3 Reasons Why Women Shouldn't Vote

Doug Bandler The Second's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler Th... on Tue, 2016-12-20 01:47

This is an info packed video (not by Molyneux) of three empirical reasons why women shouldn't vote. All three reasons are pro-liberty; these are not conservative arguments but right-libertarian ones. If you watch this video, you will hear 3 good reasons why the female franchise underminds liberty and promotes welfare statism. Besides accusations of "determinism", I know an Objectivist criticism will be that if we had a rational philosophy underlaying our culture then women couldn't vote for statism. But Objectivsts think that they will be able to persuade (via reason and intellectual argument) the citizenry to peacefully adopt liberty. So long as women can vote that will never happen.

"Generation Airhead" is as much a consequence of female suffrage as it is of Kant's epistemology.


Culture Over Social Identity

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Just curious: How do you account for the fact that the relatively low-IQ whites of the West are far more politically libertarian, historically and currently, than the high-IQ Indians, southeast Asians, and Jews? I think blacks, Hispanics, and women have an inferior nature and nurture in many respects. But they can still easily be taught philosophical, cultural, psychological, and political liberalism. Can you?

It's

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

It's "it's" -- not "its".

Roosh is sane, Unlike you Kyrel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Why is it "foolish and hilarious" if it also "decently intelligent"? Its not foolish, its informed.

You want a minarchist libertarian society. But what you have now is a mass hyper-inclusive democracy with a substantial African and Mestizo low IQ population and female suffrage. Do you really think you will be able to educate enough women and non-whites to *vote* for a Randian inspired libertarianism?

Roosh is far more grounded in reality than you.

Save Western Civilization! End Female Suffrage Now!

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Here's another foolish and hilarious -- and yet deadly-serious and decently-intelligent -- argument why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-s...

Wouldn't know ...

VSD's picture

... none of the women I ever met, let alone spend many years with, had any such inklings about 'falling', let alone into a 'pit of love' ; )
best I can offer is that very rarely I stumbled over a 'heap of love' someone had thrown in my way hoping I'd pick it up - wasn't a happy woman when I asked her to clean up her mess : D
VSD

VSD

Andrew Atkin's picture

Haha! What all women want, before all else, is to FALL IN LOVE!!!! Right?

I'm beginning to understand ...

VSD's picture

... why Linz has so much fun with these clowns:
"ie the skill set of sexually arousing a women for short term mating where she ignores logic and acts on emotion. That's why I know women's souls. I've seen them at the primal level. And I do think that the female franchise was a mistake."
Based on that 'in-depth' knowledge I'd actually fully agree to keep women in the bedroom and out of the political backroom deals : P
VSD

Linz: End of the line (finally).

Mark Hubbard's picture

Have a good read of the poison Nazi Bandler has put over four threads this morning Linz. It's really sick stuff. Everybody - who continue to never slap this evil bastard down - read every misogynist, racist, fascist, holocaust denying, anti-Semitic word. Noting his lunatic words, by volume, make up some bulk of SOLO, many of them in unchallenged header posts.

For you and me, Linz, stalemate - yes your site. I tried. You win, and lose. And if you think this was about free speech, think again.

I won't post to a site harbouring Nazis who are making not even veiled threats on my life and of violence against my person. I've said before I'd never associate with these creatures in my face-to-face life, and neither will I waste any more of my online life with them. Despite over the last three days they have made my point as ably as anything I've said, my summary anyway.

This is your site, your choice, with the consequences.

One consequence being you give me no choice. I am out, finally. You've swapped a liberty loving wowser-hating sense-of-lifer, for two miserable, violent, lunatic Nazis, both of whom are totally off their meds now.

Watch out for them. Those are two creepy, seriously sick, guys. Look at their drooling over my violent death, which is probably actionable if it wasn't so sadly ludicrous. And for the record, on Nazi Bandler's out-and-out women hatred thread, you did deflect and chose not to put yourself on record that disenfranchising all women was an affront to individuals and liberty. You are no Nazi, of course, but on some fucked up level, you agree with the Aryan biological determinism of these two monsters, and that's down to your scrap with Brook, or ARSES or some nonsense thing, that has taken personal animosity to tragically flawed judgement.

It's in this statement of yours:

I've put up with it all since at his best [Bandler's] critique of OrgOism was trenchant and timely, and he raised questions about biology/psychology the OrthOists were and are afraid to address.

You went on to say this monster and the Jones creature were 'mostly sound.'

No. Look at Bandler's shameless rants from last night. All he has ever offered has been bigoted Aryan biological determinism in the form of total race and women hatred. Nothing else, but somehow, to some degree, you - and not just you - have had buy in.

Nazi Bandler again insists, as he has unchecked through the presidential election, that to keep the Left out (yeah right), women, blacks and Hispanics must be universally disenfranchised. Margaret Thatcher is to have no vote. The newly retired and fantastic Thomas Sowell is to have no vote. Yet I wonder how Bandler explains how Hiliary Clinton is not president precisely because she did not get the black, Hispanic or women's vote she presumed? That the educated women's vote went to Trump? We'll never know because you and too many useful idiots in here not only never took the vicious Nazi to task, but I think on some level, accepted its analysis!

By the way, you say the Nazi Bandler self-outed his anti-Semitic fascism. Again, no. I did that. I had him figured out in two days back here, after reading from a distance in horror, with his blatant, unchecked misogyny and framing of Ayn around Jewishness, and with a little pressure, a shockingly little amount of pressure, he went direct to Nazi death squads. Ask yourself how you have been entertaining him for years, thinking him 'mostly' sound FFS. You need to beat yourself up over that. You've lost so much support from it, and from good people. Noting I'm a loner, not into tribalism and I don't childishly take sides: I go investigate for myself, and satisfy myself as to the facts.

Aside: In fact looking at the Nazi's posts from last night, which I reread after writing above, he's quite ill.

Signing off.

For Andrew Atkin. My last bit of wisdom. I didn't like giving you a hard time; I suspect you're a nice bloke. BUT, it's fine to keep an open mind when the facts are arguable; it's stupid to keep an open mind in spite of the facts. Holocaust denial: NEVER go there.

Gregster: are you on drugs? You were a good guy. You've allowed the Nazis to turn you into their goon.

Best of luck to the fantastic women who put up with the shit in here. SOLO needs dozens more women. Intellectually and aesthetically.

All the best, Linz. I have no animosity toward you, just confusion. I'm not leaving because of you, despite some big fails here. I'm leaving because this not a nice place to be. I'd do some infantile symbolic act like delete my account, but would rather spend time with Mrs H on the balcony. It's a glorious day in the Mahau.

So I leave you all in the hands, unfortunately, of the resident two women hating, race hating, human hating, deeply, deeply anti-Semitic neo-Nazi mummy's boys, lunatics, and their oh so offhand violence and threats.

Data-points of infamy.

Nazi Bandler to me:

You are a real idiot. I dislike you intensely. So much so, I wish you harm; suffering and harm.

But you're still a piece of hippie garbage either way. If the right wing death squads do emerge, I hope they throw you out of a helicopter along with the left.

Many more threats I can't be bothered trawling through.

Creature Grant Jones to me:

Maybe [you] can go into a Maori bar, start an argument and give it a try. I'd pay a dollar to see that.

My recommendation is a bottle of sleeping pills, then washed down with Hubbard's usual three bottles of wine. I look forward to reading his obit. The sooner the better.

I'm now 100% in favor of assisted suicide. In order to demonstrate my new found commitment, I volunteer to help out. When Hubbard is ready, he just needs to contact me. I will happily perform the Jack Kevorkian role for him. I can now see how putting such a miserable poor excuse for a human being out of his misery is an act of mercy.

Olivia

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

You're a woman, so there is only so reality oriented you can be. And you can psycho-analyze me all you want and it won't change the fact that multi-racialism combined with the female franchise will be the death of the Unites States and any chance of the liberty philosophy spreading. And saying that your "love of values" is a reason for ignoring all those data rich sources (can't have that) that are now available because they are drenched in "nihilism" is just another way of protecting your ego investment in your ideology. Calling me a leftist is not going to bring you any wisdom that you clearly lack as your Objectivist knee-jerk pro-Israel stuff shows.

And yes, I sucked with women because my mother nurtured me too much. Not beat me, not molested me. No. Just nurtured me AND failed to provide a father because like so many women in the 70s she just had to run out and get divorced to show that she didn't need no man. She subsequently moved in with her mother and thank god for that or I wouldn't have been able to enjoy a middle class upbringing and I would then have had to have grown up with blacks and hispanics. Can you imagine how angry I would have been then? Holy shit I would have been full on 1488 with posters of Hitler in my living room. I actually don't have any now believe it or not. lol

But I was part of that first wave of what is now called helicopter parents. That combined with the way single mothers so often raise sons to be the type of man that they would marry at 30 not the type of man they would fuck at 19 and yes I did suck with women. But as you know, I became a PUA and got very good at it. I've slowed down now due to getting older and boredom. But my psychological issues have been worked through and contrary to your vie,. I AM THE MOST CAPABLE OF MEN IN BEING OBJECTIVE WITH WOMEN. Why? Because I had to retrain my psychology, to reconfigure it, in order to become attractive to them. And not attractive as a provider option but as a lover option; ie the skill set of sexually arousing a women for short term mating where she ignores logic and acts on emotion. That's why I know women's souls. I've seen them at the primal level. And I do think that the female franchise was a mistake.

As was not repatriating blacks back to Africa post Civil War. As was allowing non-European immigration in 1965. Etc. Is a multi-racial society with female political and sexual freedom possible? Only a libertarian one if it can be established. And imo, it can't be established from where we are at. That is the paradox. And once Texas and Florida goes blue, the game is up. And the world your lily white daughter and any grandchildren you get becomes that much more dangerous.

But you can go back to defending Israel's right to manipulate America to fight its wars all the while Israel is a defacto religious ethno-state with a quasi-Apartheid structure that is allowed a type of nationalism that NO white country is. You make my case that women shouldn't be allowed in the political realm. And you're one of the "better ones".

Think on that.

Meanwhile, the disinfection ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

... is well progressed. Postings by the two Nazis, Slime (death squads) Bandler & Grunt (hope Maori man punches you) Jones, down to almost nothing.

Yah hit that wall, didn't you ;)

Mark Hubbard's picture

Thank you Andrew. That would be lovely. It's so boring having to state the bleeding obvious constantly.

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

I will leave you alone to wallow in your angry pathetic world.

LOL

Mark Hubbard's picture

Quote:

It was never about convincing me that the holocaust happened.

It was about convincing me that I should not give a holocaust denier (or skeptic) even a basic listen to.


But as we know the holocaust HAPPENED, why would you listen to a denier who is an avowed Nazi wanting to use SOLO to spread a vicious anti-Semitism? Why doesn't that then make you a Nazi sympathiser? Where does your 'open mind' ever meet morality?


You do have trouble with your open mind and facts Abstract Andrew. Let's do an experiment. Stand in front of a wall. But let's keep an open mind about whether it's a wall, or, say, perhaps it's a 'lwal'. Now try and walk through it. What happened?

I believe that the holocaust

Andrew Atkin's picture

I believe that the holocaust almost certainly happened. I also believe it is important to listen to opposing arguments no matter how unlikely they seem, when dealing with such an important issue.

Again, this was all I ever basically said. And it's all I ever argued for.

So I'm a bimbo for it? If that's what you think Mark then so be it.

-I will look at the video when I have time...though yeah, nothing is 'proven' on youtube.

Abstract Andrew (AKA the bimbo)

Mark Hubbard's picture

Re Nazi Slime Bandler, I know you're not good with facts, getting to that again soon, but read Nazi Bandler's comments on my thread calling him out as a Nazi (before he outed himself as a holocaust denying anti-Semitic Nazi):

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Here was his opening and closing sentences in a letter to me (and you keep treating him as a human and your equal):

'You are a real idiot. I dislike you intensely. So much so, I wish you harm; suffering and harm. [Snip]. But you're still a piece of hippie garbage either way. If the right wing death squads do emerge, I hope they throw you out of a helicopter along with the left.'


Now, the holocaust, it happened, Andrew, based on the FACTS. I simply cannot believe I'm here trying to convince a bimbo there is 0% chance it was not a real event! The holocaust is pure, unmitigated evil (and why - look at rise of anti-Semitism today - a two-state solution for Israel is the death of Israel).

I have no idea how to post a Youtube, but watch the below 45 minute documentary on Auschwitz (and look at the your menu of the hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of footage of the camps - a camp, re Auschwitz, you can go visit today [unless of course, it was all made up FFS]). IT HAPPENED.


 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I will try one more time.

Andrew Atkin's picture

Pieces of what I said re-represented different to my original meaning.

All. I. said...and yes, I'm actually going to try again...is that we can listen to a researcher who claims the holocaust did not or may not have happened. Yes it's a radical claim - and probably wrong! But that 'listening' neither makes me or anyone an idiot, and certainly does not make me a Nazi. Or are we supposed to *religiously* believe that serious propaganda does not and cannot happen?

-Philip, you may not realise Mark made his comment in response to something I said on another thread.

-Bandler said he would like to see you thrown off a plane or something....ok. Now what did he mean? He meant to tell you he can't stand you, and we can see why. You are more insulting to him than you are to me. This was his dramatic way of giving you a piece of his mind, in retaliation. Do you really think he would actually have you killed if he had the power to make that happen? And you call me "abstract Andrew", when you appear to take obviously emotive (and asked for) expressions like that seriously.

"Oh, I say, wasn't I

PhilipD's picture

"Oh, I say, wasn't I frightfully open-minded in listening to that Nazi fellow?"

"Quite so. Wonderfully civilised, old chap."

You have a fucked up view of 'civilised,' Andrew.

Abstract Andrew

Mark Hubbard's picture

You continue as the bimbo with this: 'Everything I said in relation to the holocaust and conspiracy was civilised (whether you or anyone agreed with it or not) and reasonable, as a point. And all I was trying to do was explain a principle for open-mindedness on the issue.'

Hilarious. Like Puerile, you're so opened minded your brain's fallen out.

No. There is nothing civilised, certainly nothing intelligent, about arguing there may not have been a holocaust. Nor for thinking holocaust denial is akin philosophically, factually or morally to the climate debate. End of.

While you have no condemnation for Nazi Bandler masturbating over me being thrown from a helicopter by a right-wing death squad, you can expect no respect from me.

Madman Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

Aren't you just a sweet old man full of charming insults. Not quite. Like Gregster said, you're basically a dickhead.

People like you are the reason why blogs like this are not as popular as they could be. It's not that people are soft, it's just that they get tired of trying to be the bigger person while tolerating infantile nastiness from people who would never have the courage to be so nasty in person.

Everything I said in relation to the holocaust and conspiracy was civilised (whether you or anyone agreed with it or not) and reasonable, as a point. And all I was trying to do was explain a principle for open-mindedness on the issue. And all you can do is use totally uncalled for terms like airhead and bimbo. What a tosser you really are. And honestly, you couldn't have done a better job of proving the fact of it to any more reasonable-minded person on this forum.

Olivia

Mark Hubbard's picture

 
 

‘Some years ago on Solo, Mark, Douglas fessed up to not having much success with women due to his unhappy upbringing by his mother - so there's no need to psychoanalyze him again (the thread went on and on and on). He ought to remain quiet on the subject, since his view on women is so hopelessly skewed as to render him useless at judging anything we do or say.... he's like a William Faulkner novel; negative, negative, negative. In fact he's worse than that, because he still just resides in the blame game, very similar to the bitter feminists constantly blaming the Patriarchy for all their problems and their self inflicted sad lives. Again, Douglas is behaving much like a Leftist here. Asking him anything about the nature of women is akin to asking a colour blind person to describe what a rainbow looks like.... "well, there's this big, banana shaped thing..."

 

Ah, well I guess that was obvious. Nazis are so common-garden boring in their perversions, miserableness, and murderousness.

This, of yours:

 

I really don't know why Douglas hasn't yet realised that "the way different sexes are wired" through biology is not in opposition to the 'blank slate' view, instead it squares beautifully with the Law of Identity. We are born into this world a certain sex with certain instincts, tendencies and even latent talents (deep throating, say) which have their origins in our physicalities via our DNA code (a less sensitive gag reflex, say). EyeWe are, however, NOT born with inbuilt ideas, beliefs or knowledge - which is what 'tabula rasa' refers to. They have to be nurtured on to our natures - some of which adheres, some of which slides off like a used condom from a limp dick. Douglas will be arguing against Free Will next.


 Fresh from the cold shower after your defining of ‘latent talents’, yes. But that’s my point of ongoing dispute with Linz.

 The two Nazis Bandler and on Bandler’s leash, the Jones creature, unleash an Aryan argument of biology over the rational mind, here, and on a site devoted to philosophy, Objectivism no less, and not only are they not immediately slapped down and put into place – noting this was before those two were outed as genuine Nazis – but, first, many of the airhead males in here were arguing it as a serious proposition that the vote should be taken off all females simply via identity (including Abstract-Andrew, SOLO’s own bimbo who still thinks there may be a 2% chance the holocaust didn’t happen, and thinks that is the same philosophically, morally, and factually as arguing climate change FFS – try searching holocaust docos on Youtube Andrew), when the correct argument against welfarism was to attack the thinking behind the welfare state; then worse, Linz comes out with his voter test which (and while fine, I’m no promoter of majoritainism) I still see as a deflection from never answering to the more basic premise of that thread – which is whether the rational mind or biology is ascendant: are we rational humans or animals; thus the thread becoming a mirror image held up to the idiot identity politickers from the Left (you are correct about that, definitely). Indeed, Linz still seems to believe – via no retraction - the chief monster of the piece has had something to add vis-à-vis Objectivism. No.

Plus, acknowledging this is Linz’s site, I have no agreement with any free speech argument that gives Nazis Bandler and Jones continued oxygen for Linz’s entertainment. That (Linz) is Nero watching civilisation burn. Those two come from such an evil place – it doesn’t get worse than them – they should not sup, ever, with human beings. One thing Mossad has always had correct is hunting down Nazis no matter where those worms hide, and exterminating them for the vermin they are. The argument is only one of free speech when it’s all humans at the table. So I remain in disagreement. Noting there have been deleterious consequences for SOLO, namely, it’s down to a very small cabal of posters, most of whom, outside you, VSD, Ed, Luke – perhaps some others – are vacuous useful-idiots (little wonder they get tripped up by biology over the rational mind arguments put to them my Nazis).

 

 

 

News to me

Lindsay Perigo's picture

He began, of course, by attacking "headbanging caterwauling" as a blanket condemnation of all popular rock and roll and pop music in general.

News to me.

I'm pretty sure I categorised good pop as a sub-set of Romanticism. Guess one would have to read the article to know. Hard to do with eye-less sockets.

Grant

Andrew Atkin's picture

Best to take it all in an innocent spirit. Lindsay holds no punches with his opinion, but I don't get the feeling of someone who wants to slowly and hatefully rub shit in other people's faces, while expressing it.

But anyway, I agree with Lindsay that some music can only be seen as degenerate. Death metal, gangster rap and creepy type hip-hop. I truly experience this kind of stuff as an assault and I resent being subject to it against my will. I understand the antagonisation.

For the sake of saying, I even get a kind of 'degenerate' feeling off modern mainstream music. I get the overwhelming feeling I'm listening to "the idea" of music being performed, rather than music itself - it's a lie. Modern music suggests that it's great, but it's actually as dead as a doornail. The package - no product.

....sorry, this really belongs on another forum.

Olivia

Grant Jones's picture

I was referring to a discussion thread of several months ago. I won't waste yet more of my time by hunting for it. In that discussion Perigo did what he does. He castigated everyone with the temerity of having different tastes in music. It was his typical adolescent behavior. Universalizing one's personal preferences and hierarchy of values is classic subjectivism. I did read the first few paragraphs of his magnum opus. He began, of course, by attacking "headbanging caterwauling" as a blanket condemnation of all popular rock and roll and pop music in general. I don't have time to read a 5000 word tract from some subjectivist rationalizing his child-like emotions.

Irresistible reasons to disenfranchise moronnials ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Airhead America, in concrete, unspeakably ditzy forms. No coincidence that one of the exceptions cites The Fountainhead as something he's just read.

Thank you, Olivia Lady Slapper, for drawing Jones' (or whatever the coward's name really is) attention to Music of the Gods. He won't get it, of course, and if he did he'd disagree with it. His pin-up "whatever" culture is plainly evident in the above video. Fuckwits on steroids.

Whatever.

Oh dear... (misogyny makes my mind turn to sex)

Olivia's picture

I'm just a little snowflakey woman thing and I can't help it.

I go away for a little Christmas break and in my absence all hell breaks out with the menfolk on Solo! Time to have all your voting rights abolished forthwith, for extreme carelessness!

Mr. Hubbard.... you've fought a valliant fight against Douglas, the wounded internet warrior, and for that I thank you for your chivalrous spirit and tenacity. If this clip was posted by any other than he (and didn't have irritating noise and a primate flinging shit - can see why Douglas likes it), I would have probably watched it, but because it is so highly typical of his obsessively anti-women schtick, I just can't take him seriously (besides, we don't even know his real name, his posts have only a quarter value, if that, of a person who is posting genuinely as themselves).

So, for your sake Mark, I say this:

Without watching the clip, from Lindsay's response to it, I can see it makes three main points - to which I pretty much agree.

I don't agree with his silly conclusion though (disenfranchising women), as it was FDR who ushered in America's Welfare State - I'm pretty sure he was a man. One hundred years before that, in Britain, it was the Utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who lay down the philosophical/intellectual groundwork of the Welfare State and redistribution of wealth. I'm pretty sure they were men too - and the female franchise was barely even a twinkle in any woman's eye in those days of yore. Women were too busy trying to find good husbands, survive childbirth and devote themselves to the mission of keeping their children alive, hopefully getting them into adulthood. No small feat.

Lindsay: I just watched the video Doug linked to—almost bailed out when I heard the opening round of headbanging—and found it quite unobjectionable, apart from said headbanging. As best I can tell, women do love the Welfare State, are hard-wired towards a "caring" rather than just morality, and are irresponsible—generally speaking.

1. Women are largely responsible for the rise of the Welfare State.
2. Women care more about "carey/sharey" stuff than they do about justice, morality and consequences.
3. Women are irresponsible (and aren't held accountable).

First of all, I'll refer to one of Douglas's most ridiculous acronyms to date (he has one for every manospherical occurrence): NAWALT! Not all women are like that. But the trouble is that too many of them are actually like that. Do I think the vote should be removed from womens' hands because of the way their brains are wired? Of course I don't, because as you point out, that would be a stupid reactive act based on identity politics (having a twot) - and Douglas is actually the one who is thinking like an authoritarian Leftist in all this.

It is obvious that Universal Suffrage (of both sexes) was a mistake. I personally favour only business and land owners being able to vote - whether they're men or women. First generation immigrants, welfare beneficiaries and students definitely should not be able to set the course of their country.

I really don't know why Douglas hasn't yet realised that "the way different sexes are wired" through biology is not in opposition to the 'blank slate' view, instead it squares beautifully with the Law of Identity. We are born into this world a certain sex with certain instincts, tendencies and even latent talents (deep throating, say) which have their origins in our physicalities via our DNA code (a less sensitive gag reflex, say). Eye We are, however, NOT born with inbuilt ideas, beliefs or knowledge - which is what 'tabula rasa' refers to. They have to be nurtured on to our natures - some of which adheres, some of which slides off like a used condom from a limp dick. Douglas will be arguing against Free Will next.

Some years ago on Solo, Mark, Douglas fessed up to not having much success with women due to his unhappy upbringing by his mother - so there's no need to psychoanalyze him again (the thread went on and on and on). He ought to remain quiet on the subject, since his view on women is so hopelessly skewed as to render him useless at judging anything we do or say.... he's like a William Faulkner novel; negative, negative, negative. In fact he's worse than that, because he still just resides in the blame game, very similar to the bitter feminists constantly blaming the Patriarchy for all their problems and their self inflicted sad lives. Again, Douglas is behaving much like a Leftist here. Asking him anything about the nature of women is akin to asking a colour blind person to describe what a rainbow looks like.... "well, there's this big, banana shaped thing..."

Grant Jones:

I just cannot let this pile of poo you wrote pass:

A case in point is Perigo's views on music. He "reasoning" is: "I love Lanzi, therefore he's the greatest. Anyone who doesn't share my love of this type of music and prefers other kinds is a sub-human moronial, blah, blah, blah." I like it, therefore it's good. I hate it/you, therefore you're "sub-human." Both Perigo and Hubbard truly believe there is no need to validate their views with an actual argument.

You've got to be kidding me. Lindsay wrote - indeed is the only person in the world who was even capable of writing - a nearly 5,000 word essay titled "Music of the Gods." http://www.solopassion.com/nod....

It is well reasoned, beautifully written and could have taught Rand a thing or two about music if she were alive to read it. That you accuse him of having no arguments other than "I like it, therefore it's good etc" is deeply ignorant of you. If you aren't aware of this essay he wrote, then fine, but if you are aware, then you have greatly misrepresented him on an important topic which so rarely ever gets anything close to a true airing - that fact alone in the Objectivish world could make me weep considering that, as if art actually mattered, Ayn took the impetus, time and effort to pen her formidable Romantic Manifesto!

And Douglas:

Also, that "I can't immerse myself in nihilism" thing makes you sound like a delicate snowflake that's too fragile to have her ideas challenged. When are Objectivists ever going to grow a thick skin?

What I said was, "I have nothing to learn from nihilists who frame their commentaries that way".

As an individual I absolutely ought to censor, according to something as subjective as my tastes, how I like to receive commentary and what I let into my earshot and brain in an ugly post-modern, standardless culture - you know - the reason why women are such low down dirty, lying eyed little sluts, that you can't find a decent virgin to call your very own. The internet is full of every loon under the sun with their nihilistic crap blasting out of every electronic gadget they can get their hands on, espousing every stupid conspiracy theory ever devised by humans.

For people like you who don't give a shit about art and aesthetics, you'll never know the affront people like me feel towards that low, anti-intellectual and horrible style. In case you haven't noticed, the little campus snowflakes whom we all despise so much are NOT fussy about headbanging, rapping, screeching, quacking and generally blasting the bejesus out of people with their aesthetic, nonsensical, turd flinging muck. People like me have a fucking standard - and have the guts, tenacity, spine and confidence to hold that standard year after year after year over our children growing up in a culture of no standards at all, so that we don't raise cheap little unthinking sluts and dorks without aesthetic, sexual, economic or ethical values all round. My skin would be a hundred times thicker than yours in your little world of angry, defeatest bitterness. I don't let through into my environment or head the stupid often shallow shit that you let through and call "great, information packed" ... no, "data rich" commentary. You lack good judgement, you lack balls and you lack a strong, reality oriented, happy sense of life - and that makes you the fragile snowflake, so you have it backwards Douglas. Again.

Gwant

Neil Parille's picture

I don't know anything about music, so whether Linz overdoes it about Mario Lanza, but this forum does provide a place for dissenting views. I don't read every post by Perigo but, while he expresses strong opinion, he is not censorious (or whatever the word is).

Aloha Doug

Grant Jones's picture

You're correct that the same sad pattern of ARI's groupthink is now Perigo's official policy for SOLO. At root, this is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of what Objectivism is. Neither Perigo nor Hubbard is an Objectivist.

The foundation of Objectivism is its epistemological methodology. Or, the methodology of Ayn Rand. Her articles and novels are, among other things, analytical tour de forces. Besides content, one can learn an immense amount just by analyzing her method. Objectivism's foundation is this rational psycho-epistomology that is both inductive and deductive and based on solid empirical evidence.

Needless to say, this is not the thinking methodology of either Perigo or Hubbard. In reference to those two, one should place the word "thinking" in sneer quotes. They are both psychological subjectivists who are governed by their often ungoverned emotions. "A psychological subjectivist is unable fully to identify his values or to prove their objective validity, but he may be profoundly consistent and loyal to them in practice (though with a terrible psycho-epistemological difficulty)" Ayn Rand, "Selfishness Without a Self."  This also explains their strong hedonist propensities.

A case in point is Perigo's views on music. He "reasoning" is: "I love Lanzi, therefore he's the greatest. Anyone who doesn't share my love of this type of music and prefers other kinds is a sub-human moronial, blah, blah, blah." I like it, therefore it's good. I hate it/you, therefore you're "sub-human." Both Perigo and Hubbard truly believe there is no need to validate their views with an actual argument. Their emotions of anger and hate are sufficient for them. This is how children and Leftists "think." I'll note the irony of anyone who calls political opponents "sub-human" in need of "disinfecting" characterizing others as Nazis. But, Leftists project.

As David Kelley observed many years ago, many are attracted to Objectivism not for its intellectual content. Instead they are attracted to, what they view, as Objectivism moralism. Objectivism gives these people the rhetorical tools to castigate everyone they hate with using religious levels of fervor. They like the religious moral fervor in a secular context. They think that engaging in such gives them a patina of reason and morality. It doesn't.

I now lump Perigo in with Hubbard. He seems content to have SOLO as a "libertarian correct" website with Hubbard as his vicious thoughtcop and attack dog. He deserves no better.

Thanks for your compliments on my reviews and essays. I won't be posting much here as it's not an Objectivist venue that welcomes well-reasoned. dissenting viewpoints to its orthodoxy.

Getting rid of Nazi filth

Mark Hubbard's picture

Getting rid of Nazi filth like you, Slime, is not about censorship. It's not about safe places. It's about humanity. It's about survival.

Grant

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I just caught up on this thread. Let me say that I started following you on your old blog (The Dugout I think) and this was before I went all paleo-right. I remember some movie reviews you did especially the one on the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate". You pinned it as anti-American Leftists crap. It was then that I noticed that there was such a thing as a "right wing Objectivist". I saw a nuance and a level of commentary that I had not seen in either the Tracinski or Brook wings of Objectivist political commentary. Shortly after that I discovered Larry Auster, Game and the paleo-right internet. Jesus Christ, paradigm shift is an understatement.

I still place many of Rand's philosophic ideas at the base of my understanding of the world. However, I've come to have questions about the parameters of individualism, about the parameters of free will, and about the requirements of social cohesiveness. As a result I've gone down the bunnyhole of things that are outside polite society; such as race and IQ, female psycho-sexual nature and even the Jewish influence on European history (Kevin MacDonald being an influence here). To me these are all fascinating subjects.

I truly wish there were a movement among Objectivists to explore these and other controversial subjects and to question many things currently unchallengeable. But as I've sadly learned, Objectivism as a movement is an echo chamber and the guiltiest party is the ARI. There is no knowledge to be learned in Objectivism really, outside of the main standard texts. I find more interesting knowledge coming from the Lew Rockwell Paleo-libertarian set and the saner elements of the alt-right (someone like a Richard Spencer even though he is too much of a racialist). I lean towards racial hereditarianism much like Molyneux but I would love to see that subject debated and really fleshed out. Good luck with that in the O'ist movement.

And now I see a pattern with Objectivists. There is of course the hysterical Stuart Hyashi. And just recently Robert Tracinski wrote that anyone holding racialist ideas or alt-right ideas should be banned from the "right". He called it a "moral quarantine". This is the same reaction we see from Mark Hubbard. This is not the search for truth. This is the same thing as Leftist censorship. This is a fear based blindness that you get when core beliefs are being challenged. Its everywhere on the Left.

Anyway, just a quick post to say I appreciate Objectivists like you and Ed Cline. I hope there will be more of us as things progress in the future. And I suspect that there will be because the Left is only going to up its anti-white-male hatred. The civil war has begun.

Whatever

Grant Jones's picture

Whatever, the only response required for an arbitrary assertion. I guess we have very different views on what constitutes courage and cowardice.

Speaking of requirements, "Anyone who is gratuitously rude or abusive, will, however, be moderated in the “play pen” for children, after reasonable warning." Unless, you're Mark Hubbard. Apparently.

Yes it is ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... especially when your host specifies it as a requirement.

Moreover, "whatever" is one of the dumbest of dumb moronnialisms. Utterly brainless.

Whatever

Grant Jones's picture

Not having a picture on the silly avatar thing is "cowardice." Whatever.

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm not sure what you mean by "looking forward to Wednesday," but suspect I should make clear that when I said, "My own suspicion is that the real crime of the 'evil cock' is to call out ARISIS, as they ought to be called out. That, apparently, is my crime too. Well, bring on the debate," I was referring to the debate between me and Yaron, not the dopey one on this thread. I'm not going to spend any time on this one here till posters on both sides actually make arguments. One thing: Philip D is quite right. You at least are man enough to post under your own name with an almost-visible photo of your actual self. Doug, Grant and Mark Hunter lack the courage of what they purport to be their convictions, even though their convictions are, for the most part, sound. I indulge their cowardice, but I certainly don't respect it.

Just in case y'all in need of

Andrew Atkin's picture

Just in case y'all in need of a change in scene...

As I suspected

Grant Jones's picture

Some gutless turd brought this up: "The Slime won't man-up...."

Now it's, "I couldn't care less about, quote, 'manliness',...I am just about the total 100% peacenik hippy. Consequently, at the tender age of 51 I've essentially gone bush in the Marlborough Sounds to avoid pub culture and violent wowsers with no respect for the non-initiation of force like yourself."

I thought not. Another keyboard bully. Buy a bottle of sleeping pills already.

There is the non-initiation of force principle. But, some assholes push its operational limits.

Grant, this is a bit silly now ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

For the record Grant, I couldn't care less about, quote, 'manliness', macho, or all that crap. I grew up in a family of women and I am just about the total 100% peacenik hippy. Consequently, at the tender age of 51 I've essentially gone bush in the Marlborough Sounds to avoid pub culture and violent wowsers with no respect for the non-initiation of force like yourself. You see, you revolt me. And of course you're into manliness ... you live in Slime's malicious Manosphere. What a sick, joyless place that is.

Tell you what, we shouldn't be worried about the women in this thread having a vote, we should only be worried that Grant-who-would-pay-to-see-hubbard's-face-smashed-up-by-a-Maori-Man has a vote.

And noted you attribute violence to 'Maori', because like Slime you're an overt racist also. As I said pretty dark in here (excuse the pun).

Looking forward to Wednesday, Linz.

Oh, Mrs H is taking another bottle out to the balcony ... good times!

A real man would put his

PhilipD's picture

A real man would put his photo up on here like everybody else.

Manning Up

Grant Jones's picture

Did someone say that Doug needs to "man up" by immediately responding to vicious personal attacks on this thread? Yes, someone did. Let's discuss manliness for a minute. Men take care of the own business and don't require permission and "help" from the state. Men certainly do not evade responsibility by asking loved ones to do the deed. A real man would not place such a psychological, emotional, moral and legal burden on loved ones because they can't take care of their business.

Real men aren't keyboard bullies and tough guys. I wonder when the last time was that Hubbard called a man "slime," "cock," etc. to his face. I'm betting it's been a while. Maybe he can go into a Maori bar, start an argument and give it a try. I'd pay a dollar to see that.

In Denial

Grant Jones's picture

"I'm not a mean drunk. I'm a bon vivant who loves life. Yeah, that's the flattering unction I was looking for."

"If any man feels that that world is too complex and its evil is too big to cope with, let him remember that it is too big to drown in a glass of whiskey," Ayn Rand noted Puritan.

 

This. Is. Hilarious.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Of course Slime's brigade are the Puritan front for Wowser world. I'm rolling around the floor laughing.

I have no animosity to Linz. We are having a difference of opinion is all. But one thing I know we're both solid on is our raised middle finger to Wowser world ... you bet I'm going to make time to put one of my old blog posts up here. Hang on chaps (to your cups of tea) .... [maniacle laughter.]

I'll just put a single post up then back to trying to get my new Xmas bong to work.

Honestly, priceless. You can't pay money for this.

Grant:

Andrew Atkin's picture

On drug addiction (just ignore the second part, it's all speculations...and I must say b.s ones at that).

https://youtu.be/66cYcSak6nE

Oh - and this video is not targeted at anyone!

Mark: I'm not going to converse with you anymore because it's all just a joke. It really is.

AA is Worth a Try

Grant Jones's picture

"Yeah, onto bottle two - French."

People who use alcohol to cope have a serious problem. People who measure their alcohol intake by the bottle have a serious problem. Some believe that alcoholism is a disease and should be treated as such. Others believe that alcoholism is a symptom of a significant character flaw. I go mainly with the latter view. It is ironic getting lectured on ethics by a wino.

On the other hand, suicide by alcohol poisoning worked for Bon Scott, John Bonham, Amy Winehouse and Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas. So, there's that.

Linz - Addendum.

Mark Hubbard's picture

My first reply is below. Per first paragraph I’m out of time so, if you want to post a response, good one, but I’ll be coming back to it Wednesday.

For Slime, I repeat my question: ‘Why, Slime, did you feel the need to frame Ayn (on this thread) in terms of Jewishness. What relevance is that Jewishness, to anything? I say it’s down to your no doubt anti-Semitism; how is it not?

Until Wednesday, have a merry Christmas Linz. Careful about sharing the eggnog with the woolly minded airhead males being trained by Slime on SOLO for his own militia who don’t think they are what they believe:

Grant – go-kill-yourself-because-you-don’t-need-a-civilised-euthanasia, who is only gonna post on Slime’s women/race-hate sermons from this point.

SS Gregster policing all identity heresy on this thread – a hugely disappointing surprise to me given the old days when I thought he was a free thinker.

And, of course, Abstract Andrew who probably would’ve voted Hitler in because peeps can’t be held to their abstract thinking, can they. Nuf said.

 

PS: Admin: I can only get into SOLO via my desktop because my password is locked in, but I’ve forgotten what my password is – and can’t see it. It’s a pain because when I get back I’ll be mainly on my iPad but I can’t log in. Any way you can private message me that? (Otherwise I’ll have to do the change password thing and I’m error prone with stuff like that.)

I love a scrap, Linz.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Rules of engagement. This is Xmas. I’m severely limited for time. If I post Xmas day I have a divorce (and that’s fair). We get up Boxing Day and go to Nelson for two days with friends, I won’t be online. So, you have my undivided attention (because of my respect for you) from Wednesday. I’ll do as much as I can tomorrow (Xmas eve), but that’s not a lot.

First, important: you are my mentor in all things freedom. Respect. But you have changed. That’s why I’m here.

Let’s clear the field of the nonsense. You say, quote:

'My own suspicion is that the real crime of the "evil cock" is to call out ARISIS, as they ought to be called out. That, apparently, is my crime too. Well, bring on the debate.'

I wouldn’t have a single fucking clue, Linz, what an ARISIS is. Means nothing to me. I am an intellectual loner. I spend my intellectual life predominantly in literature. I realise there’s this intellectual tribal warfare going in Objectivism, but don’t know who the sides are, and I don’t give a shit. I love Ayn’s mind, but over last four years I’ve written a novel – currently in manuscript assessment (I suspect I’d be sued six ways if published, however) - which disputes her in some major areas (with no disrespect to her). But don’t think my involvement in this thread is factional regarding that tribal nonsense. That has no meaning to me. My loathing of Slime, and your constant flim flam around Slime, regards, for conciseness, what he is doing with this thread. Nothing else.

Before entering the substantive debate, your next attack, quote:

All that is a bunch of knee-jerk leftie epithets. There is not a single argument in there at all.’

My novel is also, thematically, an attack on Left identity politics. I’m on well-researched ground there. Again, I am in this thread for one reason only: Slime, and his bigoted identity politics. Yeah, he is an identity politicker, worse, an eviler version of the Snowflakes. Alt-Left are interchangeable with Alt-Right. Me calling him a misogynist, a white supremacist, and probably an anti-Semitic, is not, therefore, Snowflake, it’s fact – and after all my posts here in the past and my blog (did you ever read it?) you think I’m a collectivist vomiting ‘left epithets? Really! Or is that because Slime cluelessly calls me a Lefty? So we start here.

Note, as I’ve said, your tripartite voter test is fine. I’ve said that is no assault on individualism. But, to keep driving my point home, let me quote myself:

However, that's not my point on 'this' thread. That test has nothing to do with what Slime is advocating here, which is all women have vote taken from them only because they are women, not because of your test. Completely different.

Breaking this scrap down to small steps, two questions to start for you, then one question to Slime (although he’s not manned up to answer to anything yet). Your question – there’s two parts to it:

Tell me how, in this thread, Slime is not advocating women lose their vote (in general, their RIGHTS), only by dint of them being women. By dint of their identity? And from that, the second part, how is that identity argument NOT an affront to individualism? How is it any different to the snowflake identity politickers?

If you can’t answer that, why the continual free pass to Slime? Because that’s starting to be a comment on you.

Second question. Look at VSD’s comments on this thread vis a vis her analysis on posting to SOLO as a women given the misogynist environment you’ve given Slime a free pass to create. Quoting VSD:

‘… what's the next step after putting women on 'nanny-state-rule'? making them property to their males as they are the only one's who can take responsibility for their 'daffiness'? find a common thread here? ‘

You comment here on that, Linz, as if you’re talking to VSD. Because the women hating culture that has made her say that is down to YOU. As you say, this is YOUR site.

And for fucks sake Linz, Slime, on this thread, calls (the glorious) Olivia a snowflake, because she is a woman (NO OTHER REASON than she is a woman) … your comment on that please. Because you’ve said nothing.

Every damned time you give that cock a free pass; YOU are being judged on that free pass. I’ve not read you pulling him up once. Not bloody once. Link me to where you’ve disagreed with his evil? Otherwise, you're not shy in coming forward, so why wouldn’t I assume you agree with his bigoted views?

My last question, for this opening sortie, is to the Slime. Why, Slime, did you feel the need to frame Ayn in terms of Jewishness. What relevance is that Jewishness, to anything? I say it’s down to your no doubt anti-Semitism; how is it not?

Okay, go. I’ve off to bed.

May I suggest ...

VSD's picture

... that the 3 non-B's slandering and smearing your favorite hate-groups (justified or not being immaterial to this argument) has made you more lenient to the same mud-fest being brought to other (more undeserving) quarters?
I've tried to give you an answer that I refused to give the 3 non-B's, because you actually used arguments instead of insults - you ignored it or maybe you also think I'm just a 'leftist dingbat' and a 'silly girl' not worth answering except in insults ... which is of course your prerogative as owner of this site ... however if you select your slapping downs by who is the most vocal and most vulgar in tainting your favorite hate-groups I'll be happy to leave - not my cuppa-tea ...
VSD
who is still wondering if a majority's bad choice made by a specific group entitles disenfranchisment of said group - going down that road: what's the next step after putting women on 'nanny-state-rule'? making them property to their males as they are the only one's who can take responsibility for their 'daffiness'? find a common thread here? you advocate the things you slander most!
and just as an aside: which male am I to relinquish my vote, my property, my right to my own life, to? my father has been dead many years and my brothers certainly won't take responsibility for me (I was always the cockoo one in the family) ... so lacking a strong alpha-male I'm going to be wed to the state or wed by the state to any asshole willing to take on another slave/property?

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

It's an interesting question if women as a group have voted poorly, relative to men. I'm secure enough in my non-sexism to ask the question without feeling like a sexist.

If it is so that women as a group vote bady, then I would not want to see women barred from voting. That would be silly, as of course many women are competent to vote and many men are incompetent. I would simply want something like what Lindsay has proposed. Though you might find that women, as a group, are more inclined to fail those 'political' tests...maybe due to a lack of interest, of whatever.

...Still seeing horns on my head?

-To say, I think it's a bloody good idea to create the effective condition that only politically engaged people be allowed to vote. Asking people to do even a crude course online, and pass a test before voting, would be a revolution in its own right. Democracy for Meritocracy!

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Slime is misogynist, racist and I bet anti-semitic. What worries me is most of the airhead SOLO males seem seduced by this evil cock, follow him; and you, YOU Linz are nowhere near vocal enough in slapping him down every time he emotes this drivel. That's my problem.

All that is is a bunch of knee-jerk leftie epithets. There is not a single argument in there at all. And in case you hadn't noticed, how vocal I am in slapping anyone down on my own site is entirely my own prerogative. Yours is not to come here if you disapprove.

I note your failure to answer my substantive questions on the grounds of friends arriving in the drive. Well, answer when they're gone.

My own suspicion is that the real crime of the "evil cock" is to call out ARISIS, as they ought to be called out. That, apparently, is my crime too. Well, bring on the debate.

Linz

Mark Hubbard's picture

First, I'm not evading a full answer but friends here soon for drinks so I've got seconds (will have to come back to this tomorrow).

But re your tripartite test, I don't think I have any problem with that. As stated, I don't like majoritarianism and advocate a constitutional republic along the lines of the old Free Radical's Consitution of New Feeland.

However, that's not my point on 'this' thread. That test has nothing to do with what Slime is advocating here, which is all women have vote taken from them only because they are women, not because of your test. Completely different.

Slime is misogynist, racist and I bet anti-semitic. What worries me is most of the airhead SOLO males seem seduced by this evil cock, follow him; and you, YOU Linz are nowhere near vocal enough in slapping him down every time he emotes this drivel. That's my problem.

Cars coming up drive ...

Quickly, how are you going to scope (1) political literacy test? .. Cheers my friend.

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

With which part of the following do you have a problem:

1) institute a political literacy test, as I've previously proposed; 2) limit the scope of the vote so that it cannot empower politicians to steal from humans and give the loot to sub- or pre-humans (including themselves); 3) institute a two-tier system of citizenry—provisional and full. The latter should be revocable, and should require, among other things: being a certain age, attaining a certain standard of literacy (linguistic and political) and renouncing the initiatory use of force. Full citizenry would be a prerequisite for breeding and voting.

And how do you think any of the above is an affront to individualism?

H'okay - State of the Play - INDIVIDUALISM

Mark Hubbard's picture

So, Grant-you-don't-need-euthanasia-coz-you-can-stick-a-bag-over-your-head-or-watch-Mash has decided, thanks to my nastiness, he's going to be a sissy-boy and only post on the Slime's woman-hatred threads.

The Slime won't man-up to be psychoanalysed to understand his woman-hatred, so I'm forced to make assumptions about sexual dysfunction or perhaps some Oedipal mommy-thang going on.

Thus, to something important. The most significant paragraph I've posted on this loathsome thread was as follows:

For 'the group' ... does SOLO and Individualism connect anywhere at all anymore? I can't see where. Thus there's no civilised free society here. SOLO is turned into another identity-politick nightmare the same as the snowflakes practice; damning whole groups on group attributes. That's sick. You attack bad ideas. When you attack whole groups because they have vaginas, how are you any different to the snowflakes attacking whole groups because they have penises?

Does SOLO have a liberty based ethic left? To attack welfare statism, you attack the concept of the welfare state and you advocate for its demise (beginning with the demise of the tax surveillance state). You DO NOT attack the foundation of liberty that men and women, all individuals, are created equal, and all have the same rights in a free society, and you certainly don't condone a drek like Slime who is pure misogynist. Slime has no redeeming features, none, because he is so incredibly flawed (and evil). Also, look at his last comment on this thread: I bet you he's anti-semitic, indeed, definitely. Only an anti-Semite would feel the need to refer to Ayn as a 'Jewish Matriarch'. Plus we already know he's full blown misogynist, full-blown white supremacist, so why wouldn't there be full-blown anti-Semitism (the surprise would be if there was not). Slime is that  slouching beast crawling from the darkest place in human history. And not only is no one (other than VSD, Olivia and Luke) calling him on his evil here, all the retarded blokes have become his disciples. (I thought it bloody strange on a liberty site that besides Linz, every other male in here who commented on it is anti-euthanasia). Wow. Wow. WOW.

... Discuss. (I'm off to BBQ a roast. A Spanish red today).

Oh dear, Andrew, Andrew, Andrew ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

... who asks me, quote: 'Do you think women would be better or worse off, materially, if we took away their right to vote?'

Raising the further question, and only important one, of what type of creature can ask a question like that? Only one who is slimed. Do you even understand what you're saying in a question like that? You know what the underlying premise is, don't you?

Andrew goes on to say: '...and to be clear, I do not believe that women should have their right to vote removed ...'

Some small hope I thought, outside being a totally patronising moron, Andrew doesn't think the wee dears should have their votes removed. But then he qualified it with:

'... in practice.'

Oh. Big fail. Again, there is no more evil than those who have renounced the duty to think, or, let's qualify that, to think with a modicum of intelligence and some basic principles of liberty.

 

 

Partial Disinfection: Sleeping Tablet Grant

Mark Hubbard's picture

Quoting: 'I have better things to do. I will continue to occasionally comment here. Particularly on your threads, Doug.'

 

You-must-die-by-violent-suicide-just-coz Grant is only going to comment on the Slime's women hating threads. Least I've cleaned up the rest of the show of him and his bullying. Getting there.

To the Slime, your questions:

 

Let's psychoanalyse you because, individualism: this is in YOU somewhere:

1. Have you ever had a fulfilling relationship with a woman?

Subpart: if you've not, is that because of the deterministic (your view) nature of a woman/robot; or, is it because of something within you?

2. What do you think love is? Is it possible for you to feel it (or only in the abstract)? ...

(I doubt it would be possible for you to love because you can never find your values in a partner (unless, possibly, a sadomasochist) ... ah ...)

3. Women hatred is often (including those males into bdsm) down to sexual dysfunction. Is that your problem?

4. Or, possibly, I've noted deep-seated misogyny is a characteristic of some very small subset of gays: are you gay?

5. Are you a gay with sexual dysfunction.

Let's start with those.

Gregster

Mark Hubbard's picture

You look great in a uniform, as all bullies gravitate toward: including policing mob identification by general public shaming and telling me how I'm to die per your wishes, despite it being no business of yours. But well done for missing the only topic in here; that took some doing.

@Doug

Grant Jones's picture

I'll preface by stating that my comments are in reference to the United States of America. I know nothing and care nothing of New Zealand's politics. I would go with the Heinlein solution to our self-destructive "warm body" democracy. Only those who have served on active duty with the US armed forces should vote. That policy would remove most women, cucks and welfare parasites from the voter rolls. Regarding women and the vote, we should make the distinction between married and single women. Married women tend to vote the interests of their families, including their working husbands. They vote more to the "right" than single women. We shouldn't forget the avowed socialist-feminist policy of replacing husbands and fathers with the state. I've read tracts by British feminists from the 1940s explicitly advocating for the state to replace men as breadwinners.

"Too often Objectivists just parrot atheist leftists and oppose Christian Conservatives because of knee-jerk hatred of religion (and now I realize of white Christian Flyover Americans)." Indeed. But given my time constraints and other commitments, I can't justify taking the time required to research and write such an article for people who are closed to reason on this topic. I'm not an altruist. For example, there have been nearly fifty comments on this thread allegedly on the topic of women, voting and politics. Not one of your detractors has bothered to actually attempt to refute a single point made in the video. Instead, they choose to indulge in ad hominem and psychologize on your relationship with women. It's sad. Truly, sad.

I have better things to do. I will continue to occasionally comment here. Particularly on your threads, Doug. You are one of the more interesting posters here. I'll add that I disagree with a lot of your views, particularly on race. But, you are generally open to a rational discussion with those you disagree with. Which is more than I can say for most commenters on SOLO. Who, in typical OrgOism fashion, prefer an echo chamber.

Yes Andrew

gregster's picture

I know exactly what you mean. Mark has made several (emotional) projections in my direction on this thread. And they are false. He has repeatedly lied about Grant Jones being religious. I asked Grant here on another thread to clarify that, he denied it, and I take his word for it. I identified Mark's bullshit on this thread, and he labels that "mob policing." Dickhead and for all to see.

Agreed - again

VSD's picture

However I don't have the energy to wrestle with every pig just to keep the stye clean ... if that's what human life consists of, then see my other thread ... luckily there’s still your beautiful beach - enjoy it while it lasts : )
VSD

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

I'm not confused, you are just missing my point. And that pic is a screenshot off my video - one of a zillion pictures.

I will ask you one question:

Do you think women would be better or worse off, materially, if we took away their right to vote?

...and to be clear, I do not believe that women should have their right to vote removed, in practice. It's just a curious question which was really all this topic, at base, was supposed to be about.

! Andrew.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Quoting: 'I do believe someone can believe all the wrong things yet for the right reasons. I don't judge people on their abstract ideas. I just take their ideas as they stand, and look at it.'

Hitler, Stalin and Mao fall into this category Andrew? No wonder you're looking confused in your biopic.

Let me quote a film review I put to my diary last year - you are guilty as charged:

 

 

German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt accused Jewish leaders of abetting the slaughter [holocaust] and, most controversially, coined the phrase "the banality of evil" to advance her principal idea: ordinary people, even nobodies, can commit evil acts if they simply renounce the duty to think.

 

  Off to the beach for me. Need some air.

 

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

I thought it was clear. I don't think Doug is coming from a bad place with his 'controversial' assertions - even if they are wrong. Sorry if I sound like a wanker.

I do believe someone can believe all the wrong things yet for the right reasons. I don't judge people on their abstract ideas. I just take their ideas as they stand, and look at it. If they're provocative ideas I just find it amusing.

Andrew

Mark Hubbard's picture

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. It reads as pure wankerism. But then you can't see slime for slime, so no wonder.

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

I think it boils down to where you think the individual is coming from - at heart.

VSD

Mark Hubbard's picture

Our only disagreement is I do believe you need to call out evil the likes of Bandler, and that's because I think SOLO (past) had something to save.

I'm stunned at the number of useful idiot males in here with no seeming ability to think for themselves and only capable of the snowflake tactic of trying to publically shame me as troll (the Gregster Asperger's guy) and Andrew worried only about my nastiness to the Islamist Manosphere Slime operating here unchecked, but entirely happy with a Slime saying all individual women shouldn't have one of the most basic rights.

But then I don't think SOLO has any passion for the concept of an individual anymore, Linz (?)

Have a great Xmas Smiling

Andrew

Mark Hubbard's picture

Wow. Then there's no hope for you. And I'm starting to think little hope for SOLO.

Incredible

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

I get no slime feeling off Bandler at all.

I agree

VSD's picture

with you Mark, that they are not worthy of good behaviour - sadly slinging mud at them won't impress them either - after all: if you wrestle with a pig you only both get dirty - except that the pig likes it ... even sadder is the fact that pigs think they're in their right to spread this mud-fest if no one chases them off - so thanx for at least calling them what they are ...
Also I very much agree with your list above about women : )
VSD
PS: can't wait for the next diss that us snowflakes need some brutish men to defend their honor and look up to gratefully : D

Andrew

Mark Hubbard's picture

You're happy to let Bandler's premise go unchecked but are exercised by my nastiness. Right.

My nastiness and name calling is calculated and deliberate. I will never show evil of Slime Bandler's type any respect or manners as I would to friends of freedom. Evil has to be treated like the scum it is; to be told it must never sit at the table of civilised humans.

The men on this thread, other than Luke, are to a last one revolting just currently.

Got any message for VSD below who admits to limited posting because of the likes of Slime? Or you just going to prattle on about my principled nastisness to evil FFS.

[In my other world, the nice one, just finished a smasking BBQ breakfast.]

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

You kind of claim to be the champion of virtue, yet you are the only one here, as it seems to me, showing a blatant desire to be hurtful and nasty.

To the Bandler Slime

Mark Hubbard's picture

Looking at VSD's comments below and her separate thread with you raises the notion being a woman in your manosphere (FFS), and unfortunately currently in SOLO, is akin to being a Jew at a Nazi rally, or woman slave at an ISIS camp. And the number of weak minded men (Puerile, Gregster, et al) so easily led by this monster here again puts the lie to Slime's idea of a white supremacist manosphere as superior. SOLO is a dark, evil place right now, with too many posts coming from the gutter complete with mob policing (Gregster - assuming your problem is not Asperger's).

Luke (not of the weak minded) asks the same question as I did below, but you'll studiously avoid it Slime, and go on parroting your retarded manosphere. I'll simply copy and paste my previous post ... answer to it. For 'the group' ... does SOLO and Individualism connect anywhere at all anymore? I can't see where. Thus there's no civilised free society here. SOLO is turned into another identity-politick nightmare the same as the snowflakes practise; damning whole groups on group attributes. That's sick. You attack bad ideas. When you attack whole groups because they have vaginas, how are you any different to the snowflakes attacking whole groups because they have penises?

My former post, special questions for the sad-pup Slime at end:

_________________________________________________________________________________

Everything for me boils down to a singularity: INDIVIDUALISM:

Individualism: as the basis of all art (self-expression);

Individualism: as the basis for economics (there is no macroeconomics, that's why Keynes and his damn aggregate levers that politicians and economists love so much has destroyed West more thoroughly than Marx did. It's also not coincidental that Keynes set up the model for public funding of the arts which has largely turned the arts - certainly literature, from writers through to the publishing channel - over to Progressives.)

Individualism: as the only basis for politics (classical liberalism).

You'd know nothing about individualism. You operate on the same basis as Islamists - not surprising all your women are under burqas. You trawl the internet for just that misogynistic drek that fits your mono view of life at barely human, subhuman level.

Everyone is an individual, I come to everyone on their merits, nothing else.

No, actually - you don't qualify to be treated on your own merits. You and your women hating borg white supremacists are what put the lie to the notion of white supremacy, or male supremacy. You are the proof against. Albeit you do well typing under your KKK cloak thing (oh, that's sort of a burqa, isn't it.)

I grew up with four sisters, I (technically) have four granddaughters, so the only thing of interest re you is where this woman hatred and totally distorted view of yours comes from?

Let's psychoanalyse you because, individualism: this is in YOU somewhere:

1. Have you ever had a fulfilling relationship with a woman?

Subpart: if you've not, is that because of the deterministic (your view) nature of a woman/robot; or, is it because of something within you?

2. What do you think love is? Is it possible for you to feel it (or only in the abstract)? ...

(I doubt it would be possible for you to love because you can never find your values in a partner (unless, possibly, a sadomasochist) ... ah ...)

3. Women hatred is often (including those males into bdsm) down to sexual dysfunction. Is that your problem?

4. Or, possibly, I've noted deep-seated misogyny is a characteristic of some very small subset of gays: are you gay?

5. Are you a gay with sexual dysfunction.

Let's start with those.

One other note. Whatever world you would create, I seriously would throw myself off a high building in the desert rather than live in it (just before you threw me off).

To the Bandler Slime

Mark Hubbard's picture

Looking at VSD's comments below and her separate thread with you raises the notion being a woman in your manosphere (FFS) is akin to being a Jew at a Nazi rally, or woman slave at an ISIS camp. And the number of weak minded men (Puerile, Gregster, et al) so easily led by this monster here again puts the lie to Slime's idea of a white supremacist manosphere as superior. SOLO is a dark, evil place right now, with too many posts coming from the gutter complete with mob policing (Gregster - assuming your problem is not Asperger's).

Luke (not of the weak minded) asks the same question as I did below, but you'll studiously avoid it Slime, and go on parroting your retarded manosphere. I'll simply copy and paste my previous post ... answer to it. For 'the group' ... does SOLO and Individualism connect anywhere at all anymore? I can't see where. Thus there's no civilised free society here. SOLO is turned into another identity-politick nightmare the same as the snowflakes practise; damning whole groups on group attributes. That's sick. You attack bad ideas. When you attack whole groups because they have vaginas, how are you any different to the snowflakes attacking whole groups because they have penises?

My former post, special questions for the sad-pup Slime at end:

_________________________________________________________________________________

Everything for me boils down to a singularity: INDIVIDUALISM:

Individualism: as the basis of all art (self-expression);

Individualism: as the basis for economics (there is no macroeconomics, that's why Keynes and his damn aggregate levers that politicians and economists love so much has destroyed West more thoroughly than Marx did. It's also not coincidental that Keynes set up the model for public funding of the arts which has largely turned the arts - certainly literature, from writers through to the publishing channel - over to Progressives.)

Individualism: as the only basis for politics (classical liberalism).

You'd know nothing about individualism. You operate on the same basis as Islamists - not surprising all your women are under burqas. You trawl the internet for just that misogynistic drek that fits your mono view of life at barely human, subhuman level.

Everyone is an individual, I come to everyone on their merits, nothing else.

No, actually - you don't qualify to be treated on your own merits. You and your women hating borg white supremacists are what put the lie to the notion of white supremacy, or male supremacy. You are the proof against. Albeit you do well typing under your KKK cloak thing (oh, that's sort of a burqa, isn't it.)

I grew up with four sisters, I (technically) have four granddaughters, so the only thing of interest re you is where this woman hatred and totally distorted view of yours comes from?

Let's psychoanalyse you because, individualism: this is in YOU somewhere:

1. Have you ever had a fulfilling relationship with a woman?

Subpart: if you've not, is that because of the deterministic (your view) nature of a woman/robot; or, is it because of something within you?

2. What do you think love is? Is it possible for you to feel it (or only in the abstract)? ...

(I doubt it would be possible for you to love because you can never find your values in a partner (unless, possibly, a sadomasochist) ... ah ...)

3. Women hatred is often (including those males into bdsm) down to sexual dysfunction. Is that your problem?

4. Or, possibly, I've noted deep-seated misogyny is a characteristic of some very small subset of gays: are you gay?

5. Are you a gay with sexual dysfunction.

Let's start with those.

One other note. Whatever world you would create, I seriously would throw myself off a high building in the desert rather than live in it (just before you threw me off).

Are You Capable of Loving a Woman?

Luke Setzer's picture

Doug, are you capable of loving a woman? I ask this sincerely. You carry a lot of negative emotional baggage toward them. I know you keep speculating about your ideal Aryan woman. Are you taking any productive steps at all in that direction? Will you ever? Or do you just get more rocks off slamming women than loving them?

I can hardly fault any woman for looking askance in your direction given all the rage and hatred you likely project in her direction.

Secular Leftists Are Indeed Deplorable

Luke Setzer's picture

I made the same mistake as Rothbard back in 2000 and learned the same hard lesson.

I am sad that so many secularists replace faith in God with faith in government, but that is how things have happened, unfortunately.

NAWALT

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

All women are wired the same way. In that sense they are "all like that". Men are too for that matter. But the point is that female psychology has its basis in biology and it is there that the parameters are set. So in the *aggregate* we see common trends in female behavior that are remarkably predictable. These behavior patterns exist in the sexual realm thus the discovery of PUA and tactics of covert psychological influence (all based on modern psychology - read Cialdini's book on influence) to take advantage of them. They also exist in the political realm, which is why women are so consistently advocates of welfare states and gynocentric laws.

I'm not saying that there is no free will or no deep philosophical influences. But behind those things there is human primate wiring. This is something Objectivists and most libertarians deny because they are so wedded to the blank slate view of human nature. And that is *the* most important reason why Objectivism doesn't have a future. Some of Rand's ideas may but not Objectivism as a system. It needs to be upgraded.

Two things need to be understood and appreciated to fully grasp human nature and human social dynamics: 1) the ubiquity of racial tribalism and 2) the dangerous nature of female sexuality. You don't understand these and you are NEVER going to be skilled at social, cultural and political analysis. Witness the idiocy embraced by organized Objectivism. And also notice that as a gay man Linz was partially wise to this naturally; all those years he would say that "be wary of the fish" and that women were "daffy". That's a homosexual man who implicitly understands the inherent emotional instability of women.

Lastly regarding the Manosphere. Yes they are angry. Why shouldn't they be. They are a movement of largely white, heterosexual males who have just realized that the ENTIRE societal system is rigged against them, even down to the sexual marketplace. They're exploited to pay the overwhelming share of taxes (its white males who pay the majority of taxes as women are a net tax drain on society, which is easy to understand if you get female biology - their bodies require more maintenance and they raise children) and they are so often excluded from the sexual market as women have sex with the worst types of men during their most fertile years. The more Beta men are tired of being the back up plan of most women as women spend their twenties fucking wise-asses and bad boys (sexier men who won't commit, most men do not have the ability to do the same).

Men, especially white men, have a right to be angry. And Luke, your are wrong to equate them to the Left. They are not "just like Leftists". Leftists are evil bastards who are nihilists; "D2 nihilists" or don't you know? The Manosphere is a healthy movement of men who are resisting the Left. They are a right-populist movement that Objectivism should be reaching out to. But of course they are not. No, they're "sexist" and "misogynist" and "determinist". Galt forbid!!

But then again I know the reason for this. Objectivism is a movement that started with a Jewish Matriarchal figure. A less than ideal foundation for an intellectual movement. A bunch of men putting a women on a pedestal. This is one of the reasons that the Austrian movement is healthier than Objectivism. Objectivists are so prone to NAWALT because Rand was a woman. Though she was brilliant, she was also an idiosyncratic woman with a terrible personality who is largely responsible for Objectivism being the anti-social phenomenon that it is.

Mark Hubbard can now proceed to blow a gasket and display his leftist psychology for all to see. He's so easily "triggered".

Better than Heinlein

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

My approach would be different though: 1) institute a political literacy test, as I've previously proposed; 2) limit the scope of the vote so that it cannot empower politicians to steal from humans and give the loot to sub- or pre-humans (including themselves); 3) institute a two-tier system of citizenry—provisional and full. The latter should be revocable, and should require, among other things: being a certain age, attaining a certain standard of literacy (linguistic and political) and renouncing the initiatory use of force. Full citizenry would be a prerequisite for breeding and voting.

I like this. Its an improvement on Heinlein in 'Starship Troopers'. The only thing is that I don't think you could ever get to "there" from "here". I think you would have to go through some nationalist authoritarian intermediary. I don't think we can reason and vote ourselves into a more liberty setup. I think it would take a pro-liberty Pinochet.

@Grant

I'd love it if you posted your essay. Well reasoned arguments that are outside the box on these personal freedom issues are something I've come to appreciate. Too often Objectivists just parrot atheist leftists and oppose Christian Conservatives because of knee-jerk hatred of religion (and now I realize of white Christian Flyover Americans). In 1992 Rothbard argued that libertarians should work with the Populist Right rather than the secular, atheist Left (he tried that route as a young man and found them deplorable). I think Objectivists should have listened to him, but of course they didn't.

Cause and Effect

VSD's picture

if you clear up your position what is the cause and what is the effect of so many women falling into your bad graces I might actually agree ... what you describe is an effect, that so many women these days are trained, indoctrinated, or simly allowed to slip into such easy choises as empty-headed fry-quacking ... however that is an effect on a certain number (let's not split hairs over percentages) of the female gender, it is not the female gender that causes this effect

otherwise I might just take one tiny prerequisite from your list of admissable voters to ban 99% of the male population from voting: "and renouncing the initiatory use of force" ... and let's not quibble how many men have instituted the exact same laws that should disenfranchise them from the vote under your requirements 1) to 3)

VSD

PS: number 2) is acutally quite close to how I would be able to tolerate a government at all - however that's not gonna happen with power-hungry alpha-males either, just to serve up another prejudice ; )

Thought-Stopping Meme

Luke Setzer's picture

Andrew Atkin observed, quite rightly, that "not all women are like that."

I occasionally browse the "manosphere" or network of men's blogs, but the vitriol always drives me back from them in short order. As others have observed, whatever valid issues they raise get overwhelmed in a mishmash of unhinged rage and hatred matching that of the left. I have better things to do.

Among their common attributes is a glossary of "instant answer" terms such as NAWALT which abbreviates "not all women are like that." This is their sneering retort to anyone who utters the notion that women can be as varied in their views as men. Whenever anyone utters a whiff of such a notion, the instant chorus in response is ... NAWALT! NAWALT! NAWALT! These are essentially thought-stopping memes as dangerous as those on the left such as screams of "racism" or "sexism" or "misogyny" that aim at ceasing rational inquiry.

Linz, I broadly agree with your statements regarding means to citizenship and its consequent scope.

Thank you for summing it up so succinctly ;)

VSD's picture

"Essentially he's a troll. I recommend that he be ignored and never directly addressed."

That's exactly what I've been trying to do these last few months, short of leaving SOLO altogether, as it was flooded with 'ignorance' (my ignoring them) for the 3 non-Bs ; )
VSD

To say, I thought that video

Andrew Atkin's picture

To say, I thought that video was pretty unrealistic in representation of the female voter. It describes women in their immature and stupid form. Obviously not all women are like that.

...when I give women my "man view" on things, I find they (almost) never fail to respect what I say.

Mark

Andrew Atkin's picture

Even if everyone here is a filthy bigot...Why care? Why not look at the arguments (which you seem to have concluded must wrong) and explain to the poor twisted souls *how* they are wrong? Save them from themselves! Smiling

At the end of the day who we are, as people, is totally beside the point.

...to me, as I have previously expressed, democracy is the left-hand side of the bell curve voting the right-hand side into social and economic oblivion - at its worst. Or, the corrupt abusing their vote to steal from others (just as common)...

Hence, I do not believe in democracy as an 'inherent' virtue. Because it isn't. Nothing new in that insight either...the USA founders created a constitution, exactly because they knew that democracy only equates to justice insofar as people might vote without their snouts.

So what is it that we really want? Not democracy as such (that we have all been brainwashed into interpreting as being synonymous with justice). We simple want what is just, and socially effective. We want meritocracy. And how can we get it? That is the abstract question.

Hubbard

gregster's picture

We now have Bandler, Puerile, and Gregster who believe that the women posting to this site shouldn't be allowed a vote.

With respect to me--further dishonesty or misrepresentation by you Mark. I have to put it down to post-earthquake shakiness, to be generous.

Linz

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yeah, onto bottle two - French.

My position: I couldn't love my wife (or 'a' woman), if I had such a low view of her she shouldn't vote. I have to respect her for her values and her sense of life. Bandler is one sick, sad puppy, and too many others here. I'm sure none of them are having sex.

Men are every bit as bad when it comes to entitlement to a free lunch.

I'd get rid of democracy, period, but within current system I would never disenfranchise; I only put my efforts into getting rid of welfare state. That's the problem.

Jeez. This French red is good. You should be here.

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If this be an asylum, consider me an inmate. I just watched the video Doug linked to—almost bailed out when I heard the opening round of headbanging—and found it quite unobjectionable, apart from said headbanging. As best I can tell, women do love the Welfare State, are hard-wired towards a "caring" rather than just morality, and are irresponsible—generally speaking. Couple that with the fact that the disgusting cacophony of fry-quacking—the worst source of contemporary noise pollution, the most unassailable evidence of the ubiquity of airheadery and most eloquent testament to our cultural collapse—is almost entirely a female phenomenon, and you have a compelling case for disenfranchising the silly creatures. My approach would be different though: 1) institute a political literacy test, as I've previously proposed; 2) limit the scope of the vote so that it cannot empower politicians to steal from humans and give the loot to sub- or pre-humans (including themselves); 3) institute a two-tier system of citizenry—provisional and full. The latter should be revocable, and should require, among other things: being a certain age, attaining a certain standard of literacy (linguistic and political) and renouncing the initiatory use of force. Full citizenry would be a prerequisite for breeding and voting.

By this means women of whom the above generalisations are false could breed and vote, and men of whom those generalisations are true could not.

If by now you are well wined, Bro Hubbard, I hope you're better able to come up with some actual arguments!

BTW, I'm entirely in agreement with you about assisted suicide, but as you say, that's another topic for another thread.

Couple more things: I never

Mark Hubbard's picture

Couple more things:

I never said ban. I said disinfect.

We now have Bandler, Puerile, and Gregster who believe that the women posting to this site shouldn't be allowed a vote.

I find that as stunning as it is troubling. Deeply troubling.

Those women must feel pretty lonely in here. I don't know why they'd bother.

Un-fucking-believable you

Mark Hubbard's picture

Un-fucking-believable you hulking great ludnut.

Who cares about me.

The header post is a fascist saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. You say I'm evasive (yeah right) but you warble on about total, utter nonsense, yet won't put your opinion on the line on that HUGE issue.

You're contemptible. And fatuous. And you hate life. And by the look of it, worst of all, a Catholic caveman - in all my debates only the Catholics refer to euthanasia as murder. And don't worry about any of the issues regarding individual freedom. I despise you and the rest of your vile wowser Puritans.

I'm off into a bottle of wine. Linz, you've got an asylum in here. Seriously.

Gregster

Grant Jones's picture

Notice Mark's authoritarian mentality. He presumes to tell us what we can and cannot discuss on this thread. I wonder when Linz gave him such veto power. Doug is right about this guy. He has a leftist authoritarian mentality that reacts to disagreement like an emotional high school girl who has been triggered by thoughtcrime. As with all such creatures, he apparently believes he should have his safe space in which to smear those who disagree with him without worry of rebuttal. Note that he has yet to raise a reasoned objection or argument to a single point made in the video Doug posted. It's all ad hominem all the time. If anyone should be banned from this forum, it's Mark who is incapable of reasoned discourse.

Essentially he's a troll. I recommend that he be ignored and never directly addressed. I was thinking about writing an essay on why "assisted suicide" is homicide. It is not justifiable homicide because it's not an act of self-defense. This is fundamental to any decent, civilized legal code. Just as lifeboat ethics are not the source of moral principles, such "hard cases" are not the source for legal principles. There are groups and individuals who oppose state sanctioned homicide by its agents (doctors) who are not religious. Some are leftwing atheists. See links below. However with regard to Mark, such effort would be pearls before swine and a waste of my time.

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronal...

http://notdeadyet.org/

Jesus H Christ ... Gregster

Mark Hubbard's picture

Go away. Grant Busy-Body believes I shouldn't be allowed euthanasia even though that right has no call on him whatsoever. So he's a Christian, a fascist - don't know what he's doing here - a bully (definitely), or a cock, whatever, that's irrelevant to why I'm here and I couldn't care less (I certainly wasn't staking my reputation on it). In fact your ludicrous calling out is almost Asperger's. You're watching the Russians sack Berlin and fretting over if one of the soldier's put his chair tidily under the table in the mess before attacking the Chancellory.

Try picking battles that mean something for crying out loud. You'll note the header post is a nutjob saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote: do you have an opinion on that?

Now, please, leave this thread free for Bandler. I've got questions for him below: I want answers.

 

(And seriously, look at my comments: evasive? Did you get School C comprehension? Thank God it's almost wine time.)

Hubbard

gregster's picture

You're about as evasive as Yaron Brook. You have shown yourself to be dishonest (below). It's now up to you to prove that Grant Jones is religious.

(and that God freak who was posting last time against euthanasia).

Grant

Mark Hubbard's picture

Start another thread if you want to debate euthanasia. This thread is all about the misogynist.

Though, as all Cockledom seem to be out today, the argument I don't need a legal euthanasia because I can kill myself is cruel and always made by unthinking brutes (normally suffer-unto-a-comic-book-god Christ freaks).

A legal euthanasia allows me to control all aspects of my death, including:

Ability - if incapacitated by stroke, for example, I can't administer an overdose of sleeping pills (so bugger off with your shallow little Mash clip FFS);
Timing - if I get a motor neuron style disease, then without a legal euthanasia I am forced to kill myself, while able, perhaps years ahead of otherwise when my life would still have value. I love my life and want to live as long as I can while it has value to me. (That was Lecretia Seales main argument in her court case).
Closure & compassion: - without a legal euthanasia I have to die alone, looking at the wallpaper, and make Mrs H stand on the pavement so as not to incriminate her in a serious crime.

So, you are just another unthinking, compassionless brute. But another thread, and start that thread with why is my having a legal option to die with dignity any business of yours when you can choose to die in whatever hideous way you wish. Unfortunately, most who are forced to euthanise themselves because no legal option - due to busy-body swine like you - end up using hideous methods: plastic bag on the head, hanging, shooting themselves. As I said, you're a brute.

Everyone Who Disagrees with Me is a Christian

Grant Jones's picture

Can doctors in New Zealand prescribe sleeping pills? I know that Hawkeye and Trapper John could in Korea.

Oh your generosity to Olivia,

Mark Hubbard's picture

Oh your generosity to Olivia, the poor wee thing punching well above her weight for a woman, is astounding, you enormous cock. 'She gets some things right.' Well, bugger me; she'll be well chuffed.

Every word of hers on here disgraces your bullshit, although my point to Linz is your posts taint Linz, Olivia, Ed, et al by association. I know of some very good people who've gone against this site, and Linz, because of YOU (and probably Puerile). Linz rules here, he doesn't 'go you' for his own reasons, but that means he leaves me a free hand also. That's why I'd love to disinfect the site of you (and that God freak who was posting last time against euthanasia).

Everything for me boils down to a singularity: INDIVIDUALISM:

Individualism: as the basis of all art (self-expression);

Individualism: as the basis for economics (there is no macroeconomics, that's why Keynes and his damn aggregate levers that politicians and economists love so much has destroyed West more thoroughly than Marx did. It's also not coincidental that Keynes set up the model for public funding of the arts which has largely turned the arts - certainly literature, from writers through to the publishing channel - over to Progressives.)

Individualism: as the only basis for politics (classical liberalism).

You'd know nothing about individualism. You operate on the same basis as Islamists - not surprising all your women are under burqas. You trawl the internet for just that misogynistic drek that fits your mono view of life at barely human, subhuman level.

Everyone is an individual, I come to everyone on their merits, nothing else.

No, actually - you don't qualify to be treated on your own merits. You and your women hating borg white supremacists are what put the lie to the notion of white supremacy, or male supremacy. You are the proof against. Albeit you do well typing under your KKK cloak thing (oh, that's sort of a burqa, isn't it.)

I grew up with four sisters, I (technically) have four granddaughters, so the only thing of interest re you is where this woman hatred and totally distorted view of yours comes from?

Let's psychoanalyse you because, individualism: this is in YOU somewhere:

1. Have you ever had a fulfilling relationship with a woman?

Subpart: if you've not, is that because of the deterministic (your view) nature of a woman/robot; or, is it because of something within you?

2. What do you think love is? Is it possible for you to feel it (or only in the abstract)? ...

(I doubt it would be possible for you to love because you can never find your values in a partner (unless, possibly, a sadomasochist) ... ah ...)

3. Women hatred is often (including those males into bdsm) down to sexual dysfunction. Is that your problem?

4. Or, possibly, I've noted deep-seated misogyny is a characteristic of some very small subset of gays: are you gay?

5. Are you a gay with sexual dysfunction.

Let's start with those.

One other note. Whatever world you would create, I seriously would throw myself off a high building in the desert rather than live in it (just before you threw me off).

Flip side of Subhuman is...

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Perhaps you're just a caveman cock with some sort of mental disorder from your childhood.

Or perhaps I see an element of reality that you are incapable of; inter-gender dynamics. And perhaps I see that because of the wisdom that comes from hardship. Also, perhaps I am capable of reading world history and learning from the story it tells. Civilizations have risen and fallen before and wouldn't you know it both female liberation and multi-racialism played a role. Fancy that.

And the more you call me subhuman, the more you are confessing your inability to argue the actual facts (the facts in the video for example); ie the more you are confessing that your entire psychology is motivated by fear. Fear of your worldview being wrong. I on the other hand am perfectly fine with either liberty or ethno-nationalism winning out, although if I had to bet I would bet on the latter.

As for Olivia, I give her credit. She actually gets some things right which is more than most women when it comes to politics. And as far as Objectivist women go, she's relatively rare. Just compare her to that crazy German lady VSD. lol

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.