I vote for scold

Scott Adams speculates on how Trump might rhetorically disarm Hillary.  He points out that the sexist card has already been tried and failed.  When Hillary called Trump sexist, Trump fired back that she was (in Adams’ words) “an enabler for her husband’s womanizing”.  This however still leaves room for Trump to take his own shot:

I wonder if we have seen all of the permutations of gender politics. I doubt we will see Clinton accuse Trump of being anti-male. That wouldn’t stick.But we haven’t seen Trump accuse Clinton of being anti-male. And that would stick like tar. He might be saving that one for later.

Remember that Linguistic Kill Shots such as low-energy, little Marco, and robotic generally have two characteristics that make them work:

1. The label must be a fresh one you have not seen in politics.

2. Voters must be reminded of the label every time they see or hear the subject.

Adams points out that Trump doesn’t need to actually call Hillary anti male in order to get this point across.

Trump could frame Clinton as anti-male without ever saying “anti-male.” The exact words matter less than the concept. But the words do need to be catchy in some way, so everyone wants to repeat them.

Adams calculates that perhaps half of women are anti male enough that such an accusation by Trump would only drive them closer to Hillary, but Trump doesn’t have a chance with such women either way.  On the other hand, the remaining half would want to distance themselves from such an identity:

But the hypothetical half of women that do not have a grudge against men would run like the wind to avoid being labelled anti-male. It goes to identity. And identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play.

Adams is right, although I think he underestimates how many women will want to distance themselves from such an identity.  The reason they will want to avoid the identity is it is ugly, and women at a very deep level want to avoid being seen as ugly.  When I started writing about how ugly feminism is, even the most hard boiled feminists fell over themselves to present themselves as loving, traditional homemakers.  If I, a lowly beta, can have this effect on hard core feminists imagine what an alpha like Trump could do with ordinary women.

Certainly there are many ways Trump could approach this.  The one word that jumped into my own mind when reading Adams’ post was scold.  Trump would only need to mention the term once, in his characteristic offhand way;  hard core feminists and Hillary herself would suffer a complete (and unattractive) meltdown.  When inevitably pressed on his use of such a non PC term, Trump could either double down or downplay it by switching his language to the word “lecture” without apologizing for using the world scold.

Who wants to hear Hillary lecture us in that scolding schoolmarmish tone of hers for four or eight years?

Not only are scolds ugly, but this charge is a perfect match for Hillary.  In her continuing quest to be taken seriously, Hillary is constantly lecturing and scolding her own supporters.  This is all the more painful because of Hillary’s huge likability deficit, something even her supporters acknowledge.  This is a charge that once uttered would be impossible to eradicate from the discourse.  Every time Hillary started into yet another schoolmarm lecture this would be in the back of everyone’s mind, including Hillary’s.  Part of Hillary’s unlikability is her obvious distaste for the need to convince people to vote for her.  She obviously dislikes campaigning.  Being called a scold would make her even more resentful and self conscious, which would only make the label more fitting.

On a related note, Instapundit linked to a new Trump ad about Hillary:

As Instapundit commenter Wellspring put it:

It’s damned effective. It’s a sidelong attack on Hillary’s likability, but also a way of making her appear weak and unserious in the face of the serious dangers our country faces. Or, rather, highlighting the fact that she is weak and unserious.

It’s also a way to knock her off her game. And the beginning of his work to reunify the party after a brutal primary.

I’d rate this one 8/8 well played. I’m a Cruz supporter but in terms of raw political effectiveness, this is excellent work.

EconRob’s comment reinforced this:

HRC comes across as a phony. This is one of her few unscripted moments and it just got shoved up her… The ad will tend to make her more tentative. She already looks bad on TV — the teleprompter is not her friend and she cannot be natural.

Update:

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Instapundit, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to I vote for scold

  1. Pingback: I vote for scold – Manosphere.com

  2. Anchorman says:

    She’ll trot out Bill to say it isn’t so.

    How well can he sell it?

    I think it would be very effective. Anyone who has seen a woman publicly embarrassed by a truth being told about them knows how much it throws them off their mental game.

    That’s why it will be effective. Can anyone really say a pro-male position she has to counter this?

    Trump can name pro-women policies, if he needed (which he doesn’t seem inclined to do in the face of criticism).

    She can’t really go to a block of legislation, or a long-standing commitment to a male issue.

  3. Anchorman says:

    rugby, that reminds me of an old SNL skit:

    Announcer: On November 8th, Americans narrowly averted making a disastrous choice that would have led us on a path of irreversible despair. That choice was Michael Dukakis.

    [ show George Bush sitting in his living room ]

    Bush: Hello, I’m George Bush. You know, it was a great little campaign, and we’re very grateful. We won the election, and we raised, as it turns out, a great deal more money than we needed. More than we could have possibly spent in the time allowed. Now, federal campaign finance laws say we must spend this money, or it reverts to the Federal Treasury. To avoid that terrible waste, we’ve decided to spend the money on one last, beautifully produced, negative ad. It’s our way of saying Thank You to all the many many thousands of people who touched our lives during this very long and very tough campaign. So, sit back, relax, and enjoy this final negative ad. C’mon kids, come in here and enjoy! [ his grandkids jump on the couch with him as the ad plays ]

    Announcer: Last Tuesday, Americans might possibly have chosen the candidate of.. Willie Horton.. Boston Harbor.. flag-burning.. and Jimmy Carter!

    [ show Bush speech ]

    Bush: “What is it about the Pledge of Allegience that upsets him so much?”

    [ show another Bush speech ]

    Bush: “..New Jersey, and talks about the pollution in New Jersey.. look over his shoulder, there’s Boston Harbor.”

    [ show Arnold Schwartzenegger giving a speech ]

    Schwartzenegger: “When it comes to America’s future, Michael Dukakis will be the real Terminator!”

    Announcer; Last Tuesday, you made the right choice. You voted against runaway spending, you rejected a weakened defense, you said no to rape, taxes, child pornography, and filthy water. On November 8th, you dodged a bullet. Bush: He beat a bad man.

    [ cut back to George Bush and the grandkids ]

    Bush: Did you like that, kids? Did you like that?

    Kids; Yeah.

    Bush: God bless you, everybody! I’ll see you in January, but until then, from all of us..

    Bush & Grandkids: “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

  4. Joe says:

    Let’s go Trumpolini!

  5. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Trump can simply ask her to walk a mile without help. He can casually mention that’s a real shame…..wearing such large outfits to hide the outline of her depends. Thing is this……she’s no way of answering brutal, cruel questions that disregard that she’s a woman😈😈😈

  6. Darwinian Arminian says:

    But the hypothetical half of women that do not have a grudge against men would run like the wind to avoid being labelled anti-male. It goes to identity. And identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play.

    I can see this happening — but what if there’s an equivalent for this with the men? Or more specifically: If Trump goes after Hillary, how many white knights will try to make a show of their virtue by jumping to her defense and working to boost support for her?

    For all of her pose as a strong, independent decision maker, Mrs. Clinton has always known how to slip into the role of a hurt woman suddenly in need of a protector. It’s not like she hasn’t profited off of this approach before. Back when she ran for Senator the first time in 2000, her little known rival Rick Lazio challenged her in their first debate to sign a pledge not to accept “soft money” donations (which she’d denounced herself). When she gave a waffling response saying the donations were bad, but she couldn’t rule them out just yet, he walked over to her podium and handed her a paper copy of the pledge, encouraging her to sign right there so the voters could see her commitment. She gave a “maybe later” response before setting it aside. The next day there were newspaper headlines screaming “LAZIO ASSAULTS CLINTON ONSTAGE” and “WHY WAS REP. LAZIO BEING SO MEAN TO MRS. CLINTON?” He wound up wasting days and political capital trying to explain away that no, he really didn’t hate strong women!

    There are certainly women who don’t want to be labelled anti-male, but the other side has there “identity play” tricks too — and if UVA, “He for She,” and the White Ribbon Campaign are any indication, there are plenty of men willing to fall for them. Pray that they don’t wind up FUBAR-ing the election for all of us in the way they have already done with so much else.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Scold” is a good label. I believe there is a better one:

    NAG

    “Who wants to be nagged by Hillary for the next four years?

    Channeling Reagan: “There she goes, nagging again.”

    This can then easily be triggered by merely observing “Many voters have nagging doubts about Hillary with regard to [issue]”.

    Good bloody luck on trotting what’s left of Bill out to even try and deny that label.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian American

    I can see this happening — but what if there’s an equivalent for this with the men? Or more specifically: If Trump goes after Hillary, how many white knights will try to make a show of their virtue by jumping to her defense and working to boost support for her?

    The gammas will jump to her defense, as Erick Erickson of Red State did with a far more attractive (and likable) Megyn Kelly. But most men will not, especially when they notice that the women around them are mysteriously fine with Trump. The more the gammas like Erickson, Glenn Beck, and Matt Walsh throw anti trump temper tantrums, the more women will reflexively separate from the unattractive gammas and the ugly image of being a scold. Those betas who are on the margin will then follow the women.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    I can see this happening — but what if there’s an equivalent for this with the men? Or more specifically: If Trump goes after Hillary, how many white knights will try to make a show of their virtue by jumping to her defense and working to boost support for her?

    Two answers:
    First: White Knights like that are going to be in the tank for Hillary no matter what. So they don’t matter.
    Second: It ain’t 2000 any more. There’s more miles on Hillary, and that specifically includes her tour as SecState.
    I know some traditional, conservative, White Knight types who might have given her the benefit of the doubt 15 years ago. Not now. One of those men has a hat he wears every where he goes that has on the front:

    Ben Ghazi

    Ask him who that “Ben” guy is and he’ll tell you, anytime, anywhere, in detail. White knight he was and is, but not for Hillary ever.

  10. “Nag” and “Scold”… very good words to describe her. Perhaps someone can start a Twitter and social media campaign on this one.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    “Scold” is a good label. I believe there is a better one:

    NAG

    “Who wants to be nagged by Hillary for the next four years?

    That is good as well. The reason I like scold is that it is even more unspeakable than “nag” to feminists. It is guaranteed to provoke a feminist conniption, even if they understand that this is a tactical error. This will put every feminist into their well known lecture mode, which nobody has any more patience for. Meanwhile women who want to be seen as reasonable unlike those hairy legged harpies can look magnanimous by laughing it all off. Trump for his part is free to use the term again or not, but so long as he doesn’t apologize for using it he wins.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    The reason I like scold is that it is even more unspeakable than “nag” to feminists. It is guaranteed to provoke a feminist conniption, even if they understand that this is a tactical error. This will put every feminist into their well known lecture mode, which nobody has any more patience for.

    I see your point. In terms of their amygdala, the word “scold” is more triggering than “nag”. No reason that both can’t be used – “I have nagging doubts about Hillary as Scold In Chief” for example. Their response to the amygdala trigger is involuntary [1] for the most part, it’s part of their deepest personality construct. To resist responding will require a lot of effort, and that in itself is tiring.

    Oh, what a pity if the entire Trump campaign becomes a giant trigger warning circus for feminists.
    I’m totally in favor of wearing out feminist amygdala with perpetual, endless triggering.

    [1] These involuntary responses from deep in the brain just happen to be part of the underpinnings of Game. Deniers take note – rage-triggering a feminist with a few chosen words in a certain posture is the same process as attraction-triggering a wife with a few other well chosen words / posture / actions. Trump has displayed many basic precepts of Game already. We can expect more as the campaign rolls on. Denying reality because it conflicts with what you think OUGHT to be true is really foolish.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Nag” and “Scold”… very good words to describe her. Perhaps someone can start a Twitter and social media campaign on this one.

    You got a Twitter account?

    #Don’tScoldUsHillary
    #HillaryStopScolding

    I’m not good at that stuff, no account. But look, Private, you just have to drop the “Scold” grenade in ordinary conversation, in a pure “Don’t Care” attitude – at the bar, talking to some woman, Hillary on the screen over the counter, “Yeesh, 4 years of her scolding us? No thanks” then change subjects. Grassroots. It should be easy to spread this because it is true.

    It. Is. True.

  14. Opus says:

    Not that calling Mrs Clinton names is anything to do with me, but what about #Harridan or #Bossy. We endured thirteen years of Iron Lady Thatcher who was surrounded by White Knights (can’t hit a girl) and who was definitely a scold and probably a nag, but that did not hurt her reputation a bit, but then again I have to remember that we do not specifically vote for a Prime Minister (or) Head of State – we are what you might call Democracy-Light.

    You would not have to be dealing with Mrs Clinton were it not that your amended Constitution limits your Head of State to a period of two terms: vote Hilary get Bill?

  15. Emily says:

    Clinton is now being criticized for her shouting. She comes across as a very unhappy woman. Trump definitely has a great opening here. Being “scolded” or “nagged” for four to eight years really is pretty unappealing. I hope he capitalizes on these particular weaknesses. He can easily get away with it, unlike some of the other candidates.

    I thought the new video of Hillary barking was hilarious. Also, the ad about Trump calling women names isn’t going to convince anyone, either.

  16. Emily says:

    In the past I have never been interested in watching political rallies. Commentary yes, but not rallies. This year is different. Trump is pretty fascinating.

  17. Mike T says:

    “Nag” is also easier for Clinton to sell as something sexist and doesn’t get the point across as well as scold does. She’s not nagging most of her supporters. Nagging them is a more aggressive version of “please clap” in that context. She’s scolding them, berating them. Scolding carries an implied “she’s a bitch who is always in your face and telling you how stupid you are.”

    That will work wonders on a lot of women. About 25% of women say they prefer to work for men than women. One reason why is that men don’t do stuff like that to the women under them as a general rule. It carries every connotation of “you know that bitch boss who made your life hell because she felt threatened? Well honey, she’s running for POTUS!”

  18. Boxer says:

    You would not have to be dealing with Mrs Clinton were it not that your amended Constitution limits your Head of State to a period of two terms: vote Hilary get Bill?

    Bill Clinton looks about as healthy as Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club. He can barely stand up. Be that as it may, this is shaping up to be a helluva entertaining election.

    Re: the original post, I think Trump is going to wipe the floor with these people. Hillary and Bill are relics from a more civilized era. Their careers won’t survive a year.

  19. Nibbler says:

    Meh.

    I understand that most voters care about foreign policy only superficially or not at all, but I really want to see Trump punish Hillary for Honduras/Libya/the donations from Saudi Arabia/etc.

  20. Boxer says:

    You got a Twitter account?

    #Don’tScoldUsHillary
    #HillaryStopScolding

    I’m not good at that stuff, no account.

    Someone get this man a twitter account!

  21. Dalrock says:

    Well done Boxer!

  22. Anon says:

    Marc Rudov did a good job (funny) of explaining why Hillary’s voice is unpleasant (even if it was 8 years ago).

  23. Anon says:

    This will put every feminist into their well known lecture mode, which nobody has any more patience for.

    I wish this were true, but resistance to ‘feminism’ still seems to be no higher than a decade ago. Far too few men can grasp the red pill. As evidence : there is still no MRA activism, and there is still no prominent American church that follows the Bible on man-woman matters.

  24. They Call Me Tom says:

    That ad is simple and brilliant. When Hillary did the barking, my first thought was, “Hillary the Machiavellian doesn’t know better than to pull a Howard Dean?”

    Putin chuckling is icing on the cake. Brilliant ad. I’d prefer Cruz to Trump, but I’d prefer anyone to Hillary.

  25. theasdgamer says:

    #HillaryZombie

    #HillaryHarpy

    #HillaryFugly

    #HillaryDepends

    #DontCallHillary

  26. Novaseeker says:

    Could be useful as an approach to highlighting her negatives for the general, but it’s far from certain Trump will be the Republican nominee.

    From where I am sitting, it looks like there’s a good chance he doesn’t get to 1237, and the leadership has basically openly stated that if he doesn’t get to 1237, he’s done in Cleveland. They will nominate someone like Ryan or Romney or what have you, knowing it will likely cost them the election in 2016. Trump’s rather sizeable base of supporters would be furious, and even if Trump didn’t run as an independent, many/most of these folks would stay home rather than vote for the brokered convention nominee. My guess is that the GOP leadership would prefer to lose in 2016 under that scenario than to proceed to the election under Trump, if for no other reason than to remain in control of who leads the party, and in control of the brand.

    Their gamble is whether these folks come back to the GOP or not down the road. They would be risking losing these folks for at least a few cycles — my guess is that they are betting that won’t happen because there are no other alternatives for them, but frankly who knows whether that is correct. It’s not clear to me that the populism of the current moment is temporary — the leadership is betting that it is because, well, what else are they going to do? If it isn’t temporary, they’re screwed either way, because a large part of their base is basically in schism from the leadership’s views and orthodoxies. Again, they’re betting that’s temporary, and so in my view their likely approach will be to hand the nomination to one of themselves, and scotch 2016 but retain leadership in their hands.

  27. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    in my view their likely approach will be to hand the nomination to one of themselves, and scotch 2016 but retain leadership in their hands.

    In that case, the cuckservatives are not just well and truly earning the label of ‘cuckservative’, but they are not the party of a) patriotism, b) free markets, and c) the American Dream at all. They are just as bad as the Homocrats on these fronts.

  28. Novaseeker says:

    Anon —

    I don’t disagree, but the established leadership is what it is. Right now they are 10,000% focused on making sure Trump is not the nominee. Like totally focused on it. If he doesn’t get to 1237, they won’t nominate him, consequences be damned. In my view, probably the end of the GOP as we know it, really.

  29. Look at her crowds. WHITE feminist women. At the end of Hillary’s every speech, the tome. “Educational opportunity, hiring, preference, rape-culture, everything, ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN!”. Hillary is anti-man, make no mistake. The women’s movement makes no allowance for women of color. It is White feminist women that play the race card after all. Get the men, Black, White and Hispanic, fighting with one another over race while the White feminist women steal the final scraps.

    The Feminist movement is sexist for sure, but what is damnably obvious is how RACIST Feminism is.

  30. Looking Glass says:

    Hillary is the worst retail politician to make it to the national stage is probably a century. Sure, she’s got a machine behind her, but her support has always been very thin. She lost to Obama, a Man that needed the economy to blow up to pull off a win in 2008. (And the “See, I’m not a racist!” vote. Oh, I’m going to get decades out of mocking some friends for voting for him.🙂 )

    Part of the GOPe’s terror at the thought of Trump (beyond just losing their own jobs) is that they knew this was their election. So they’ve got the spoiled-kid “I’m going to take my ball and go home” approach going on. Trump isn’t assured the nomination yet, but there’s still too many assuming that Cruz would let himself be replaced if he comes in 2nd during the primaries. The GOPe’s power isn’t what they think it actually is.

    Though it should be noted that some of the Billionaire funders seem to be coming around to Trump. (If you make that much money, you normally know when to cut your loses, which seems to be the process at the moment.)

  31. ray says:

    “Far too few men can grasp the red pill. As evidence : there is still no MRA activism, and there is still no prominent American church that follows the Bible on man-woman matters.”

    Philadelphia follows Scripture concerning marriage and male-female relations.

    That church is perhaps not ‘prominent’ because lacking a fancy building, money, etc. But Jesus seems to think it’s pretty prominent. That’s enough for me.

  32. Anon says:

    In my view, probably the end of the GOP as we know it, really.

    As it should. A Rasmussen Poll in 2014 arrived at the conclusion that ‘Voters like Republican ideas, until they find out they came from Republicans’. That tells me that there are not two parties, but rather a WWE-style scripted theatrical production where one side has agree to lose, and both create the illusion of a real contest.

    The one-party state became formal around 2006-07. The fact that the GOP is untroubled by IRS and DoJ harassment of conservatives proves this – they are in on the scam. The #1 job of a political party is to obstruct harassment of its voters/donors, and since the GOP doesn’t do this, they have been proven as the WWE villain who does not really want fans to hurt the protagonist (the Dems) on their behalf.

  33. Looking Glass says:

    @Anon:

    GOP as a jobber is about accurate.

    @Dalrock:

    On some thought, I think Trump’s wives might be more dangerous to Hillary than anything that Trump can say. There’s been a link floating around to the time that Trump was on the cover of Playboy. Yeah, that ain’t going to hurt you in the General. Obama practically ran as the “cool boyfriend” Candidate for most of the 2007/8 campaign.

  34. Stationarity says:

    I remember many years ago Limbaugh saying that hearing Mrs. Rodham lecture was like hearing your ex wife screech at you.

  35. Anon says:

    It is interesting that of all the people attacking Trump, no one is attacking his age. He will be older than Reagan was at the time of assuming office. Sure, Hillary is only a year younger, but if McCain and Dole were being slammed for being 71, Trump at 70 can be attacked.

    Good to see that rising lifespans are now tacitly accepted.

  36. Anon says:

    LookingGlass,

    GOP as a jobber is about accurate.

    More like a hated midcarder like Lanny the Genius, Jerry Lawler, Goldust, etc. Someone who the fans love to hate, and who is essential to getting the top guy over..

    Boxer,

    Bill Clinton looks about as healthy as Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club. He can barely stand up.

    Wow. He should stop making public appearances at this point. He sounds like he is under 48 months from death….

  37. Anon says:

    This is a video more suitable for other threads, but with all the father-bashing, this clip from Chris Rock is great (albeit from 1996. He would not dare say the same today) :

    Women expect to be over-praised for something a man is just expected to do (and the churcho-manginas actually slam him for doing it, so that they can pretend they are not cowards).

  38. mrteebs says:

    It doesn’t even take “scold” or “nag” to trigger convulsions in her supporters.

    All it takes is a well-placed “smile”.

  39. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “I don’t disagree, but the established leadership is what it is.”

    Yep, here they are in all their glory:

  40. Cane Caldo says:

    I would vote for cranky. It has a couple benefits, I think, over scold. First off: It’s diminutive. Scold is associated with negative tone, yet with a seriousness underneath that. Cranky is a surface-level accusation which doesn’t care about what is underneath.

    Cranky also has a subtext of being an observation of fact rather than a judgement about the person. Here’s a Trumply turn of phrase: “I’ve met Hillary Clinton. She’s a wonderful person. She was really cranky in that clip though, wasn’t she? Just cranky. She’s done a lot of great things for America although I’m concerned about that Benghazi situation. I would never lose like that.”

    Cranky is a common derision of the old, but also babies; small people who are incontinent both emotionally and physically. And also crank; as in a joke, or other untruth.

    Finally, I wonder how many people know what is a scold. Surely over 50%, but 100% know what cranky means.

    I think i’s a helluva dog whistle.

  41. Looking Glass says:

    @Anon:

    Yeah, I’m seeing where this analogy breaks down. GOP seems to like losing far more than most jobbers or mid-card heels like “putting over” the top talent.

    As for Trump’s age, he doesn’t look it. And he’s aged “well”. By which I mean he doesn’t look amazingly different from 15 years ago. Good chunks of regenerative medicine will do that for you.🙂 (Money has it’s utility in places.)

  42. MarcusD says:

    is this really necessary in dating and marriage?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1003504

    Is prejudice against your own race a sin?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1003482

    girls asking/proposing
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1003575

  43. Opus says:

    May I say – and even if Nova is wrong about what will happen – that your political system is odd, very odd. This perhaps would not matter much save that those of us who do not have a vote next November and that means all the rest of the world certainly feel as if the outcome will affect them and in a way that is not felt to be the case with a change of leadership in say Moscow or Beijing. Does The POTUS really have that much power or is it more a power of veto? Tolstoy’s view of history and leadership – that leaders are merely tools of history – a rather Hegelian concept, perhaps – is empirically unverifiable.

  44. Looking Glass says:

    @Opus:

    Well, we haven’t outsourced our government to Brussels, so we still have to actually figure these things out.

    As for a President, he matters because he sets the tone and picks the people that implement things. We do now have both a major bureaucracy and a Deep State to contend with, but the Deep Staters rather much hate Hillary. Trump would actually make their lives easier. On the foreign policy side of things, a Trump Presidency would mean actually an attempt to defend our interests, which would be a change from the last rather long while.

  45. Opus says:

    Britain has no more outsourced its hegemony to Brussels than America has to The United Nations. I had no idea that No. 43 had failed to protect your interests (I can’t immediately think of anything but then I probably wasn’t paying attention) but – as I’ve said before – in so far as Britain is concerned he has acted like a true Kenyan and shafted Britain whenever he has had the opportunity – even a week ago blaming Prime Minister Cameron for taking his eye of the ball over Libya – apparently Tripoli was our problem. I trust that a Trump presidency – seeing that he is an avowed Scot – might be more sympathetic. I thus recall that when Gordon Brown was P.M. and visited Washington in 2008, he, as a gift to Obama brought an objet d’art created from a plank of a ship of The Royal Navy that had enforced the ban on The Slave Trade. Given that Obama is not the descendant of slaves I thought the gift a pointed insult along the ‘this is you’ line. No love seems to have been lost however as Obama’s reciprocal gift to Brown was a boxed set of twenty-four Hollywood Blockbusters which in terms of gifts between world leaders is surely about as cheap as it can be and effectively a ‘F*** You’.

    P.S.Why, some seventy years after WW2 are there still no less than six American Air Force bases in Britain? I find that far more worrying than Brussels wherever that may be. I once attended an athletics display at one of the American bases, the one known as RAF Mildenhall, but I was only a boy and America was the hero of the free world – all mother and apple-pie, wide screen technicolor movies and Presidents with film-star looks (or should that be Film Stars with Presidential looks).

  46. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    Obama has been consistently shafting all govts. that he considers “colonialist”, including Britain and the U.S. Since Obama is a neo-anticolonialist ideologue, this is unsurprising. But a lot of people think Obama’s incompetent because they don’t understand him. Why would a President want to harm his own country, after all? Obama aims to reduce the power and influence of all “colonialist” govts., including the U.S. Neo-anticolonialists see influential govts. as de facto colonial powers because of their tremendous influence.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    May I say – and even if Nova is wrong about what will happen – that your political system is odd, very odd. This perhaps would not matter much save that those of us who do not have a vote next November and that means all the rest of the world certainly feel as if the outcome will affect them and in a way that is not felt to be the case with a change of leadership in say Moscow or Beijing. Does The POTUS really have that much power or is it more a power of veto?

    The President has more direct power in some areas (foreign policy, military) than in others, and these seem to disproportionately impact other countries, because these are the areas of interface with them. However, even in domestic policy, the President controls our ministries (it’s why it’s referred to as “the administration” rather than “the government” as in a parliamentary style system) and can issue “executive orders” (basically quasi-legislation) on a wide array of topics that have a definite influence in key areas. There is a lot, a LOT, you can do in terms of expressing power and policy and influencing what is happening in the country and outside it without having to pass a law, really, under our system. Legislation, of course, requires cooperation between the administration and the Congress, as does appointment of judges and so on, so there are also limits to what the administration can do. But within the limits the powers are still very broad.

    Part of the GOPe’s terror at the thought of Trump (beyond just losing their own jobs) is that they knew this was their election. So they’ve got the spoiled-kid “I’m going to take my ball and go home” approach going on. Trump isn’t assured the nomination yet, but there’s still too many assuming that Cruz would let himself be replaced if he comes in 2nd during the primaries. The GOPe’s power isn’t what they think it actually is.

    Though it should be noted that some of the Billionaire funders seem to be coming around to Trump. (If you make that much money, you normally know when to cut your loses, which seems to be the process at the moment.)

    Yes the next month or so will be quite telling in terms of whether people truly dig in for Cleveland or whether Trump generates more support among the donors. Clinton is truly a terrible campaigner, and so the election was open from the GOP side, but to be honest the ineptitude of some of the campaigns has been extraordinary. Rubio had like 1 field office in Iowa. One. They were relying on TV ads and internet, meaning that the Rubio campaign basically was being badly misrun. Trump could kind of get away with that early on because, well, he’s a reality TV personality, but even he upped his ground game a lot after Iowa. Cruz, by contrast, gets retail politics very well — what shoots him in the foot is that it is no longer the evangelical political moment that it was in 2000-2004, really, at least not in most of the country.

  48. God is Laughing says:

    @Novaseeker, the Evangelical base has changed. We can thank women in leadership and feminism for that. They tend to not be “properly” neoconservative making Cruz’s running for President of Israel an exercise in futility.

  49. Damn Crackers says:

    “Termagant” and “harridan” are words that will see a comeback in 2016. F*cking naggers!!!!

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    I would vote for cranky. It has a couple benefits, I think, over scold. First off: It’s diminutive. Scold is associated with negative tone, yet with a seriousness underneath that. Cranky is a surface-level accusation which doesn’t care about what is underneath.

    Cranky is a common derision of the old, but also babies; small people who are incontinent both emotionally and physically. And also crank; as in a joke, or other untruth.

    Finally, I wonder how many people know what is a scold. Surely over 50%, but 100% know what cranky means.

    Good points.

  51. Patrick Albanese says:

    It’s also an opportunity to set a Kafka-trap.

    By calling Hillary a scold, the feminists will go into lecture mode.

    The response should be, “See? That’s what I’m talking about! Who wants 4-8 years of this?”

  52. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Far too few men can grasp the red pill. As evidence : there is still no MRA activism, and there is still no prominent American church that follows the Bible on man-woman matters.”

    Few men publicly advocate the red pill largely because they don’t want to offend the women in their lives — wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, mothers, co-workers, clients. Blue pill living can be tolerable, even if constrained (e.g., mostly celibate) or risky (threats of frivorce).

    Other men avoid the red pill because they still idealize women. They don’t want it to be true. They want to think better of the women in their lives.

    So red pill men are mostly those who have nothing to lose (e.g., MGTOW) or those few men who have their women under control. That’s not much to build a mass movement out of.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    This will put every feminist into their well known lecture mode, which nobody has any more patience for.

    I wish this were true, but resistance to ‘feminism’ still seems to be no higher than a decade ago. Far too few men can grasp the red pill. As evidence : there is still no MRA activism, and there is still no prominent American church that follows the Bible on man-woman matters.

    These are two different things. It is true that there is no anti-feminist movement of any note. Feminism is now a unifying core value across the spectrum. But it is also true that there is very little patience for feminist lectures. No one likes a scold.

  54. cynthia says:

    @Opus

    Perhaps off topic, but those air bases in England are more a relic of the Cold War than WWII. Plus, there’s NATO to consider (but I think their HQ is in Germany); there are a lot of defense treaties in place. American bases overseas are essentially forward deployed assets in case something kicks off. The more cynical answer, however, is that the Europeans have outsourced quite a bit of their own offensive capability to us Americans and diverted their own defense funds to social programs.

    I have greater respect for the UK than many of our treaty partners. At least you guys still have a decent military and haven’t sacrificed the entire enterprise on the altars of feminism and We Aren’t Nazis Anymore, like the Scandinavians and Germans have. From what I understand though, yours is as infected with progressivism as ours is.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Could be useful as an approach to highlighting her negatives for the general, but it’s far from certain Trump will be the Republican nominee.

    This is the brilliance of the youtube ad Trump released yesterday heckling Hillary. After Tuesday it looked like the narrative would be a horse race between Cruz and Trump up to the convention. But Trump has changed the subject, and to the extent that it stays changed Cruz is fast fading as a serious candidate.

    Trump pulled out of the upcoming debate, and Fox promptly canceled it. There is no longer any point to having the debate without Trump. Last night Bill O’Reilly had Trump on asking who he would pick for VP. Brietbart has a post up about the radical left organizing protests against Trump. The NYT has an article up describing the horse race between Cruz and Kasich, with the two of them bickering over who is the bigger long shot to win the nomination. Plus, the establishment keeps threatening to pick an establishment candidate if Trump doesn’t have the electors going into the convention. This means a vote for Cruz is potentially a vote for Jeb! All of this is a disaster for Cruz and a huge boon for Trump. Very few people want to vote for a loser, and no one wants to vote for Jeb!

  56. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 4:04 am:
    “May I say – and even if Nova is wrong about what will happen – that your political system is odd, very odd.”

    It’s a total fraud, nothing like what it is supposed to be.

    “Does The POTUS really have that much power or is it more a power of veto?”

    He isn’t supposed to have that much power but Congress is happy to give him their authority so they can’t be held responsible for not doing their jobs. It doesn’t help that American voters can’t be bothered to remember even the names of their Congressmen so they talk about the Prez as if he was our king.

  57. Rudolph says:

    Red Pill Latecomer, I tend to think of it as there are two red pills. One is the “There is no Patriarchy” red pill. This is the MRA red pill.

    One is the “Women don’t belong on a pedestal”/”Hypergamy doesn’t care” red pill. This is the Game/PUA red pill.

    There is some overlap and many men take both of the pills at the same time but not always. I think this is partially the source of the bickering between MRAs and PUAs. Rollo talks about it as not entirely shrugging off all of the blue-pill conditioning.

  58. Darwinian Arminian says:

    I would vote for cranky. It has a couple benefits, I think, over scold. First off: It’s diminutive. Scold is associated with negative tone, yet with a seriousness underneath that. Cranky is a surface-level accusation which doesn’t care about what is underneath.

    . . . . . If we’re suggesting adjectives now then I’d like to be to be the first to encourage Mr. Trump to start using “bossy” as soon as possible.

  59. Trump will likely follow his pattern of go hard and coarse then back off. He will say something like, “She had Bill by his privates and is always bitching about her own privilege” and then back down to, “for decades she has been castrating men with scolding for not making her the queen, no wonder Bill was unsatisfied” – at that point he need to add bitch to queen, because that is what America is thinking and enough others will be saying it for him. The power of words like bitch/bitching, queen, scold and castrate will prove to be very effective against Hillary. Scold gets bonus points because it sounds like cold and will reinforce the idea that Hillary is frigid which is an ugly trait.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Plus, the establishment keeps threatening to pick an establishment candidate if Trump doesn’t have the electors going into the convention. This means a vote for Cruz is potentially a vote for ¡Jeb!

    FIFY.

  61. Novaseeker says:

    Dalrock —

    Oh, I agree that Trump is pivoting to the general, and changing the conversation. Clearly that’s intentional, and it’s effective as well. To be honest, any other candidate in his position now would be the presumptive nominee and would also be starting to pivot, so it makes sense for him to act like he’s the presumptive nominee, too.

    Interesting angle that a vote for Cruz would be a vote for Jeb. I’d guess it could also be a vote for Romney or a vote for Ryan. Either way, if the leadership does as it is clearly threatening to do, and tries to take away the nomination from the person with the most delegates, even though this is permitted by the rules, it will cost them the 16 election. I suspect they know this, and will try to do it anyway in order to maintain some semblance of control over the brand. Question is whether the Trump voters ever really come back to the GOP again after that and/or whether that matters — that debate is between the view that (a) the GOP can’t win without these voters and the view that (b) the GOP needs to exchange this base, which is in decline anyway, for a new one which is more Latino and Asian, so let’s just get that exchange underway now and take our lumps. Personally I don’t think that the GOP is ever going to get a lot of Latino and Asian votes, because it’s already seen as the white guy party, and that was long before Trump and 2016. They think there is no future in that demographically, and they may be right, but I don’t see the demographics of their support turning around much — perhaps a bit here and there on the margins, but not in a way that can actually replace the white working and lower middle class part of the base.

    I think it would be funny if Trump and Cruz got together before the convention to trade their delegate support so as to prevent the leadership from going around both of them (which would likely happen if they broker it — surely Cruz won’t get the nod simply by coming in second, and a distant one at that). So Cruz asks his delegates to support Trump on the first ballot in exchange for VP, and Trump is then over 1237. Of course the trick there is that Cruz’s delegates aren’t under any obligation to listen to Cruz — their only obligation is to vote for him on the first ballot. But it would be an interesting gambit, I think, and one that would not shock me. Honestly I think Trump/Kasich would be a much stronger ticket (it would be a very strong ticket in the Midwest and Rust Belt, really — and potentially delivering Ohio and Florida both), but extremely unlikely unless Trump gets to 1237 on his own.

  62. They Call Me Tom says:

    If there is a brokered convention, Trump’s and Cruz’s infrastructure starts a third party which becomes a second party by the next elections in 2018…and the GOP leadership will be left in charge of what will become a third party.

    Sort of like those folks in Byzantium who saw a powerful leader, assassinated them, and were shocked…shocked I tell you… that the office was less powerful when it was not honestly achieved, and when it was achieved by a lesser leader. The GOP is preparing to assassinate better leadership than they can offer in order to ‘win’ control of what would be a lesser party as a result.

  63. Mark Citadel says:

    Where Trump has been most effective is labeling people with something that sticks. Lyin’ Ted, Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco. It is possible he could do the same to Hillary. She’s not exactly a difficult target.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Finally, I wonder how many people know what is a scold. Surely over 50%, but 100% know what cranky means.

    Thinking about this some more, I think this is a bonus in scold’s favor. Everyone knows what scolding is, but many won’t know the harsher implications of the term scold. So this will prompt a very public feminist dissertation on the meaning of the word, which to nearly everyone will sound just like more scolding (because it is).

  65. Boxer says:

    Everyone knows what scolding is, but many won’t know the harsher implications of the term scold. So this will prompt a very public feminist dissertation on the meaning of the word, which to nearly everyone will sound just like more scolding (because it is).

    Anyone in here have the time to memeshop Monica Lewinsky and Hillary into this here…

    Anyone?

  66. Jim says:

    Boxer says:
    March 17, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Good way to keep her trap shut. And humiliation is a very effective form of punishment. Especially for an evil crony-witch like “Hitlery”.

  67. thedeti says:

    At English common law, there was a crime of being a “common scold”. The common scold was a

    “species of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarrelling with her neighbours.” (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_scold)

    “Lastly, a common scold, communis rixatrix, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the trebucket, castigatory, or cucking stool, which in the Saxon language signifies the scolding stool; though now it is frequently corrupted into ducking stool, because the residue of the judgement is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.” (Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law)

    The “cucking stool”. I laughed.

  68. Anon says:

    Opus,

    I had no idea that No. 43 had failed to protect your interests

    Obama is No. 44, actually.

    I trust that a Trump presidency – seeing that he is an avowed Scot –

    Trump (Drumpf) is actually of German origins, just like Eisenhower (Eisenhaeur) was…

    Why, some seventy years after WW2 are there still no less than six American Air Force bases in Britain?

    Because the host country makes a lot of money from them (this is an outside injection of funds into your country, after all). No country has truly demanded that a US base leave their lands. (Britain, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.).

  69. Anon says:

    *Eisenhauer

  70. Anon says:

    thedeti,

    That is awesome! They specifically identify a female as the type of person who is a scold. Plus, they recognize this person as counterproductive to society. Modern ‘feminists’ are all examples of this.

    The excerpt in your comment should be the basis of a post by itself. I mean, what are ‘feminists’ other than scolds who deserve to be on cucking stools?

  71. Looking Glass says:

    @anon:

    Only one that ever asked us to leave (Germany), but they very quickly changed course when the local politicians threatened to do unspeakable things to the national politicians.

  72. @Rudolph, if you’d gone over to AVfM about 2012-2013 and asked anyone in their feminist moderated comment threads if they considered themselves “Red Pill” you’d have gotten Paul Elam’s standard response of “Hell no! F those Red Pill guys, they’re all snake oil salesmen!”

    All it took was another feminist to do a documentary film about the MRM with Paul and Dean’s crying faces prominently featured in the trailers and now it’s “We’ve been Red Pill all along. No one gets to own that term.”

    If they could market it, they’d call themselves feminists too.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    If they could market it, they’d call themselves feminists too.

    True. I wonder how long before AVfM decides to get on board with some variation of “complementarianism”, of the CBMW sort but shorn of any Christianity?

    I still maintain that it’s only a matter of time before Elam gets kicked out of his own org, based on what happened at the Good Mangina Project. Because of the known 4:1 ingroup preference women have (except for Alpha’s, and Paul…isn’t.).

  74. Anon says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I still maintain that it’s only a matter of time before Elam gets kicked out of his own org

    The problem with Elam is that he does not want feminist laws to be rolled back. He just wants to make money from selling the hope to desperate men that *someone* is fighting feminism. If some feminist is harmed, Elam is neutral on that. But his goal is not to truly fight feminism (just like Jesse Jackson’s true goal is certainly not to bring blacks to parity with whites)..

    On Dean Esmay….. I really wanted Men’s Rights to be a big tent. But when Roosh was drawing more ‘feminist’ ire than all MRAs combined, Esmay piled on to call Roosh a rapist (based on what exclusive evidence, Esmay won’t say). So Roosh is making more feminists go batshit, and Esmay’s approach is to agree with the feminists and call Roosh a rapist.

  75. Rudolph says:

    Rollo, I did see such a thing. But who does or does not call themselves or consider themselves Red Pill isn’t really what I’m getting at. I think that isn’t even a discussion worth having.

    It is just more that I perceive it is possible to see just one of the gynocentrism (that creates all the laws catering to women) our society runs on or how women are with regards hypergamy and the FI and the sexual marketplace.

    Maybe it is two red pills as I posit or maybe it is just the stuff you talk about with not shedding all of the Blue Pill conditioning and continuing to hold on to NAWALT.

  76. Opus says:

    I seem to recall that France closed all U.S.bases. One of the advantages of owning the remnants of Empire (and cheaper than Aircraft Carriers) is that Britain has all sorts of places from which to launch Fighter Jets; Gibraltar (useful against Libya) and Cyprus (useful from which to bomb Syria) come to mind which is just as well because all of our Carriers are either mothballed or otherwise not fit for service and that includes our two new (seventy-five thousand ton) Carriers [double facepalm].

    Donald is such a Scottish name: I trust I may be forgiven for my inaccurate assertion of Trump’s ancestry – though he is going to build a golf-course in Scotland – along with my miscounting American Presidents and also (easy mistake) placing the start of the Obama Presidency in 2008 rather than 2009.

    You will recall we had a female leader: “The Lady’s not for turning” “Rejoice Rejoice” and “I fight on, I fight on to win” – she didn’t – those were the catch phrases of Margaret thatcher and like Mrs Clinton she was also a lawyer though at the Inns of Court it is said that Lady Thatcher wasn’t really very good at it. Marrying a millionaire never hurt her either. Well, we got fed up with her and in our flexible i.e. non-existent, democracy we got rid of her mid-term – and without the need for impeachment. We have not repeated that experiment nor does it look as if we are going to do so. Anyway so as to appease the female sex our Head of State, Home Secretary (now a feminist sinecure) Mistress of the Queen’s Music and the Poet Laureate all being female all the really important jobs go to men: thus all the following, the four most important, are male; the Prime Minister, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Foreign Secretary and The Defence Secretary.

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    The problem with Elam is that he does not want feminist laws to be rolled back.

    He can’t want that so long as he accepts feminists into his org. Conservative feminists are still feminists. They’ll picket abortion clinics. They’ll still oppose lesbian weddings, although that’s probably fading. But really reform family law? Roll back Title IX just to pre-1992 status? Dial back AA from 11?

    No way. Because that would affect his feminist allies, directly or indirectly. I don’t think Elam sees this, since he’s totally in the eqalitarian / egalitarian camp, squarely embedded in 2nd stage 1970’s “equity” feminism. That’s why AVfM so often couches arguments in terms of “fairness”, because that’s the go-to term for “equity” feminists. Except of course, Elam is not Red Pill so he is blinded what women mean by “fair”.

    He’s in a trap of his own creation. Maybe he’ll realize that someday.

  78. Opus says:

    I recall, vaguely (there being perhaps no love lost between Paul Elam and Bill Price) a group of the so-called Honey Badgers including Karen Straughan coming over to The Spearhead with some sort of NAWALT plea. I now forget why. They were not welcome, were quickly revealed to have a female supremacist agenda – feminist-lite you may say – or something like it and retreated in tears back to AVfM.

    I did some work for a lawyer who having started his own practice quickly acquired four female partners. He was thrown out. He then started another new practice and more or less the same thing happened again. I don’t read AVfM but then – being a fan of The Common Law – I am not a believer in or supporter of Men’s (or any body elses) Rights.

  79. nick012000 says:

    @Anonymous: He doesn’t want to roll back feminist “victories” in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t oppose their agenda, and that in doing so, he’d roll them back in other ways (if not the ways we’d prefer). He just wants to grant the benefits of it to men, too: for instance, he wants to allow men to abandon their children prior to birth without needing to pay child support, since women are allowed to abort them.

    Basically, prior to feminism, men had both freedoms and responsibilities, while women had many fewer of both; after it, women had freedoms but no responsibilities while men maintain their responsibilities and lose many of their freedoms. Traditionalists (like many on this blog) want to revert things to how they were before feminism; MRAs want to get rid of responsibilities for everyone, thereby preventing feminists from freeloading off of men’s labors.

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Anonymous: He doesn’t want to roll back feminist “victories” in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t oppose their agenda, and that in doing so, he’d roll them back in other ways (if not the ways we’d prefer). He just wants to grant the benefits of it to men, too: for instance, he wants to allow men to abandon their children prior to birth without needing to pay child support, since women are allowed to abort them.

    Yeah, “choice for men” has been rolling around the Internet since forever. It’s not ever going anywhere, and if Elam seriously thinks there’s a chance of that happening he’s deluding himself.
    Look, it would be less controversial to mandate DNA testing of all newborns in order to determine paternity, and the few attempts to enact that into law have consistently failed.

    Again, if Elam were “red pill” he would not make such mistakes.

    Traditionalists (like many on this blog) want to revert things to how they were before feminism;

    More accurately, “traditionalists” want to revert things to how it was when they were children. So we see older “traditionalists” that want to roll things back to the 1970’s – Title IX stays intact so their daughters can compete in lacrosse, limited AA in place so their wives can work on the side. Younger “traditionalists” that want to roll things back to the 80’s, etc. and so forth.
    It’s the usual form of “traditionalism”, “liberalism” with a time lag.

    Easy test of a “traditionalist” – ask him or her “So, should women vote?” and in my experience the majority will look at you funny, because “We’ve Always Done It That Way”. I’ve done this in real life. I have not yet found a man in real life who would be willing to repeal the 19th Amendment.

    Another easy test of a “traditionalist”, ask for support for mandatory DNA testing to determine paternity. I’ve tried that both online and in real life, and funny thing is, “traditionalists” tend to react to that in a fashion very similar to feminists – aghast at the very idea, the Very Idea! that any man would dare to not totally trust a woman.

    MRAs want to get rid of responsibilities for everyone, thereby preventing feminists from freeloading off of men’s labors.

    Some do, perhaps, but this looks a whole lot like a strawman to me.

  81. Opus says:

    The 19th amendment – that must be suffrage for women. I am not sure I am even in favour of suffrage for men. The Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 increased the extent of the male franchise but even so over half of all men were excluded: the idea that somehow lack of suffrage is an attack on freedom is about as daft as suggesting that because big business is powerful you deserve a vote (for existing) at the AGM’s of such company and without acquiring a shareholding.

    Women always had, going back to time immemorial, a vote in Parish matters. The reasonig was that the home was their sphere whereas they risked nothing in the larger affairs of state. Now that the State has one main client, namely women perhaps men should be excluded from the franchise: my vote in the upcoming Referendum as about as useful to me as the purchase of a lottery ticket. Female suffrage is of course an attack on the institution of the family.

  82. Isa says:

    @Opus People do so love to not remember that most white males couldn’t vote from time immemorial. I’ve always been fond of the idea of having, say, a citizenship test given to citizens as we do aliens. Perhaps put it with some kind of government ID renewal, just 100 questions that are the same every year covering basic governmental structure and common law et. al. Simple enough that one could memorize it relatively easily if one cared enough to vote and as one can’t vote oneself higher benefits without passing the exam, perhaps eventually something of it would sink in.

    The sad bit is that the client of the state is 90% women and underclass men. With those tied together, nothing sensible can ever come of the government. Perhaps just eject the Scots (who have a worrying amount of both) and see if that improves the Commonwealth, and as there are no ships for the ports in Scotland it hardly matters for the Navy to have them.

  83. Opus says:

    The entitlement to vote was based on the ownership of land of a sufficiently high rateable value. America by reason of its vast tracts of land thus acquired at an earlier stage as a percentage of the population a greater electorate than Britain. My analogy with shareholding then perhaps becomes more pertinent. Women tended not to hold land and thus the need to extend the suffrage to females would largely have been pointless – politics was once a life and death matter where falling out of favour as did Cranmer and Thomas More meant decapitation.

    What I like to point out (to the amazement of other people) is that my great grandfather (who amazingly lived in the house behind me) and who like other military officers and members of the UMC regarded land-owning as something for the lower orders and for the aristocracy – his income enabled him to rent whatever he chose – and he would thus not, despite the fact that he was a retired Colonel, a Justice of the Peace and a Deputy Lieutenant of the County, have had any vote – although I am not exactly sure when the laws which changed a few times over the course of the Nineteenth Century to expand the electorate would have swallowed him up within their criteria. There was – so far as I am aware – no push to have any form of general suffrage prior to the Putney Debates of 1647, that is to say during the Civil War, after which the idea nowhere near the Overton Window was forgotten for another one hundred and fifty years.

    One should also not forget that Parliaments – a medieval invention – had largely fallen into abeyance in the rest of Europe but survived as a curiosity in England. No point having the suffrage if there is no parliament. It was thanks to men that there were parliaments at all – and that was a very touch and go thing especially during the reign of the Charles 1. Feminism is a fact-free utopia of never-ending androphobia.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    The 19th amendment – that must be suffrage for women.

    Yes, and it tended to be enacted at the state level as a package deal along with the 18th Amendment, the Volstead act, also known as “Prohibition”[1]. The prohibition of the sale of alcohol for drinking. I’ve gotten under the skin of more than one “progressive” by reminding them that the same people who were all about “votes for women” also peddled the “brutal, drunken father” lie in order to ban booze…and we all know how the booze ban worked out during the “roaring 20’s”.
    Yes, Feminism in the US was intertwined with teetotaling busybodies who worked hard to ban the working man’s beer, and succeeded for a while.

    [1] That’s back in the days when would-be “reformers” actually read the Constitution then attempted to change it via Amendment. Stone age in some ways.

  85. Opus says:

    @anonymous reader

    That is both interesting and revealing. Britain did not succumb to Prohibition – far too many drunk women I suspect; Gin being known as Mother’s Ruin – but the linking of the 18th and 19th Amendment to your Constitution reminds me that in Britain, The Criminal Justice Act of 1885 linked two seemingly unrelated things by banning all forms of Homosexuality (between men) and raising the age of consent for sexual intercourse from thirteen to sixteen – one clearly does not need a female electorate for Androphobic legislation – a fact MRA types often overlook. The former provision was, in 1967, repealed but not the latter. Whatever one may think of Homosexuality, by making a blanket ban thereon, the effect (as in being hung for a sheep as for a lamb) was that there was no reason why a Homosexual should have been in any way concerned as to the age of his sexual partner for whatever age that person was, it was illegal. Unintended pro-paedophilic consequences of draconian statutes.

  86. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    Whatever one may think of Homosexuality, by making a blanket ban thereon, the effect (as in being hung for a sheep as for a lamb) was that there was no reason why a Homosexual should have been in any way concerned as to the age of his sexual partner for whatever age that person was, it was illegal. Unintended pro-paedophilic consequences of draconian statutes.

    While I don’t know what the code said in Merrie Old England, in the USA it was decidedly libertarian. States set their own rules on sodomy, with most requiring a complaint from a “victim” or from a “witness”. This made the crime a de facto enhancement to things that were already criminal acts (rape, having sex in public, etc.)

    https://books.google.com/books/about/Gay_New_York.html?id=NNHGuVdPELYC

    As the title above suggests (and it’s a much more serious work than it pretends to be) gays in North America were rarely oppressed. The repeal and review of what people now imagine to be anti-gay laws led not to freedom to be gay (which was always extant here) but the freedom to shove their gay shit in everyone else’s face, and the freedom to be as annoying and insufferable as possible.

    I’m not the most moral person, admittedly, but I don’t demand that society throw guys like me a parade, or let us fuck random ho’s in front of your elderly parents and kids on a float. The idea that just because gays couldn’t offend nearly everyone was discriminatory is ridiculous.

    Boxer

  87. Mark says:

    @Opus

    “You give women the vote and it will mean the end of social cohesion and the beginning of every liberal cause under the sun”…………..Winston Churchill.

    ” I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”
    -Queen Victoria of the British Empire

    “”they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings “”…………………….I think that describes HRC to a “T”.

  88. Kevin says:

    Trump is going to lose to Hillary so badly that it will reshape politics in America. Trump has one of the highest unfavorable ratings ever. We could have easily won with some appealing charisma as Hillary is very unlivable also (not as much as Trump of course). And to think we started out with so many amazing choices.

    Also this might be the first time I have read Dalrock reference himself as a lowly beta. Unfortunately this feeds into a bunch of manosphere delusions about alpha and betas (the peak stupidity of that was a post on Vox claiming all the presidential candidates bedsides Trump were not alpha. Ridiculous. They are all alphas.). Alpha and beta are relative positions. I am an alpha at home, but at work my very aggressive boss is the alpha. Dalrock is the alpha here – men follow him and admire him – the key feature of Alphaness.

    Based on genetic testing even in ancient pre-civilization times 20% of men reproduced suggesting the percent of alpha men is somewhere between 10-20%. And it’s all relative to the current environment. If you have even basic self confidence you can be an alpha among the sad passive boys the schools are producing.

  89. Pingback: A liberal scold reads to children and makes them sad. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog

  90. Modsquad says:

    I prefer the term ‘harp’ and ‘harpy’… would love to see Trump pull out a harmonica and start playing in response to the criticism after dropping that term.

  91. Bill Smith says:

    Yeah Kevin, we Jeb would have wiped the ground with Hillary.

    Right.

    You can wake up now.

  92. evilwhitemalempire says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    “how many white knights will try to make a show of their virtue by jumping to her defense and working to boost support for her?”
    ————————–
    Fortunately Clinton’s age could work against her here.

    Ever seen a white knight defend a grandma?

  93. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Really, the elites need to stop this superdelegate stuff and let Bernie win the Dem nomination fair and square or they will be looking at a Trump presidency come November.

  94. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Oh
    my
    fucking
    God!
    The Dems desperately need the Bern….
    …or they WILL get burned come November.

  95. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Anon
    “Far too few men can grasp the red pill. As evidence : there is still no MRA activism, and there is still no prominent American church that follows the Bible on man-woman matters.”
    ——————————–
    MRA activism is a joke.
    Christianity is too (just an older one).
    All the red pillers are at ROK and CH these days.

  96. JDG says:

    For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s