Quote of the day—Rick McGinnis

There’s an article of faith on the left that the world would be a kinder, more humane place if it were run by women. Based on the leftist women I knew, the world they ruled would be a place you’d navigate by the mountains of skulls.

Rick McGinnis
August 29, 2014
Comment to Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[There is some evidence to support this hypotheses. For example the Weather Underground had many women it.

On a more personal note an admitted Marxist woman I used know was also heavily involved in the ecology movement. To the best of my knowledge she didn’t actually do it but she didn’t see problem in spiking trees even though it presented a life threatening danger to loggers and sawmill employees.

Another way to look at this is the differences in the behavior of females versus males of most mammals. The female is a much more vicious defender of their young than the male. Could those who view a strong government of their making as a “child” and transfer that same instinct of a vicious defense to defending their political creations?

And how about women who are strong advocates for gun control? Does this hypothesized trait explain why anti-gun women are so violent?—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rick McGinnis

  1. I would also note that places where men are marginalized and societies are largely matriarchal (look at any inner-city ghetto) are NOT places you want to live.

  2. Strength, honor, reason, and courage guided by principles. Historically, these traits have, rightly or wrongly, been associated with men and masculinity.

    Rightly, they are also associated with the preservation of liberty. The left being anti liberty therefore must attack, malign, impugn and discourage these traits along with men in general. Proof of the success of this movement is that today, unlike 60 and more years ago, it would be risky to even say this in mixed company.

    The capacity for violence exists in all people, as does the capacity to do evil. They are NOT the same thing however, as violence may serve either good or evil, reason or insanity, love or hate. The key is in understanding the difference, and in giving one’s allegiance to the right side, come what may.

    You will note that when those on the left decry “violence” they tend not to make these distinctions, or to deliberately blur them. It gets worse than that even– When violence is being used to serve good, they call it violence, conflating it with crime. When it’s being used for evil, they either call it “social justice”, or pin the blame on the innocent, or ignore it altogether.

  3. I’m sure that the few women who led their countries to war like Boudica, Salome Alexandra, Athaliah, Cleopatra, Wu Tse-tian, Eleanor of Arborea, Æthelflæd of Mercia, Anna Ioannovna, Margareta Valdemarsdotter, Isabeau of Bavaria, Jadwiga, Victoria, Maria Carolina, Elizabeth the 1st & 2nd, Maria Theresa Walburga Amalia Christina, Catherine the 1st & 2nd, Indira Ghandi, Golda Mier, Margeret Thatcher are strictly exceptions to the rule that women can rule peaceful kingdoms.

  4. I dunno about the .gov being seen as a child, but more as a Sugar Daddy than anything. Social welfare programs specifically meant for women are very, very numerous, and there’s very few gender neutral ones. None are male only.

    This suggests to me that these anti-gun women are more or less utterly dependent on big daddy .gov for handouts (and hell, even their jobs are basically nothin but bailouts). Any threat to the .gov is a threat to them, and damn son, women get spiteful in ways I’ve never seen anywhere.

    • In the terrorist/revolutionary context that I was talking about the existing government was something to be destroyed or at least radically changed. The replacement for the existing government is what I was referring to as a child substitute.

Comments are closed.