mower with kitchen drawer tools as it’s getting dark and she’s on the rag, no sex this week, and she’s screaming and beating the poor kid in the bathtub to sit down. The bitch finna snap. Expect a surprise when you come home from work the next day.

A sister wife always has an available hole, no menstrual ‘down time’ for the man and there’s always a helping hand for the child rearing woman. I can’t stress this enough. Plus they watch each other’s backs. They watch out for the predatory state and mandated reporter snitches.

There are plenty of women out there for the productive and industrious men who wish to build a patriarchal clan. The building blocks are there. No one is ‘stealing’ women away from the lesser men who are bums, infidel men or effeminate losers. They forefit the excess that graces the two wife men. They don’t want that extra woman you take. They’re omegas that would settle for a robot or mgtows that would settle for a prostitute or slut. Fine. But western man must get building the branch western tribes and the market says virgin women are on the grab. Keep them pure and straight by the divine order of the Patriarchy. Straight like a shishkabob. Take two man!!

(plus ‘just one woman’ will eat you mind and body eventually – you know that. You will morph into half of what she is. With two wives there’s physics involved, negative transfer of energies cancells and you land on a machine that was invented long ago but outlawed by the controlling state. There are natural and dynamic interactions, like a balanced dynamo and YOUR DICK is the fulcrum!)

Hail the patriarchy!

Graft
Guest
Graft
Offline

There is only one way for this to be accomplished: force.

There is no chance of over half the electorate voting their rights away.

The west will either face internal destruction where men will rise from the ashes and take control, or it will be slowly outbred by traditional patriarchies.

The question is: when will the male crisis hit critical mass and cause mass destruction, mayhem, and civil disobedience? Who will lead the fight? Will enough men voluntarily conscript themselves towards a violent war to regain control of women’s rights?

feminism is stupid
Guest
feminism is stupid
Offline

This woman began a relationship with a rapist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39201219

dr strange
Guest
dr strange
Offline

She was in a relationship with a rapist, and then she got raped? Strange, to say the least.

yolomofo
Guest
yolomofo
Offline

Your thesis has many counterexamples – Asian countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Indonesia have female suffrage yet don’t suffer from feminism, sjws and collapse of the family unit like the West. Their cultures are extremely patriarchal and traditional and have great respect for the authority of the “man of the house”. So female suffrage can’t be the main problem. Yes these countries have other social ills, but that’s off topic. Why do females in these countries don’t vote for feminism and unlimited sexual market freedom? You have to dig deeper.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

“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.”

Nick
Guest
Nick
Offline

A compelling article. If the 19th Amendment were to be repealed though it would mean that the vacuum of masculinity and traditionalism that the West is facing has been filled. 2/3 of both houses of Congress would have to approve the repeal. I could sooner see America breaking up into separate nations before that happens.

We can’t forget the adage “politics is downstream from culture”. If the West is to be saved and regenerated it’s in the generations-long process of cultural change. This “one weird trick to save the West” is a provocative thought experiment, but I think an immigration moratorium is a far more realistic way to blunt the socialist-progressive vote. Since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, America’s decline has been on the fast track.

Indispen
Guest
Indispen
Offline

Can we be satanist in business and catholic in personal life. This means having a complet lack of morals only in business?

Murky water
Guest
Murky water
Offline

secularism is giving us serious cognitive dissonance.

jimmy
Guest
jimmy
Offline

An exellent article, thank you for writing it. A few thoughts I had.

Until not very long ago, almost all educated men – and many women too – would have agreed with keeping women away from politics. Plenty of women were against women voting. Right now feminism is everywhere, particular in business, media and government. But things do change.

In particular structures that deny basic human realities eventually crumble. They will oftne build huge oppressive structures to maintain themselves but ultimately cannot change human nature. Look at the USSR – a brutal tyranny built on the idea of all men being equal. Feminism, the even sillier idea of men and women being equal, faces eventually the same problem as did communism; sooner or later people come face to face with reality.

I was particularly struck when you mentioned about the other, often unintended consequences, of allowing women into politics such as lower academic standards. This is very important. It again is something that would have been obvious to all educated men until the beginning of the 20th century. Women have many qualities but rationality and logic are not among them. Once you let women into an institution they start to change it. Everything becomes about emotions and feelings and not abstracts, their way of rationalising thigns will start to rot said institution. Irrationality becomes the order of the day. A good example would be how I keep reading women now saying about how awful it was that their great grandmother couldn’t vote. Yet in most of the world in that era, or perahps one geenration earlier most men couldnt vote. But that’s forgotten as the whole thigns becomes about attention seeking. Feeligns outrank facts with women and always will. (And that’s not a bad thing when it comes to women being happy and raising balanced children either – it’s just a terrible thing to bring it into politics)

Most of all I am struck by the harm done to women by bringing women into politics. A small handful of strange women who wanted to pursue careers in politics and the media have managed to brign a social change where millions of ordinary women feel pressured to work instead of raising their children. This makes women unhappy. And on a higher level the feminists hurt women by pushing policies for mass immigration. Feminists are simply women who are angry with men, often men like their fathers, which is why so amny hate white men despite white men being the group who treated women with the most kindness. We saw it with the migrant invasion of Europe. There, old fashioned men warned agaisnt it. They were dismissed as “racist” (the whole virtue signalling thing is purely about women and feminine men flaunting their “virtue”) but Merkel, reacted as a woman to that photo of a drowned child. She reacted emotionally and pursued a policy that meant a) more drowned children and b) European women would be raped. But none of that mattered because she wanted to be seen as nice. Again that’s not a bad thign among women; it just shouldn’t be in politics.

What can we do? I don’t know. But I am sure that historians one day will look back at the warnings about women voting, then see the collapse of western civilisation that followed, and wonder: How did people not see the connection and try to put it right? But that, the study of how civilisations fall, is really a story for another day and feminism is just one aprt, perhaps the crucial part of it.

It’s a cliché but true that the first step to solving a problem is recognising it. We should relentlessly point out the damage done by feminism and open the eyes of others to it.

Thanks again for this article. One day, when the normal order of things is restored, you might even find it gets a mention in a few social histories!

disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Guest
disqus_2015ScorpioWater
Offline

The media keeps talking about International Woman’s Day and the Women’s March in the US, but the fact remains that 53 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. So these protests are nothing more than nonsense. Trump got a majority of white female voters, and that is among all age groups. So women should be blaming themselves if Trump is working against their interests.

Eric
Guest
Eric
Offline

I agree 100% with Roosh but can’t envision a repeal of women’s suffrage. Such a repeal would fix many things, but it’s a pipe dream. Our grandchildren will be left with a dystopian future where a military figure rises up and seizes control. The future might look something like the work of science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (e.g. Starship Troopers).

women LIKE insane men
Guest
women LIKE insane men
Offline

This happened AFTER he had already been “known” to be very violent. Mmmhhh…

http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/10/boyfriend-threw-woman-down-stairs-twice-weeks-after-being-freed-for-brutal-assault-6500288/

Danny Green
Guest
Danny Green
Offline

I love you Roosh, but you’re off the mark on this one. Taking away the right to vote isn’t the way to go.

This kind of rhetoric adds fuel to the fire of the War Between the Sexes. It also gives the other side moral ammunition to take away OUR right to vote. I mean, if we’re advocating the removal of other people’s suffrage, then in a moral sense, we forfeit our own right. Now, feminists can say “let’s take away men’s right to vote – hey, that Roosh guy wants to take away ours, so it’s only fair!”

The Golden Rule applies to politics. A good way to know if something is good or not, is to ask, “Would I want someone doing that same thing to ME?”

I have a better solution: Let’s end the war, and heal the relationship between the sexes. Many modern women are indeed insane, but it’s because they’re sick, and the sickness is the result of several generations of inter-gender warfare. If we help them heal themselves, then we don’t need to take away their right to vote.

The healing starts with exposing the secret hands behind their sickness – the cultural programmers and propagandists who have been feeding them their memes all this time. And this exposure is already happening. We’ve come a long way in a few years, and lots of people are already waking up and acknowledging the People Behind the Curtain. We don’t need to remove suffrage – just the light of exposure of what’s really going on is enough to disinfect the disease, and it’s already happening.

You might say healing the relationship between the sexes is a pipe-dream. But is repealing suffrage any less of a pipe-dream? If we’re going to pipe-dream, we may as well dream a good one.

Nathan Larson
Guest

Applying the Golden Rule to relations between the sexes is very blue pill. That would be like thinking, “I wouldn’t be interested in an ugly older woman just because she was well-dressed and had money, so therefore if I’m an ugly but rich and well-dressed older man, I probably won’t be able to get any play from young, hot women.”

Danny Green
Guest
Danny Green
Offline

That’s actually a good point. But it’s still a little apples-to-oranges, because we’re not talking about dating here – we’re talking about the right to vote.

Once you start taking that away, where do you stop? Should renters be stripped of it as well? You might not think so, but who’s to say the train will stop before it gets there? Taking away rights is the most slippery of all slopes.

Nathan Larson
Guest

The next step would be, just get rid of the idea that taxation and representation should go together. Democracy is one of the worst ways one can structure a government, for the same reason that a cooperative (where every customer owns a share) is one of the most inefficient ways to structure a business. It tends to produce bad governance, because of rational ignorance.

I say, let’s go full anarcho-capitalist.

Danny Green
Guest
Danny Green
Offline

I like most of anarcho-capitalism, but there are two holes that have to be addressed.

1) How do you prevent warlords from arising?

2) How do you safeguard the integrity of the biosphere?

Nathan Larson
Guest

Under anarcho-capitalism, you might hire some huge private defense agency to defend against the warlord, like how the U.S. used privateers to attack their enemies when they lacked their own forces. Usually the way that works is that you give the privateers not only a bounty but a free hand to loot the aggressor once they defeat him.

As long as the biosphere remains in the commons, it will probably always be destroyed, regardless of whether there’s a government. Politicians have no incentive to make it a high priority, because short-term economic interests tend to be a stronger constituency than environmentalists. So, property rights need to be established over the biosphere, for example by laws (which, in the absence of government, can be customary or contractual law) saying that if pollution emanating from someone else’s property flows into yours, you have a right to take action against them.

By the way, I think the next time I have a girlfriend who won’t put out, I’ll say, “I like you, but there are three holes that have to be addressed…”

jayteeniftb
Guest
jayteeniftb
Offline

You can’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga
The concept being the point, not the descriptions.

Roosh
Guest
Roosh
Online

You may be right, but I think my recommendation is worth the old try.

jayteeniftb
Guest
jayteeniftb
Offline

It is, but good luck convincing the innumerable thirsty beta chumps (that includes hedonistic studs with no other life purpose, crying about sexually ‘repressive’ culture). Not everyone has the character to emerge from the darkness.
It seems every boy being put through a red pill course post-puberty could be a better solution.

Nathan Larson
Guest

I’ve noticed that if you propose that we just abolish the right to vote altogether, and have a monarchy instead of a republic, people will say, “Then you make violent revolution inevitable!” I.e., if you take away men’s right to register their dissent at the ballot box, they’ll resort to force.

But if you propose only taking away women’s right to vote, they don’t say that, because they know women will never revolt. Women may do what the suffragists did, and commit various forms of civil disobedience (including arson), but they won’t take up arms.

Gwen Jackson
Guest
Gwen Jackson
Offline

Amen to all of this! I used to be a liberal and pro social welfare programs until I realized that it was my female need for security that was driving my political views. Only when I forced myself to look at it all objectively, without emotion, was I able to see the truth. The degeneracy of our society is the fruit of the poison tree of universal suffrage, particularly female suffrage. I’d gladly have my vote taken away if it meant all these insane feminists lost theirs too. Our founding fathers had it perfectly right when it came to voting rights. We should have never messed with it.

No More Fakery
Guest
No More Fakery
Offline

The problem is that when I, as a man, say what you’ve just said to other men, they recoil in horror. The brainwashing program has been so successful that disenfranchising women is seen as something akin to condoning rape or to hating females. Men don’t want to think of themselves as being cads who hate females or condone rape, and so they cannot even entertain the notion of ending female suffrage. They just write me off as a dinosaur without even considering what I say.

If we are to return to a saner system, then the blue-pill majority of males must be convinced that the vote must be withdrawn from women. …And, since such males will only hear this message from women themselves, it now falls to women to do the job of convincing them. Which most, of course, never will.

Still, perhaps you and the woman who upvoted your comment will do your bit to wake blue-pill males from their deadly slumber: I’d love to see how they react to a woman telling them women should not have the vote…

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

If not this; then Islam.

Zyzz
Guest
Zyzz
Offline

Out of all the policy platforms of alt right groups this has the least likelihood of going anywhere imo. And that’s not to say I don’t agree with it/support it but I think just about any of the other platforms have more of a chance of advancing.

In order to add or subtract an amendment is extremely tough requiring 38(I think) states to ratify it. That means you would need practically every male and more than half of the females to willingly give up their right to vote. Not gonna happen. Sorry.

Stonehands
Guest
Stonehands
Offline

This will occur after the war here, and the eradication of the federal government and the document that has allowed it to metastacize.

Derek Dane
Guest
Derek Dane
Offline

Interesting approach. My take is that America sowed the seeds of its own destruction when it brought over the African slaves. In return for temporary cheap labor for some wealthy plantation owners, the country signed an eternal contract with a large class of people who would always be easily seduced by hostile race baiting, a victimhood narrative, and identity politics based on its ignoble beginnings. The fact that their African American descendants should be thrilled to now be citizens of the US being that they never would have been invited in as regular immigrants given how little they contribute to society and how inferior their culture is- but this is lost on many African Americans.

Stadtaffe
Guest
Stadtaffe
Offline

And France with North Africa etc.

Pantalones
Guest
Pantalones
Offline

Women voting is bad señores very bad Arriba!

Gammelsvensk
Guest
Gammelsvensk
Offline

The last countries to adopt womens suffrage would be the least entrenched and more lightly to revoke it? Or would it be thoose countries who are suffering most under feminism?

Saudiarabia is the last country that didn’t give in.

“In Europe, the last jurisdiction to grant women the right to vote was the Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, in 1991. Women in Switzerland obtained the right to vote at federal level in 1971,[5] and at local cantonal level between 1959 and 1991,[6][7] see Women’s suffrage in Switzerland.

In Saudi Arabia women were first allowed to vote in December 2015 in the municipal elections.[8]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage

Lloyd Selberg
Guest

SO WHAT’S NEW?

Unhappily, feminism is leading to the destruction of the human project–that is, the Herculean effort of humankind since the Neanderthals to reproduce its social structures and its children. It will take a few more generations, but civilization is probably doomed as a result of the feminist demonization of masculinity, of motherhood, and of the family. Europe will be finished in 50 years and America in a little more. – David D. Gilmore, Cultural Anthropologist

“…women, as a sex, are shrewd, resourceful, and acute; but the very fact that they are always concerned with imminent problems and that, in consequence, they are unaccustomed to dealing with the larger riddles of life, makes their mental attitude essentially petty. … Women’s constant thought is, not to lay
down broad principles of right and wrong; not to place the whole world in
harmony with some great scheme of justice; …but to deceive, influence, sway
and please men. Normally, their weakness makes masculine protection
necessary to their existence and to the exercise of their overpowering maternal
instinct, and so their whole effort is to obtain this protection in the easiest
way possible. The net result is that feminine morality is a morality of
opportunism and imminent expediency, and that the normal woman has no respect for, and scarcely a conception of abstract truth. Thus is proved a fact
noted by Schopenhauer and many other observers ‘that a woman seldom manifests any true sense of justice or of honor.’

“We see about us that women are becoming more and more independent and self- sufficient and that, as individuals, they have less and less need to seek and retain the good will and protection of individual men, but we overlook the fact that this tendency is fast undermining the ancient theory that the family is a necessary and impeccable institution and that without it progress would be impossible. As a matter of fact, the idea of the family, as it exists today, is based entirely upon the idea of feminine helplessness. …. Wipe out your masculine defender, and your feminine parasite-haus-frau – and where is your family?” – H.L. Mencken on women of his time

Poder
Guest
Poder
Offline

If the goal is to allow right wing parties to win, then why not ban suffrage for non-whites?

If it were up to white women, Donald Trump would have won in a landslide so it’s not clear that the issue is biological sex.

And Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide if any group of non white men determined the election. Don’t non white men deserve some of the blame for leftism, feminism and the degeneration of society?

Or couldn’t you just raise the voting age to 30 or limit voting to tax payers? Those both would destroy the left.

Although women’s suffrage has undeniably moved all societies that implemented it to the left (see the book Freedomnomics by John Lott) you can’t ignore those other factors too.

Lloyd Selberg
Guest

One must understand the left’s connection to women’s suffrage.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx

KOD
Guest
KOD
Offline

I’m tired of my girl always talking about politics, if she didn’t take care of our baby I’d send her packing. What I want to know, is do you include all men in this? Because my bandmates are dumbasses and I don’t want them deciding shit. Being a man doesn’t make you smart. What do you do about the kind of men who don’t have any business deciding anything? Are we going to go back to a time when only land holders could vote? I own my house and there are a bunch of spic idiots in my neighborhood bringing down the property value that don’t need any power, they can barely mow their lawn. What happened to personal pride? Pride in your property? Pride in a decent place to raise a kid?

jst4fun
Guest
jst4fun
Offline

Roosh, you are trying to take the easy way out. You can’t un-ring that bell,you can’t put the tooth paste back in the tube. Frankly, leftists and globalists have an agenda to exploit women. But both men and women are the victims. Again, it was technology that enabled feminism. So, the leftists only took advantage of the situation. Technology gave women the ability to earn a living equal to that of a man. That is why equal rights naturally emerged. No, you can’t undue technology! And therefore, You can’t undue women’s suffrage. We all need to make better choices given the technology we have. Moderation and balance are the keys. The concept that just because something is available does not mean we should do it. Women could not be promiscuous if men didn’t sleep with promiscuous women. You excuse men’s reaction to the sexual revolution and feminism, and completely blame women. As if men have no responsibility for there own self control. It is technology, that has required more restraint from men. And women for that matter. But since you are asking for men to be the leaders, then naturally they should also bear the brunt of the responsibility. So, the solution you offer although could have the results you desire. Its just not possible. Its an impossible dream. Its like wishing you were 20 again. Not going to happen! So, I offer another solution. Its a harder road. But it involves educating Men and women on the effects of technology, blamelessly addressing the affects, and explaining the new choices we must make to move forward. Men who should be the leaders, with wisdom, shouldn’t be taking the easy way out. They should conform to the new paradigm, and explain to their female partners in this world how to make better choices and chart a better path forward. It is possible. Trump was elected. But some of these men’s groups are actually acting like pussies, whining like little girls about their helpless situation. If hard power is and hard labor is less empowering today, then Men need to get better at soft power and smart labor. Women can make better decisions, and if they are so easily swayed by emotion and submission, then men should intelligently and strategically convince them of voting in ways that serve their longer term interests.

Patrick Salibi
Guest
Patrick Salibi
Offline

Chetoori Irani!

Brother, with all due respect, that will never happen. I see your point. But my God, that will never happen. So my question is, what is the point of ‘creating’ solutions that are innately impossible. Shouldn’t we find viable solutions instead? Which respect the trends of our time. Which touch the heart of people.

What a world we live in. Indeed, the valley of death where evil rules with suffering. All praises to the One Most High.

Saalam

Daniel.
Guest
Daniel.
Offline

Actually it is quite possible. A military coup or the hacking of electronic voting machines will do the trick in abolishing women’s suffrage.

Seth Falconer
Guest
Seth Falconer
Offline

Well said. This is it. This in some ther country would have me leaving America. This here would make me stay. You know, the irony is that you could never appeal to logic to explain why it would work better. Like in approaching, actions (what anti-sufferage would do), matters more than words (explaining to a woman what anti-sufferage could do). So lets make it fucking happen. On a side note: You know, the gay man would be wise to vote with the anti-suffrages because when women can’t vote, he alone will defend himself, and his vote will count for more proportionally. They’d get fringe benefits.