Fascism, historically

Funny to see illiterate Americans make assumptions about what ‘fascism’ is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

(she says, linking to wikipedia)

Plot twist: women (and poor men) were empowered as citizens.

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

  • Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and up;
  • Proportional representation on a regional basis;
  • Voting for women (which was then opposed by most other European nations);
  • Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
  • The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
  • The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers.

Scientists in power is a fascist view.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

  • The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions aneight-hour workdayfor all workers;
  • Aminimum wage;
  • The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
  • To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
  • Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector;
  • Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
  • Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

Fascists are just socialists that give a damn about your vices and private life.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

  • Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
  • Armaments factories are to be nationalized;
  • A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

  • A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
  • The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;

The religious should support being poor, because they want to be holy.

We have state-funded religious schools. In the 21st century.

  • Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
  • The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

These early positions reflected in the Manifesto would later be characterized by Mussolini in the Doctrine of Fascism as “a series of pointers, forecasts, hints which, when freed from the inevitable matrix of contingencies, were to develop in a few years time into a series of doctrinal positions entitling Fascism to rank as a political doctrine differing from all others, past or present.”[3]

Universal suffrage for men

Happened over a century.

Male suffrage activists were far more annoying to men than female ones, who simply wanted parity. If you’d let the village drunk get a vote before the aristocrat’s daughter, there is a problem.

I wonder why women eventually got it, despite how it took HALF A CENTURY. We don’t hear about the repeated efforts of men to get their vote.

“The parliamentary franchise in the United Kingdom was expanded and made more uniform through a series of Reform Acts, also known as Representation of the People Acts, beginning in 1832.

Reform Act 1832 (often called the “Great Reform Act” or “First Reform Act”), which applied to England and Wales and gave representation to previously underrepresented urban areas and extended the qualifications for voting
Scottish Reform Act 1832, a similar reform applying to Scotland
Irish Reform Act 1832, a similar reform applying to Ireland
Reform Act 1867 (also called the “Second Reform Act”), which widened the franchise and adjusted representation to be more equitable
Ballot Act 1872 (sometimes called the “Reform Act of 1872”), which introduced the secret ballot
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 (sometimes called the “Reform Act of 1883”), which introduced campaign spending limits
Reform Act 1884 (also called the “Third Reform Act”), which allowed people in counties to vote on the same basis as those in towns. Home ownership was the only qualification
Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (sometimes called the “Reform Act of 1885”), which split most multi-member constituencies into multiple single-member ones
Reform Act 1918 (also called the “Fourth Reform Act”), which abolished property qualifications for men and introduced limited female suffrage, for women over the age of 30
Reform Act 1928 (also called the “Fifth Reform Act”), which widened suffrage by giving women electoral equality with men”

Yes, I’m quoting wikipedia. It’s that basic and you should be ashamed not to know it.
Uneducated men easily led by the siren song of socialism* were given the vote before upper-class, well bred graduate women! So much for IQ!
(Class is heavily IQ based especially if you compare upper to lower).

Stop lying about it.

You can be debunked with wikipedia, Vox Day, stop talking about it.
Women wanting a vote given how many idiots got it for decades before is not something to shame.

Logically we’d base it on

  1. a minimum IQ (say, 98)
  2. tax contributions that year
  3. property ownership assuming the main tax is property
  4. 25+ when the body is fully mature.

The sexes aren’t different enough for that to be a factor here. Race and class are much, much bigger. Ah but he won’t touch those with a bargepole, too realistic. Just ignore the HBD…

We value a driver’s license over a minimum IQ license to vote!

Technically, every policy should legally be proposed to the voter with a financial amount that it would cost them to implement, personally. *Per voter figures. As in, you can’t shirk your responsibility for the things you vote in. If the amount needed to implement goes over that estimated figure, it’s put to another vote.

Roosh is trying to outgroup r-types

Grasping at relevance, huh?

I’m not gonna link since that’d be throwing money at it.

Instead

https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/on-rooshs-moderate-half-measure

Here’s the comment I made, which sums it up nicely.

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

I forgot to mention Millennial women are more conservative than their living predecessors.

And Gen Z are heavily conservative too.

Facts are hard when you’re a degenerate liar.

From here on out it’s an explanation of the r-psychology, with Roosh as Exhibit Gay. [this definition] It’s bitchy to match their level since, if you’re going to attack people randomly, expect them to get defensive.

A little on Europe.

The First World is the only place its values exist in the universe, we developed these with major wars, some civil wars and major historical reformations and enlightenments. We earned this way of life. These people, historical enemies, stepped into our house (without invitations) and took all the goodies paid for with our ancestor’s blood. They expect to get more than they give and skip the country whenever they like, owing us nothing. They’re already on thin ice with their treatment of our too-kind Christian hospitality (from pathological altruism, still finite ). Anyone questions these fundamentals and we come down on them like a ton of bricks. This is OURS, get bent. They totally deserve that rejection for rejecting what makes us, Us, and therefore worthy of their pillaging, because if they want to sample Non-First World living, go ahead. Good riddance. Except those people are narcissists and can’t stand to think of the First World being happy. They’re toxic civilization-breakers. Fifth columnists, saboteurs and snitches.

Like we’re all too dumb to notice the past and present runnings of our native countries. All hundreds of millions of us in civilized Europe. And yes, we need the advice of foreign mystery meat! Because white men in Europe are incompetent, right Roosh?

Everything about Europe was shit until you got here!! For millennia we have struggled! Thank the gods you’ve finally arrived! You’ve been so good for the people of every nation you’ve ‘banged’!

Common sense would argue:

If some people are unworthy of First World rights, simply deport them to where they belong.

Not all countries or its genetic Volk can uphold the glories of First World liberty. OK. Not everyone can be smart enough or capable enough to run things to the highest known standard.

Everyone will be better off! Everyone will be happier! We’ll stop trying to turn a cat into a dog by putting a leash on it and truly embrace cultural diversity! …except the narcissists. Who are only happy when this applies: misery loves company. Basically, never take a narcissist’s advice on the Good Thing To Do. They lack the empathy. Relational narcissism is a thing.

Which country is the Sodom of our times? The one we should take as a negative case study? The one who started this Melting Pot shit? The one obsessed with materialism, gangster culture and money?

America is the paragon of patriarchal virtues! Let’s all listen to those guys!

You don’t get a pat on the head for doing your adult duties.

Seriously, the US must have all its statute up online like the Parliament website.
I’ve seen various congressional and state ruling paperwork, but they never go over it and examine their priors.

I would myself but then I’ll be accused of bias for being both foreign and female.
I have however broken down election data on my own country, various demographic data by race, sex and age. The biggest predictor? AGE. Increasing the voting age or bringing in military service for everyone adult prior to voting (not ageist) would work better. But damn, they might have to stop valiantly defending the West from their keyboard for five minutes and pick up a gun.

Why be masculine when you can make a career out of talking about it?

These people brag about having multiple passports but they aren’t traitors, no!
They complain about terrorism and demand government Do Something. Well traditionally, they’d form an army out of you….
They expect a White Saviour (like Trump)… but hate on white nationalism, in white-spawned countries.

So he contents himself to crawl around waiting for approval by mimicking Vox Day (that won’t work, VD is a respected author).

They could earn some passing respect by actually looking at the damn data.

Either:-

-they don’t know how. Idiots

-they don’t care. Liars

There’s a distinct 3rd possibility.

They did, didn’t find the answer they wanted, and due to publication bias, left it in the drawer.
Again, liars.

If he sets foot on most European soil after that article, he could easily be up on human rights charges.

Satire doesn’t mean what you think it means. Calling FIRE in a theatre is still illegal. Mumbling the adult equivalent of ‘just kidding’ will make the judges angry. The male judges.

Why?

Well, he’s questioning the legal structure of foreign governments and suggesting an oppression – because oppression doesn’t exist. On incitement or sedition grounds alone, he could just disappear. That would be 100% his fault. It’s like stepping into a tiger enclosure and expecting not to get eaten. You do not bully the bigger guy, even if he seems tame. Ignorance of the ECJ law or EU law in general won’t be an excuse if the feminists (rightfully, for once) in this case, get you arrested for being a misogynist (stripping women of rights is A-grade proof in court, practically a working definition for the prosecution and he has not met the Burden of Proof for a ‘debate’ aside from hand-waving and emotional appeal, which does quite add to the misogyny thing). It cannot be simultaneously all A Joke and All A Serious Debate, depending which lawn looks safer today. Serious clowns do not exist. The fact it’s about running The West, to which he does not truly belong, means the American Free Speech shit does not apply.

Duh.

Rights belong to citizens. Citizens are loyal and dutiful and don’t oppress their peers, their legal equals. Oddly he is legally arguing that women have their citizenship rights revoked, the only way to restrict liberties, but in other materials, borders are just an idea (HBD says no). R-types always lie, even if they tell a truth it’s in bad faith to manipulate a 3rd party. It’s easy to spot by who says you’re too dumb to handle the data yourself…

It’s like he doesn’t know who Britain’s favourite person is. Nor how much power the monarchy have in Europe, let alone their common sex.
If they can murder their Muslim-breeding daughter-in-law, they can murder you.

European men don’t spend most of their free time bitching about the opposite sex, including those who live in America. We still remember the sexes need to get along for the race or species to survive. The culture clash is making even the redpill male friends of mine cringe away from these ‘losers’ explaining away their undesirability and start siding with the feminists, ‘in theory’.

He’s also clearly creeping to sex slavery of all women by revoking First World liberties aka AA with sex for ‘incel’ males (incels do not exist).

Is that the Muslim genes or the Jewish ones coming out? A harem system like Asia leads to war and over time fewer women anyway since they’re murdered post-birth. And the guys running a harem are military. And rich. Aka none of the things these bitches could be. They’re also atheists so all appeals to Muh Bible fall flat.

The misogynist-pointers at Biblical verse are actually quoting Judaism or referencing a blend of its pantheon with Eve (that is blasphemy), based on the Jewish character of Lilith. 
AKA nothing to do with Christians.

It’s as trite as the MGTOW cry of White men! Abandon your women! Never reproduce!* They want the brown ones anyway! We’ll gladly take them off your hands brother! They’re whores anyway, that’s why rape doesn’t exist!

*That’s how you can tell they’re ideologically aligned with SJWs.

Sex positive? Check.

Pro-outbreeding? Check.

Anti-family? Check.

Pro-degeneracy? Check.

Anti-natal? Check.

They really haven’t looked up Iceland, have they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Icelandic_women’s_strike
‘The next year, “Iceland’s parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights for women and men.”

This was over something MINOR.

Fathers do not work as many hours as mothers, you can look it up but none of you will breed so thankfully it doesn’t matter to you. Childrearing and housekeeping are not fun, they are laborious or men would be lining up to do it and get paid.

You disrespect the valuable work women do, they strike. Which sex does the survival of the species rely on? Which sex is the primary caregiver? Which hand rocks the cradle? This is DARWIN. Kipling said ‘the female of the species is deadlier than the male’…. why do you think that is, Kemosabe?

If men are in fact superior, hypothetically…(the literal misogynist’s unscientific position to dehumanize women and strip us of agency/liberty, when they/we are merely sexually dimorphic) then logically at least most of what the feminists say must be true, since in nature the stronger dominates the weaker. This would necessitate the weaker to rightfully defend themselves. Choose your own ending, moron.

If you haven’t read the Bible, you may want to mull over why it’s women in the verse ‘Hell hath no fury…’
Consider very carefully if you wish to fuck with a strong majority of the globe, r-type scum.

It’s the Pandora’s Box of civilization. Because if the men all rally together, that obscures other topics like race, religion, age bracket, even partisanship! Convenient for self-aware r-types trying to get in with the Ks for protecting before the fighting starts (a kind of warfare cuckoldry, hiding safely behind the lines and letting the Real Men fight for you like a dusky damsel). And choosing as your opponents the one group that can’t match you in physical strength…. brave. They wouldn’t dare punch another man, but they’re happy to start on women, assuming we’ll never fight back. Yeah, they’re idyllic defenders of The West…. hiding behind other men. Usually white men. Brave and strong and independent little rebels.

Consider;

The feminists want a ‘Gender War’ – because men are going to lose.

World War G.

Men don’t even play well with one another. An all-male island would be a bloodbath. There’s no historical example of it. Sparta punished bachelors with a special tax. Roosh just wants to hide away until white men have taken white women’s rights away (temporarily) to increase his mating chances, especially if those men (superior competition) die in the process. Typical r-strategy, shout, run and hide. They have literally nothing to lose.

The r-type calls for things and asks you to do them for it.

Sorry, are you all his wife suddenly? He can’t even find one woman to agree to legally bind herself to him and his money, obviously he’s defective. He cannot run a single household and he has no child investments, he has no idea how to run a society (especially one of the outgroup, racially). Ghetto trash has more family values than Roosh V.

Let’s you and him fight – the cowardly r-type strategy of triangulation, to befriend the victor and free up resources (here, women). Let’s you and her fight – a level of scumbag that isn’t human(e). If men win, befriend men and take credit as Idea Guy for rewards (given women like goats). If women win, most men are dead, take excess supply of women – whether they want to be or not (smells like rape o’clock). You can move the rape genes to civilization but you can’t civilize rape genes.

Men, seriously. Anyone calling for a fight who isn’t willing to lead it is trying to kill you.

Western men are too soft to survive. HE KNOWS THIS.

He wants to kill your genes and your culture.

Traitor in our midst.

Eggs = expensive. Sperm = cheap. Foreva….

Finally, in fantasy land of Xenu Warrior Princes.

What happens if men ‘win’ but no woman will reproduce with them?

You die.

Idiots.

Unless you’re a happy genetic suicide like Roosh V, who can’t buy a wife with all his shekels, don’t listen to it?

He’s goading you to attack your future. This is all painfully obvious to women thanks to EQ. We know a conniving traitorous bitch when we see one. However, it’s unfair to call someone a traitor per se, when they were never one of us. Look up his background.

Women’s suffrage is a feminist frame, actually universal

Trigger warning: maths. Stat-heavy post.

As far as England and the wider UK are concerned, suffrage was universal. Women’s suffrage is a category error.

Women were not explicitly banned from voting in Great Britain until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

READ A HISTORY BOOK. Property (class) and location (class) were factors. …Class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/changes/revision/1/

They’re trying to make it about sex when it was really based on societal contribution aka merit.

The suffragettes protested that they had no decision-making ability over how their taxes were spent, yet they still had to pay taxes like a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tax_Resistance_League

Plenty of men couldn’t vote either. Including many of those who died in WW1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html

1918: The rotten repressive male Establishment voted 7-1 in favour of votes for some women (restricted at that point by age and property qualifications) and all men over the age of 21. In the 1928 Act, the franchise was extended to women on equal terms with men.

It really was a simple case of balancing out what was newly handed to men (no qualification).
Sometimes qualification was quite literal. “From 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification.”

Hence all the petty squabbles over land law and inheritance for centuries, including male assertions of the rights of youngest sons. Suck on that, MRAs.

Why am I going into this? Isn’t it obvious?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Sample comments I have seen;

It’s not as much fun to place the blame where it belongs..on those men who allowed women’s suffrage.

Actually we were on strike until we got it. That’s why we got it. Same as the men.

Suffrage doomed us. We’re just coasting now, on fire, crankshaft broken, heading over the cliff.

A lot of the new MGTOW are trying to conceal their misogyny very poorly by blaming all women the way neo-Nazis with nothing going for them blame all Jews. They’re saying unironically that women’s suffrage was the reason everything about the West is ruined, all the PC dogma and Marxism (invented by a man) was the fault of women, ignorant of knowledge of ancient societies (which allowed female political power and leaders, golden eras led by Queens) and basically most things beyond America. As if men aren’t at the top of this degenerate pyramid, from Soros to the founder of FEMEN. Men are in political power, men are the sex responsible for PC politics.

For lolz, let’s look at the voting statistics anyway, eh? Since women are so bad at maths according to these dimwits (unless you have the intellectual curiosity to look up the data and see boys perform worse).

Historically, the widely held view is that males outperform females in tests of mathematical ability (Halpern, 1986; Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). Early reviews of empirical research in this field concluded this was a “robust” finding (Halpern, 1986, p. 57) or, at least, it was one of several “fairly well-established” gender differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, p. 352). Although subsequent formal analyses of these data indicated that gender differences in mathematical ability were often small in size (Hyde et al., 1990), recent research continues to show some differences but they vary according to certain factors, including level of mathematical ability, type of mathematical ability and examination format.

Those are called extraneous variables as non-sex factors so no, they don’t count in support of the original, disproven finding.

There is little evidence of a male advantage in high school mathematics tests in either the US or the UK. In the US, “trivial differences” between boys’ and girls’ mathematics results have been found in all school years between Grade 2 (7–8 year olds) and Grade 11 (16–17 year olds) (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008).

But sure, women are bad at maths… BRING ON THE STATS.

Evidence exists of women voting when it was on the law books during that brief window of British history, which isn’t the basis for anything since it was more of a trial period that failed the test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html

But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise.

There are as many conservative women as men in the general population, I reject your specious argument that women must vote red.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

It’s Left vs. Right, that’s the only division and anyone claiming otherwise is an identity politics shill.

Where population demographics are concerned, race, age group (life phase) and class (including property ownership) are more predictive than sex. Shall we restrict suffrage based on those things? No? Oh, you wouldn’t like somebody questioning your right to vote based on something beyond your control? How about more stats?

In America alone, more women turn up to the polls than men. Whose fault is that?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html

63.7% Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2012 presidential election. By comparison, 59.7 percent of their male counterparts reported voting.

There is a famous Gender Gap in voting, true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

Recently in Europe it closed but prior to this (pre-1990s), women were more likely to vote conservative.

http://ips.sagepub.com/content/21/4/441.abstract

Suck on that.
Back to America:
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0028/twps0028.html

Leighley and Nagler (1992) tested whether demographic factors, like race and gender, are more important than socioeconomic factors like education in predicting voter turnout, and found that while it is important to include measures of demographic factors, education is a much stronger predictor of voter turnout. Likewise, Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) document the lower voter turnout among Blacks and Hispanics, but attribute this lower rate of voter turnout to lower educational levels and higher proportions of young and poor among minorities. Other results suggest that women are also more likely to register and vote (Jennings 1985, 1989, 1993).

Education = IQ.
I have covered previously why IQ testing to qualify voting ability would hurt men and help women (women have higher average intelligence that the test is normalized by, men have more retards). Sure, advocate for it, see if I’m wrong.

In the UK, voter turnout has dropped among both sexes, but especially women, either failing to register or turn up at the booths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11333915/British-women-general-election-voters-shun-the-polling-booths.html

Turnout has declined across both genders. But the drop is most significant in women. According to statistics compiled for the British Election Study – which were analysed by the Commons Library – the number of ‘missing’ female voters has risen by 79 per cent since 1992.

Aka you can’t blame the Labour Governments on women (1997-early 2010).

Between 1992 and 2010, the number of women voters in general elections fell by 18 per cent.

However, a Telegraph poll in October last year found that just 12 per cent of female voters think the Labour leader would make a good prime minister, compared with 31 per cent who backed Cameron.

2.6:1 in favour of the conservative. Hmm.
I’ve covered previously that political party identification is genetic, especially for liberalism. AKA clean your own house and muck out your own stables of Red Men before crying to us.

Look at how stable voting preferences are in light of demographics (in support of the genetic hypothesis). If sex for example were so important, you’d see a sharp divide, yet all differences are accountable by rounding error.


Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

OH LOOK SUCH A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?