How John Stuart Mill Demolished Roosh’s Feminist Opponents Over 150 Years Ago

With Return of Kings publisher Roosh taking a victory lap after holding two successful talks in Canada—despite the entire Canadian establishment trying to stop him—butthurt social justice freaks are licking their wounds and trying to regroup with the #RooshIsARapist hashtag campaign.

#RooshIsARapist is an attempt to get Roosh’s books removed from Amazon and other online booksellers for “promoting” rape, based both on out-of-context quotes from said books and the general feminist fear of men having sex with women and enjoying it.

But don’t you dare call it censorship. As SJWs love to Pharisaically parrot, only the government can engage in censorship. Private citizens mobbing together to metaphorically burn someone at the stake isn’t censorship, any more than flashing schoolmarms at the mall isn’t a sex crime because hey, at least you aren’t trying to rape them.

In fact, the left has conjured up a term for those who criticize SJW-led mob harassment: “freeze peach,” a neologism that reveals both their authoritarian mindsets and their utter immaturity:

The fact that this line of argument has become so popular shows how unsophisticated and ignorant (in the most literal sense of the term) SJWs are. Thomas Wiggins and his co-belligerents are completely unaware that there is a body of philosophy demolishing their arguments going all the way back before America’s founding. In particular, John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential philosophers in European history, specifically shredded this line of reasoning nearly two centuries ago.

On Liberty On SJWs


John Stuart Mill’s 1859 book On Liberty is regarded as one of the foundational documents of Western liberalism, and is so highly regarded to this day that it serves as the book of office for the U.K.’s Liberal Democrats. Here is what Mill had to say about social justice warriors:

The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the “liberty of the press” as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. This aspect of the question, besides, has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it needs not be specially insisted on in this place. Though the law of England, on the subject of the press, is as servile to this day as it was in the time of the Tudors, there is little danger of its being actually put in force against political discussion, except during some temporary panic, when fear of insurrection drives ministers and judges from their propriety; 1 and, speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended, that the government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

The gist of Mill’s argument is that not only is government censorship of ideas not the sole threat to freedom of speech, it’s not even the biggest threat. If people cannot speak their minds out of fear of being fired from their jobs or made unemployable, then free speech does not exist regardless of any protections it may have from the government.

Liberty does not spring from a law or an amendment to a constitution, but from the very ways that a people behave. A society in which dissidents are hounded into silence by private citizens is just as much a tyranny as a totalitarian dictatorship.

Additionally, Mill noted that the kind of decentralized online harassment that SJWs engage in is more dangerous when the people are on the government’s side. Free speech laws such as the First Amendment exist to protect minority opinions, not majority ones. Even in a repressive communist state such as North Korea, someone who states an opinion held by the majority will never be arrested or persecuted. A society can only call itself “free” if it allows those who hold minority views to speak without fear, because it is for those minorities that the First Amendment and other similar laws were created.

Astroturfing Outrage


It’s also worth noting that the “outrage” over Roosh’s books and speeches is almost entirely manufactured. As I pointed out in a previous article, before he came to Canada, Roosh gave the same speech in four cities in three other countries with nary a peep. It wasn’t until a handful of bored dilettantes in the Great White North took notice that the #DenyRooshV movement came into being.

The same goes for other witch hunts that SJWs launch. Very rarely do these keyboard warrior-driven hashtag campaigns spill over into the real world. Most people are apathetic about these issues, even when it comes to those they disagree with, and can’t be bothered to lift a finger to agitate for someone they’ve probably never even heard of to be fired. For example, I’ve gotten countless death threats for my writing, yet not a single one of my detractors has even attempted to confront me in person.

The reality is that the “popular” outrage against Roosh, myself and neomasculinity is almost entirely astroturfed. In the specific case of Roosh’s Canadian engagements, the anti-Roosh protests were a creation of Sara Parker-Toulson and Aurelie Nix, working in conjunction with the country’s sympathetic, incestuous media establishment. They reflect the opinions of a small minority of Canadians who have a disproportionate amount of influence in society.

It remains to be seen whether this current SJW tantrum will have any legs, but what we do know is that the great men of the Western canon had denounced modern feminist tactics and beliefs long before they were dirty, sick thoughts in their fathers’ heads.

Read More: Are Toronto Mayor John Tory And Councilman Norm Kelly Promoting The Violation Of Canadian Law?

101 thoughts on “How John Stuart Mill Demolished Roosh’s Feminist Opponents Over 150 Years Ago”

    1. Every social justice issue is an exaggeration if not an outright fabrication. If you live in America, never trust a victim that is supported by equalists.

    2. Yes, they have. When they heard it they were so incensed they immediately marched to have the wolf put away for the mental and emotional abuse that women suffered because the thought the wolf merely existed was a threat to women and thus they are regularly “assaulted” by all boys who cry wolf everywhere through the system of Wolviarchy. They told us the boy was being discriminated against because he was “truth-fluid” when truth is just a social construct, but, in any case, the people who suffered most were clearly all women, everywhere, irrespective of their situation. Then they shamed the townspeople for victim-blaming and created a series of impassioned jump-cut YouTube videos to let us know the real victims will be future liars who will not be believed. It’s all about raising awareness.
      Oh…and wolves are cis-het scum with small penises who can’t get laid and live in the basement of the little pig with the brick house.

  1. If free speech was only permitted under public or government controlled forums, there would be very little free speech, as most venues are ultimately owned by somebody.
    Free speech “extremism” should purposely invade into private spaces, precisely because doing so will prevent equalists from forming safe spaces to breed their ideology.
    If you look at forums, the less moderation, the less likely leftists can get a foothold on that forum because leftists depend on pro-social behavior to protect their unpopular opinions. In the absence of social protection, the “trolls” i.e. their critics, destroy them.

  2. free speech does not exist regardless of any protections it may have from the government.

    Lets be clear: the government cannot protect your free speech, it can only infringe upon it. Rather, things work the other way round. We restrict the government from infringing on free speech.

    1. Except the concept of “free speech” is bullshit. NOTHING is free.
      Notice how “Free” speech is used to take away liberty and destroy people? Notice how “free” speech is used to weaponize democracy into tyranny?
      Gee, that’s easy. Easy for them. While people wanting to be free can talk freedom until they are blue in the face and nothing but one person will complain about lack of a gender neutral bathroom and they’ll get signal boosted and the media will act like the world is ending.
      But that “pact” of “I disagree with you but I’ll defend your rights to say it” is DEAD. It was “them” who broke it when they started personally hauling Christian bakers into court for not wanting to bake their cake and personally getting checks from them (yes, homo using courts to financially rape a private citizen).
      And all those media and academics hiding behind “free speech” while they pollute young minds and lie.
      This is why I can look back on every case of democide, persecution, and genocide and now I have to wonder “did they have it coming?”.
      One thing is certain, people are reacting, and if they overreact I’m not going to bother to defend the people who are pushing everybody around now with their outrage mobs and PC. I’m not going to put on jackboots and go goose stepping like a fucking tool, but I’m not going to be stopping it when people get fed up and start doing so. Actions must have consequence as surely as we see a lot of people not having enough consequences for their actions and that’s why we are in the mess we have today.

      1. “And all those media and academics hiding behind “free speech” while they pollute young minds and lie.
        This is why I can look back on every case of democide, persecution, and genocide and now I have to wonder “did they have it coming?”. ”
        Makes you wonder… What if you’re a well meaning person and you get fucked over for not paying attention to the dogma of the time? What if they try and castrate you? Are you really going to turn the other ass-cheek?

        1. I believe that “turn the other cheek” meant shrugging off insults.
          Back in the time of Christ, a slap was a mere insult, rather than the “assault” that modern people made it out to be.
          Contrary to what liberals/false Christians state, those words DO NOT prohibit self-defense.

        2. People sure became wimpy, no?
          In my opinion, an assault is something that could potentially kill you; who has ever been killed by a slap?

        3. That’s kind of how I felt when I heard about that chick from Montreal “assaulting” Roosh. I get it that he’s making a stink about it to prove a point, but I always thought having beer thrown in my face was just part of a good weekend.

    2. In the United States, there have been instances where the government took action to protect a march or demonstration in public. It use to be one of the reasons towns and cities had ‘permit requirements’ to assemble in a public place. The local government wanted/needed notice so they could deploy additional police to allow the march, demonstration or protest to take place without others interfering.

      1. If the government does something like this then it is making a political decision. It is not for your protection. Furthermore, if I need to petition to the government for a permit to express myself that is an infringement of my free speech.

    3. the government cannot protect your free speech

      But it could. For example by going against anyone who infringes on your right to speak freely.
      Unfortunately the government jumps into action only “when someone discriminates against women” and not “when someone restricts someone’s freedom of speech”.
      That’s one of the reasons why SJWs are winning: They are protected by the government, their opponents are not.

      1. ❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖ my right hand’s step sister makes 94$ reliably on the tablet……..on Sat I got a prime of the degree audi sinceobtaining a check for four216$ this most portion 4 weeks additionally, i really began six months/former and on a particularly clear level in a brief instant was making more than 87$ p/h . endeavor this site….
        ✔✔✔OVER HERE✔✔✔ __________________________________________________________________________ ➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽GO TO THIS AND CLICK NEXT LINK IN IT FOR WORK ✔✔✔✔✔✔

      2. Exactly however as higher rates of employment ensue people will be far more willing to say what is at the moment left unsaid.

    4. We can’t control government until we can isolate and define exactly what it is. Someday we’ll put a finger on precicely who or what that thing is that forces itself about our personal occupied space. For now government is loosely defined as a mindset in action, a recurring predatory groupthink body of beta, the ‘scorned woman’ force manifest in mankind that both fears the alpha in man and at the same time envies it as god, and rebells against it by trying to subdue, yoke and control and also ally itself with the alpha to become more godlike. Government is if you will ‘a bad sided woman’ in its attempt to subdue the nature of man. Even leading so called ‘alpha’ leaders and kings try to make their minion men into ‘bitches’ of their state. Free patriarch man can rule all with his spirit alone, whereas ‘government’ is pure putrid BITCH FORCE unleashed.

    5. This article is the kind of careless shit that leaves an open flank. There are plenty of SJW issues to attack, let’s not set ourselves up for an easy sweep.
      Yes, it’s true that there’s such a thing as private censorship. However, it’s also true that the concept of freedom of speech is only concerned with the State, not with private parties. Freedom of speech only means that the State isn’t allowed to infringe on your speech. It doesn’t mean that you’re entitled to the means to effectively express your opinion publicly or that others are obligated to listen. If your opinion is unpopular and no one wants to hear what you say, you’re fucked. So if you live in a very conservative and religious town in the Bible Belt and you want to hold a public talk called “how to properly praise lord Satan”, you have a right to hold and express your opinion but you’ve got to deal with the fact that you probably won’t find a single venue willing to have you, let alone an audience willing to listen. And you aren’t entitled to either. So what, are you gonna complain that your freedom of speech has thus been infringed or that society isn’t “truly free” because Christian pastors can preach publicly in that town and for all practical purposes you can’t? C’mon! That’s why ROK can rightfully ban women and gays, because it’s a privately run venue and it has no obligation to accommodate opinions. Do you think these women and gays could rightfully claim that ROK has violated their freedom of speech? Do you see the nonsense now?
      Forney is unwittingly (I hope) peddling the same distorted concept of freedom that the Marxists came up with. What they call “true freedom” and we call “equality of outcome”. Marxists argue that it’s not enough that the State may not prevent you from exercising your speech; in order to have true freedom of speech, all the conditions must also be provided for you to effectively exercise your speech in practice. This is the same argument the radical Left has used in 3rd World countries to awaken sympathy from clueless suckers: that since they don’t have the same means mainstream media has and as large an audience, then either their freedom of speech has been infringed upon or there’s no true freedom of speech in the country, ergo let’s revolution.
      In fact, Forney’s argument sounds like femspeak. This call to impose obligations to honor freedoms on private parties is the same idea behind the Leftist argument that a Christian bakery can’t refuse service to a gay couple because that would be an infringement upon their rights.
      Complaining about how the other side is preventing your speech is not the proper way to deal with resistance. Let’s also remember that we as men can’t successfully play the victim angle.
      P.S.: I’m just piggybacking here, not actually replying to englishbob

  3. Yet when a private cake shop wants to exclude gay speech they have the government shut it down. SJWs don’t mind their arguments being demolished because they don’t have any, they are power movement that lusts after destroying opposition, they only pretend to support “free speech” and “rights”

  4. We should fight their lies by telling the truth about them. I suggest #FeministsAreUnloved as a hashtag campaign to counter them.

  5. If people cannot speak their minds out of fear of being fired from their jobs or made unemployable, then free speech …

    This threat ends liberty. Period.
    It is also why I would fully support someone who is blackballed in such away if he were to decide to retaliate against those who destroyed his life and livelihood.

  6. Let’s not forget though that John Stuart Mill was an early feminist.
    He thought that we simply don’t know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try. Well, we did try and now we know – not much. Mill also attacked marriage laws, which he likened to the slavery of women. Wrong. He was also in favor of women’s suffrage. Wrong again.
    I wouldn’t take his writings seriously.

      1. No, if he was a solid thinker he would not have written the nonsense that “The Subjection of Women” is. He was just a lefty who wanted to see how much he can push the envelope to satisfy his own intellectual ego and overcome his wife’s fragility.

        1. I disagree.
          I don’t think he could have predicted the SmartPhone, birth-control pill, etc. which has had a major impact on gender relations.
          It’s not just political evolution but technological evolution as well.

        2. Philosophers men long before him knew and warned us about the peculiar sides of the female nature. The knowledge has been within the humanity for centuries but Mill all of a sudden decides he knew better. Plus, if he had studied the Roman history he would have known what the outcome of women’s emancipation was going to be.
          If you read his biography, it will transpire that he was under the influence of his wife, he was a total Beta.

    1. He thought that we simply don’t know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try. Well, we did try and now we know – not much.

      You have to credit Mill with intellectual honesty and a commitment to empirical evidence, at least in this area. You can’t blame him if the experiment turned out badly, because women let us down, not Mill.

      1. Curiosity killed the cat – the dangers of unnecessary investigation or experimentation. He thought that the family was incompatible with women’s equality in the wider social world. That’s simply stupid.
        And as a matter of fact Mill wrote “The Subjection of Women” jointly with his wife. I bet she withheld sex from him and he wrote it to oblige her.

  7. I think the Toronto event’s biggest success was planting a seed in the minds of men who heard about Roosh’s world tour.
    The SJWs might have already forgot who Roosh is… To them he might have been just the next fleeting feminist conundrama, right up there with releasing period blood during a marathon and patriarchal air-conditioning.
    The real impact is that there might have been men who heard about the event… And they end up thinking to themselves “Hey is something going on here?”
    I think this because during a shift at work a week ago a close-buddy of mine asked me what I did over the weekend. I told him I went to a conference. When he asked what it was about I told him it was a networking event for men. Then he asked me if it was in any way related to a guy named RooshV.
    When I told him that I went to a dance club with RooshV on the weekend he slid down his sunglasses and looked me in the eyes with a surprised look.
    “Dude!!! You could have gotten in serious trouble for that!!! WTF were you thinking!?!” I smiled and laughed. I’ll admit I was a little excited to get that response.
    He told me about how he saw the whole thing in the news and followed up by doing some research. He checked out ROK and looked at the How to Stop Rape article by Roosh and told me that it was entirely obvious that it was satirical. He was pretty amazed that there was this thing called the manosphere where men are congregating to deal with the absurd levels of political correctness in our society.
    In this regard Roosh’s event was clearly a success, especially in the overly PC DEFCOCK 1.2 Canada. It planted the idea in some men’s minds that there is a place where they can be themselves and figure things out. If a dude is forced to take the red-pill he will have a place where he knows he can go.

    1. I wonder if those morons realize they helped promote Roosh’s neo-masculine movement in the West better than he could have ever dreamed of.

      1. They don’t realize.
        The one who says the Toronto photo is a fake, even claims this is all a victory for the SJWs because ‘Roosh had to fake the photo’. I can’t tell if she is being dramatic, attention whoring or if there is something wrong with her thinking processes.
        I went onto her site to explain that if Roosh had been left alone, only a few hundred people would have even known about the lecture; instead the SJWs got him national coverage on CBC and looked like idiots as they ran mobs around Toronto looking for him (and failed to find him).
        In spite of such facts, she still posts that ‘Roosh lost’ as though saying this will make it a fact.
        If Roosh keeps ‘losing’ like this, he might reach the point where investment income from the profits on his books will allow him to retire or do whatever he wants with his time.

        1. She is in total denial. The more she babbles her false victory, the deeper she digs into her own stupidity. She has no sense of logic and people will soon see that she’s a complete whack job that needs to be put into a mental institution.

        2. I read some more of her blog and assumed that she is ‘inflammatory’ in her postings to make it more interesting for readers or to get more traffic. But even taking that into account, I found it hard to believe that some of this attitude does not seep over into her dealings with people in the world. I would feel bad if she is married to some guy since he has to somehow deal with it all the time.
          From her intensity I wondered what kind of job she works at and if she acts the same way at such job.
          I was just amazed that she would put out the whole ‘photo is fake’ and seems to have no experience or credentials to make such a judgement, especially in light of her postings that one could question how impartial she would be to make such a determination. I also noted that she ‘feels’ it is a fake.

    2. I’ve recently read A Modest Proposal and listened to a discussion about it. In addition to listening to Roosh’s plan to stop rape I have developed a newfound appreciation for satire…hell, might even write a few of my own.
      We’re in a new age where we’re starting to gain a foothold. The enemy has proven malicious and devious with no moral ground to their attacks. It is time to start using their own tactics against them. I would suggest everyone be familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, The 48 Laws of Power, The Art of War, and The 33 Strategies of War. Destroy them with logic, satire, mockery, and simply laughing at their petty threats and insults.
      Granted, a few things should be left out of our arsenal as it will disenfranchise some who might otherwise side with us. No threats on their life or health. No attempts to censor them (we should welcome their arguments so we can summarily dismantle them).

    3. And I also think its the femo-pc-progressive-sjw’s that are forcing men into a condition, if you will, that makes them very receptive to someone like Roosh. Hence, this is no small victory since there is a lot of pent-up angst among men today. feminists policies, for instance, empower just women and due to the nature of how things work this ends up taking from men whether its in the form of opportunity costs or taxation. You see it in culture too, in order to paint the female character according to feminist canon you have to provide a reference point to show how absolutely perfect, strong and heroic the token female character is. That means portraying women favorable while portraying men unfavorable in order to create the intended illusion. Of course that fits perfectly with feminists hatred of men. All in, we see cutting men off at the knees in order to promote women. And we all know that’s despicable and I think all men more than sense this at this point. Someone like Roosh is the catalyst necessary to push these people. Personally, I’ve had many occasions were there was a job opening and eventually the un-official feedback was that “they” had to make a diversity hire. Meaning hire a woman. I saw it in the military with overt preferential treatment and the threat of sexual harassment, more or less, used as leverage or extortion of senior enlisted and officers. A 1st Sgt committed fraternization right in front of my face with a female Lance Corporal. I still sincerely believe that its only a matter of time before the manosphere goes parabolic and Roosh is making that inflection point occur sooner than it would. And so are the rest of the luminaries in this community – Clarey, Aurini, Bernard Chafin. Shit, hate them or not, even Elam and the mhra, as weak as they are at least get men to think and that’s the first step.

      1. Things could very easily snowball…
        Who would have thought that Roosh would become an enemy of the state just for throwing a happy-hour with a bunch of guys? It’s not at all an exaggeration to say that the establishment tried to paint him as a rapist and extremist. This despite the fact that what he is saying would have just been considered common sense only a generation ago.
        You’re totally right that men are feeling the stress and frustration of the modern era. And what of those red-pill minded men who haven’t discovered the manosphere but just think everything around them is evil and insane? How could they not go mad or go feral to adjust to a world that seems to hate them? Some men like ourselves happen to see the glitches in the matrix and actually think about what they mean and search for answers. But there are still those guys who are still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. What happens when the stress hits breaking point?
        The manosphere creates the outlet for that pent up energy… It’s practically inevitable that men will discover it. I guess the question is what to do when it goes mainstream? Hopefully it’s an awakening and not a violent outrage.

        1. What to do when it goes mainstream? Answer: keep it growing. I don’t think its going to be violent. Roosh’s success in Canada proves that these sjw’s have no teeth. We just need men, and all people for that matter, to just speak up.

        2. Just humiliate the SJWs with facts and logic
          I think that is the real reason the SJWs are so upset. People realize that the SJWs lied about a lot of things (like the initial petition to keep Roosh out of Canada) and now people that use to listen to them, know they are irrational.
          I think this ‘someone is going to do something violent’ being directed at people that agree with Roosh is another attempt to use irrational
          thought and emotion to get WK to come to the defense of SJWs and to maintain hold on their base; when the truth comes out they look like idiots and even worse, liars.
          At this point the SJWs have to keep on with the current ‘party line’ because they probably can not recover once everyone that they mobilized realizes the SJWs used lies to get their support.
          The SJWs still cite to the petition of 40K+ signatures to keep Roosh out of Canada, but I bet if we go back, and ask all of them that
          signed the petition, how many read the material in question, we are going to
          find that a lot of them didn’t read any of it, and just trusted what they were being told by some SJW. I can see that most rational people would not think that someone would lie about something like this, and now are finding out that people (SJWs) have no problem with lying to get their way with their view of ‘how
          things should be’. The third wave of feminism may break up on this one issue since their foundation is all built on lies.
          In the thinking of a SJW, the Ends Does Justify The Means, no matter who get hurt, what lies are told, and what rights are trampled upon by a mob that they raise as long as they get their way.
          By humiliating them with facts and logic, that may all stop, and there is nothing they can do about it. That is why they are all so upset.

        3. On that whole ‘someone is going to do something violent’ thing, I do not believe it’s intent is to only smear men interested in what Roosh had to say, but rather a ?subliminal? attempt to get a deeply unstable sjw type to take violent proxy action against the men defying their narrative. After all, the sjw’s invented SWATing and I think they would be more than happy for their allies to take lone wolf violent action at their behest. Then they will spin it as toxic masculinity, even if it’s a Sarah Jamesian type that does it.

    4. I just watched the ezra levant video – its half hour long but probably the best intro you could get to the manosphere, and why those canadian nutjobs are so utterly wrong

      Watching it I couldn’t help get the feeling that neo-masculinity or whatever you want to call it is coming into its own. Its not just that Roosh answers all the questions articulately and persuasively, but that its clear that there is a coherent set of ideas behind what he says, ideas that will resonate with many, both men and women, who once would probably have scoffed, as they compare those arguments against what the SJWs are falsely claiming. We are now at the stage where its clear the ridicule is going to fall like nuclear rain upon their heads as they become increasingly desperate to argue that people are rapists or terrorists for simply disagreeing with them, or simply wanting to express non-violent pro-social ideas that outside of the SJW bubble are not dissimilar to traditional common-sense. There’s a thirst out there for anything that can challenge the SJW supremacy, and Roosh is now one of those who can stake a claim

      1. I watched this yesterday and it’s surprisingly great.
        Roosh’s position is one that can actually invite dialogue and debate. 3rd Wave Feminism basically requires that any opposing view is shut down immediately to maintain power.
        The only thing keeping feminism going is manginas and the left… It cannot exist on its own as it produces nothing of actual value. These women managed to soil their inherent value as women in a naive attempt to redefine what is good.

        1. “Roosh’s position is one that can actually invite dialogue and debate”
          And that means that that ‘position’ is now out there, a part of the official discourse, even if still at the margins. There’s a membrane that’s been broken through, and they’re going to have a hard time of it trying to shut it down now that there’s momentum in the ideas.
          As for the manginas and all the rest feminism is a movement that people invested in but which has now peaked. It still has massive support, but despite that it is increasingly coming across as absurd, shrill, and totalitarian and there are increasing numbers of both men and women who are disinvesting, selling their stocks and shares in a commodity that has had its day and which is going to rapidly lose value. There is probably not a single thing wrong with that video. It should be studied and the points contained therein distilled, bottled ready for distribution as though each and every one of us were a friendly neighbourhood milkman. There may some curdled milk to get rid of though

    5. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. Roosh got fucktons of free publicity, which matters way more than one speech for 40 men who must have been largely convinced to begin with. Even if the SJWs had won the battle and stopped the event, it would have been an utterly pyrrhic victory.

  8. #RooshIsARapist
    This hashtag alone is enough IMHO to prosecute civil lawsuits against anyone using it, as it contains within it an unsubstantiated accusation of a defamatory nature.
    Perhaps it’s time to form a legal coalition to file suits against these lawbreakers and show them that the rules of law and civil behavior still appy despite the apparent ease of breaking them on the wild-west frontier of the Internet and social medial.
    I’m not an attorney and therefore can’t represent harmed parties. But I can sure contribute to organize and incorporate and fund the people and resources necessary to respond to these lunatics with real force to counter the liable and slander that defaming opposing opinion.

  9. I don’t agree that it is illegitimate for private citizens to use moral suasion or economic pressure to shut people down. However, using lies, intimidation, threats of violence, actual violence (albeit, a beer to the face) and enlisting the state-sponsored media to apply that pressure is. The other issue is that SJWs and the left have put laws in place to totally slant the otherwise legitimate use of social and economic pressure.

    1. Your definition of economic pressure is a bit too broad. If destroying someone’s career because he/she has an opposing opinion and nothing to do with the person’s performance, then that’s illegitimate.

      1. I am talking more about consumer boycotts. The Moral Majority went all jihad on 7-11 a few years ago because the latter carried Penthouse magazines. 7-11 eventually removed the mags from their stores in the southern US because they were losing too many sales. As much as I don’t agree with it, that was legitimate.
        The Hydro One sot who lost his job over the FHRITP incident was illegitimate as there were numerous lies (for one, he never said the offending words) and you had a monopoly government corporation taking sides.
        Less clear is the theatre director who was outed as a supporter of Prop 8 in California and then blacklisted by the theatre community.

        1. Agreed on boycotting a business. That was what I thought you meant. Someone else could’ve interpret economic pressure by firing an individual.

        2. If it is some backroom schmo, then they probably should not be going after them. If some company fills a key position or chooses a spokesperson who is outrageous then that is a little different. I did a bit of research following that Hydro One guy’s firing and the only legal precedent I could find was regarding an employee who was convicted of possession of child pornography; the company was a pillar of the community that sponsored various family events and charities. That is why it is my (no longer professional) opinion that Hydro One had to pay him severance and hush money (so that no one would find out that they paid him severance).

        3. In that example, what that guy did was criminal and I can understand a company wouldn’t want anything to do with him. Just like that guy Jared Fogle for Subway restaurants.

        4. That seemed to be the court’s reasoning. I can’t see a judge (unless he got a bad draw of a robed SJW) saying that what Hydro One did was legal.

    2. Causing an outcry because of moral opposition is reprehensible. If you have a disagreement with a company, simply do not shop there. Going on witch hunts to get people fired is a dangerous road we shouldn’t go down. Case in point is the Firefox CEO that was fired simply because a made a donation to a pro-life charity. It was a private donation that was no one’s business but his own. Should we all be fearful of our livelihoods simply because of what we believe (even if it has no impact on our performance)? Does that sound like freedom?

  10. These cock suckers probably think if the government outsources censorship to private institutions then that isn’t censorship either
    Actually this is probably en route as we write
    That’s what pisses me off most about SJWs – fucking terminally stupid. And proud of it.
    Has any one of the fucking mugs read a book that doesn’t merely exist to reaffirm their world view?

    1. You could stop at “Has any one of the fucking mugs read a book?” and the answer would still be “probably not”

  11. The puritanical Left seeks to monopolize political and social thought and discourse through harassment, intimidation and government proxy. And they still consider themselves “liberals”! Their hypocrisy and intellectual impotence is embarrassing.

  12. John Stuart Mill was a cuckold who was basically friend zoned by an older woman who got him to raise her kids. Their marriage was basically sexless and she died of syphilis that he never contracted.
    Perhaps the original cuckservative, John Stuart Mill authored “the Subjugation of Women,” an early feminist screed. That volume may have been majority authored by his wife’s daughter, who later became a famous suffragette.
    Mill is a feminist cuck. Don’t approvingly quote him for anything.

    1. But he would have had a century and a half to discover the ultility of the red pill. I don’t believe he would be a ‘progressive’ today; at least he would have hated what liberals / progressives have become

      1. Did you read what the man wrote?
        John Stuart Mill was a cuckold who was basically friend zoned by an older woman who got him to raise her kids. Their marriage was basically sexless and she died of syphilis that he never contracted.
        Does that sound like someone who wants to swallow the red pill? He did not want sex nor children of his own. Maybe that’s why Mill supported the Malthusian theory of population. lol

        1. I knew nothing of his biography, but have read books on his political philosophy many years ago. He struck me as an honest thinker who was prepared to go against the grain where necessary. Many of those who have taken the red pill have done so after making similar kinds of idealistic mistakes in their personal life. His primary intellectual commitment was to liberty and ‘utility’ and his particular beliefs followed on from that. A century and half later a modern JS Mill would have found himself at odds with feminism and progressivism for just that reason

    2. John Stuart Mill is evil!
      “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any Hon. Gentleman will question it.”
      [John Stuart Mill, in a Parliamentary debate with the Conservative MP, John Pakington, May 31, 1866.]

  13. Mill was for liberty. In the 19th Century that meant he was for women’s and minority rights. In the 21st Century he would probably be considering the consequences for liberty of the progressive political programme and would almost certainly have abandoned both progressivism and feminism on account of the totalitarian nature of the necessary mindset. Its worth remembering how different the classical liberal mindset was from what passes for liberal today.

  14. Can somebody please briefly explain to me where the femicunts get off saying all heterosexual sex is somehow magically “rape” (like the overprivileged Jew heifer cunt Andrea Dworkin said. Rest In Shit, cow!)? What warped logic did they pluck out of the air to ever even say this to begin with? So two dudes ripping each other’s anuses apart is how they see sex as “consensual”?!?

    1. That position is based on the notion that as long as men rule the world, sex happens on the terms of men, and women have to put out or face consequences.
      You see a man and a woman having hot and entirely consensual sex. Dworkin sees the invisible pimp hand of the Patriarchy above the woman, threatening to slap her if she doesn’t give him what he wants.

        1. I’m not letting myself be dragged into an epistemologic debate. Whether there is an objective truth is one thing, whether it can be proven is another. If the answer to both is yes, it doesn’t follow that some random hack on the Internet who self-identifies as a persecuted speaker of truth actually is so.
          In fact, I’ve come to view such pronouncements as a marker of intellectual mediocrity, of a sign of failing to see complexity.

        2. It’s no longer an issue on the internet in Canada with the repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code. However, the various provinces have hate speech provisions in their respective human rights legislation and the Supreme Court of Canada has said that truth is no defense against being found liable for hate speech.

        1. No. He is not intellectually arrogant. He doesn’t act like the conclusions he has come to are self-evident truths for the rational person, or that everyone who disagrees with him is either evil or stupid. Which is more than can be said for a whole lot of hacks everywhere on the Internet, the Manosphere included.

        2. I haven’t followed your posting enough to be able to say, but the fact that you posted that text-picture suggests it. That’s what the smart money would bet on.

        3. So simply highlighting the current circumstance of a fascist reality convicts me of the uncouth crime you are speaking out on?
          How have i come across as “intellectually arrogant” in the brief remarks you responded to?

        4. It’s intellectually arrogant to act as if you and those you agree with have a monopoly on truth. As I said, I didn’t say conclusively that you fit the description, just that you seemed like that kind of self-proclaimed truthsayer hack based on posting that picture. Certain signs are indicators of a certain kind of person, but they are not in themselves prima facie evidence. For an example of that, see all the old “X signs that she is a slut” articles.
          If I come off as condescending while commenting on your intellectual prowess, it’s because I am. But you (quite literally) asked for it.

        5. It’s intellectually disingenuous to make that remark (intellectually arrogant) especially given that i gave no deliberate indication that i was attempting to “monopolize” anything.
          You directed your remark at me and i was inspired to question you further over it.
          Roosh for his part has mentioned remarks no less different than my own; i just think you’re cherry picking here.

        6. I said that you’re giving off signs of being one thing, not that you definitely are. I have nothing I need to back up. About Roosh, I know he’s not, because of actually having read quite a bit of what he has to say.

        7. Well we will just disagree on me giving off “signs.”
          Roosh has gone on record discussing how canada is an example of the many horrors of progressivism. Don’t just read his articles, read his remarks in the forum.

  15. Freeze more peaches. 95% of all appeals to free speech on the Internet are utterly retarded and either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the whole concept. This includes most Manosphere rants against SJW thought policing.
    John Stuart Mill may be entirely right about the way in which the threat of social ostracism is at least as capable of suppressing debate as overt state censorship. Yet, the fact remains, Freedom of Speech AS ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED BY LAW AND SOCIAL CONSENSUS contains no protection against social ostracism. You may think it should do so, and you might be perfectly right in that, but it’s still invalid to invoke the right as you think it should be, rather than as it is. An invocation of a right is an appeal to either law or social consensus, and neither is on Matt Forney’s side here.

  16. #Rooshisarapist hastag is defamatory and likely an actionable in tort. Roosh needs to engage in a little lawfare (Leftists and SJW do it. It’s time men lawfared back)

  17. There will always be a dominant ideology based on whomever wields power, essentially the government protects its own ‘free’ speech. This is actually freedom of expression within whatever parameters are shaped in the background of the collective cultural psyche by the powers that be.
    Currently there is of course a Marxist deconstructionist feminist narrative lurking within the psyches of the western masses which is extremely resistant to any deviation from the ‘cultural’ norm.
    I digged this guy when I was a philosophy undergraduate, but his stuff along with the works of many other prominent philosophers that echo red pill truths, was somewhat spoon fed to us through the ‘narrative’. Very well written and informative article, that as all good philosophy should be, food for thought.

  18. For fucksake, yet ANOTHER way the authoritarian loony left looks to change language. “Can’t be sexist towards men because sexism is prejudice plus power”. “Your free speech doesn’t include this”.
    Every day we are living more and more in an Orwell book.

    1. Congratulations! You’ve won the right to free speech*
      *Must be 18 years of age or older; some restrictions apply; void except in places where hurt feelings prohibited; white-male residents of countries spelt with a vowel are not eligible; must correctly answer skill-testing question (If Mary has 3 apples and John has 5 apples then the government takes John’s apples and gives them to Mary, because “fuck it”, how many years must John serve in prison for apple-rape?); only one prize per household per lifetime; prize may not be as described; we reserve the right to deny prize based on fuzzy logic and self-importance; by accepting this prize you hereby forever release us from any liability and waive all claims against us for doxxing, targeting, sackless assaults, pressure on your employer or any other craven thing we can dream up; all prizes subject to being revoked without notice or reason; prizes must be picked up in person.

  19. SJWs engage in the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and the ‘abuse of entrenched power’. The difference between government ‘hard censorship’ and corporate ‘soft censorship’ is the difference between ‘censorship backed by violent coercion’ and ‘censorship backed by economic coercion’.
    The SJWs are saying, “It’s not coercion that’s the problem; it’s just the violence.” But they have no problem supporting the violence inherent in government action in any legal or extra-legal issue not protected by an Amendment to the Constitution. So their post hoc justification for the soft censorship of economic coercion, and the tyranny of the (perceived) majority is disingenuous. They are simply lying to cover their tracks.
    SJWs don’t want the (perceived) minority opinion to be heard by anyone. The difference between that totalitarianism and the totalitarianism of a one-party government is only in the method. Authoritarian governments are much easier to spot, and therefore engender reaction and resistance, though both types of authoritarianism are equally dysfunctional, because it’s the existence of the minority opinion, and not merely the absence of government-backed violent repression, that makes and/or keeps a society healthy and balanced. The SJWs are merely a more sophisticated version of the Soviet Union.

  20. John Stuart Mill was one of the single biggest feminists of his day. He literally laid his entire reputation on the line to fight for women’s suffrage.

  21. Maybe Roosh or somebody should start a petition in support of keeping Roosh’s works on Amazon, you know, like saying Fuck you Feminist’s we can start a petition too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *