It is no surprise that most men are inclined towards freedom and individualism, while most women are inclined towards security and collectivism. Building on this dichotomy, we have many examples of women finding the preference of security and collectivism illustrated in large, bloated welfare government.
For one, the Pew Research states “Women lean Democratic by 52%… unmarried women 57%”. In a similar article, “Since 1990, women have been consistently more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic.” Nothing is closer to socialism and statism in modern America than the American left and the Democratic party. In case you didn’t know, they have an actual socialist running in the primaries. The Democratic party continues to represent women and their beliefs of security and collectivism.
You Must Love Big Brother
The ultimate caricature of the left, Hillary “the woman” Clinton, illustrates her ideas of collectivism in her creepy 1996 Communist Manifesto, It Takes a Village. The title of her book itself should give you shivers. The book illustrates its eerie socialist message of collectivism and state security. An excerpt from the Chapter “Brave New Village” from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, exemplifies Clinton’s idelogy of state controlled community accurately:
Gross
…(the) notion of the ‘common good’…she (Clinton) indisputably draws her vision from the same eternal instinct to impose order on society, to create an all-encompassing community, to get past endless squabbles and ensconce each individual in the security blanket of the state. Hers is a political religion, an updated Social Gospel- light on the Gospel, heavy on the Social- spoken in soothing tones and conjuring a reassuring vision of cooperation and community…The village may have replaced ‘the state’, and it in turn may have replaced the fist with the hug, but an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape… (Goldberg, 357)
The idea of women embracing the left and socialism is not new to modern America, either. Throughout history we have many examples of such behavior from women. In John Derbyshire’s 2009 classic “We Are Doomed” (a must read), he explains:
The ‘gender gap’ in political attitudes has been remarked on since at least 391 B.C. That was the year Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen’ (Ecclesiazusae). In the play the women of Athens, disguised as men, take over the assembly and vote themselves into power. Once in charge, they institute a program of pure socialism:
‘Everyone is to have an equal share in everything and live on that; we won’t have one man rich while another lives in penury, one man farming hundreds of acres while another hasn’t got enough land to get buried in…No one will be motivated by need: everybody will have everything…the children will regard all older men as fathers…’
The play wright grasped the essential point… Women incline to socialism much more naturally than do men.” (Derbyshire, 88)
Women illustrating adherence to “the party”
Mr. Derbyshire continues:
George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this (women’s inclination to Socialism)…Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, observe(s):
‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy… ‘
I (Derbyshire) saw the same thing myself when living in communist China in the years just after Mao. If you wanted to hear a total-credulity, utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.’ (Derbyshire, 88)
In America, when women were granted the right to vote, it opened a solid voting bloc for Left statists for years to come. Ironically, gyno-con Ann Coulter (a brilliant conservative woman; yes, they exist, but rare) states:
It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in ’64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. – “An appalling magic” in The Guardian (17 May 2003)
Gentlemen, it all went to shit when we gave them the right to vote. We even hear it from a woman, Ann Coulter. Women became a huge and powerful voting bloc that rarely change its tune—the numbers show very little fluctuation in their leftist leaning, as explained earlier.
One can only imagine a country where statists, leftists, cuckservatives, and neocons might not have existed if women had not been granted the vote. Whatever the case, a large statist government is now a pressing issue, with much of it being the responsibility of idealistic, dumb, and dangerous policies supported by women and feminized SJW men.
To take this a step further, the world becomes more feminized each day and traditional sex roles get reversed—look no further than the new Star Wars and Mad Max to see the effects of this feminization. In modern culture, we have women being glamorized in roles of power and “strong, independent, women” that can do what men do. This propaganda easily translates to the ballot box.
Not on my watch!
The feminization of everything is a weak attempt to indoctrinate young men to believe that women are leaders and that women are masculine. In response, weak men are followers of their causes and beliefs. This is something men, young and old, should strive to be conscious of every day.
We, as men, must be aware of this political bloc illustrated in the Democratic party. As we can see in the chart previously discussed, men tend to fluctuate their vote based on the individual, women vote based along strict party adherence. Women are one solidarity voting bloc for large government and Democratic party lines.
This is dangerous, because it is determining the fate of our country and our future. We are now on a path to destruction and drastic change must occur. The fate rests in the hands of men, not idealistic, statist, Leftist women, nor SJWs.
We must take back our country, if not by the voting box, then by any means necessary.
Read More: 8 Things That Make A Girl Stupid And Useless
“Gentlemen, it all went to shit when we gave them the right to vote.”
+infinity
Women should NOT be allowed to take part in politics in any way, shape or form. It’s irresponsible and dangerous to give power to someone and the right to shape the future when they can’t see beyond their own narcissistic, short-term desires all guided by their emotions and feelings.
Giving women the right to vote was THE biggest mistake and turning point in our civilization and all of humanity (what’s left of it) is now paying for it.
Well said; they can vote, so long as it’s just salad/window dressing. I’m more for surpassing women in their duplicity when dealing with them: that is, having a *pretence* or a mere **facade** of equal opportunity, right to vote, etc … BUT always, absolutely always ensuring that key positions of power in society are FIRMLY in men’s hands; no compromise in that regard.
Thus, employing a sort of “art of stealth” against the women just to keep them happy through *illusions* is the most ideal way without creating upheaval and resentment from them.
It’s the same thing women do to men:use sex to trick them into marriage to extract resources for themselves.
This is probably the only politically viable solution. As much as we’d like a return to limited suffrage, it is unlikely to happen, even if Roosh and ROK weren’t inaccurately portrayed by almost all media.
It bothers me significantly that some here don’t understand the importance of setting reasonable goals over pipe dreams. While one should never use “political viability” as an excuse for lazyness, one must also acknowledge that we must fight for the best outcome that stands a reasonable chance of coming about.
Absolutely. Also, the primary weapon or tactic, and an extremely effective one at that, of these feminazis aka femicunts has been to employ the principles of Fabian Socialism by slowly yet meticulously burrowing their way, like rats, into every key node of power, whether education, especially higher education, law and especially the judiciary, etc. Any reasonable chance that men, real men, have today is to employ the same tactics in a co-ordinated fashion to at least have a fighting chance of saving this great and awe-inspiring civilization that’s bleeding heavily from these sinister force’s savage assault.
“It’s the same thing women do to men:use sex to trick them into marriage to extract resources for themselves.”
That’s OK so long as she produces a family and loyalty in return.
Removing suffrage from women will either require a significant number of women to become disillusioned with their own sex’s sense or a total collapse of society. A militant Islamic takeover for instance is quite plausible given demographic changes. Ironically if this happens in the west it would have been the doing of liberal/feminist voters.
Uh huh. Vote red or blue (Moon Over Parador) and never deviate from the accepted path.
The muzzies are only a symptom, the LIBERAL scum are the real enemy. Without these knuckle dragging dead weights, there wouldnt be a policy of national division using unchecked barbarian imigration.
I actually like fact_comment’s idea of requiring military service / registering for the draft to vote (a la Heinlein).
Upvoted, and I didn’t even serve.
Only men who actually contribute to paying taxes and own land should ever be allowed to vote.
Anyone who does neither should be at the kids table until they do.
Full disclosure: I own no land, currently.
“and own land”
The only problem I have with that requirement is that property taxes mean ‘the land’ is really just rented from the government.
No argument on that from me. Taxes need to be re done at the point of the militias barrel.
Nothing less will suffice.
It’s irresponsible and dangerous to give power to someone and the right
to shape the future when they can’t see beyond their own narcissistic,
short-term desires all guided by their emotions and feelings and not an
ounce of any logic or reason.
This is exactly why they were given the right to vote…
” ‘Gentlemen, it all went to shit when we gave them the right to vote.’
“+infinity”
If you allow men to vote, then men will vote for female suffrage. So, voting should be reserved for electing bishops and parish councils and no governments larger than a city.
And even before women were allowed to vote, allowing universal male suffrage resulted in the laws that gave children by default to the mother, instead of the father.
Mankind needs autocratic monarchy, Orthodox theocracy, and patriarchy.
The entire history of the USA, and western Europe since the Great Schism, has been in the wrong direction.
The Universe is an autocratic monarchy. Christ is Lord of All.
Since all the rest of us are corrupted and fallen creatures, I like checks and balances. Presbyterian or Congregational church government, and a Constitutional system like the U.S. had are some of the best options for this age.
Giving universal suffrage isn’t as great as it seems. You still have the idiots voting and running for politics.
The state benefits from women voting, so women vote. The time period between all men voting and all women voting was relatively very short in most places. The state uses the vote to gain power because the masses will always vote themselves their neighbors’ wealth. The state grows and with it the wealth of those running the state and close to it. Voting also diminishes the power of the productive individual to prevent being plundered by the state. The ritual of voting is considered consent to being ruled as well. Thus states will always seek to have as many voters as possible. There’s a reason why US foreign policy has been to spread democracy at gun point for a century.
The only way to fix this basic problem is to deal with the root cause itself, the state.
Completely agree.
One thing of note that the author did not mention, single women are more likely to vote liberally (leftist/democrat) whilst married women are more likely to vote conservative.
It’s almost like once they are married, they don’t want government to take money away from their man.
I think your on to something.
Women cannot lead. This is not sexist but an actual fact and reality of life. Women are not biologically programmed to lead a society nor were they created to carry out the same functions as men. Just like men, women have their own unique biological traits, which in their case, is to reproduce while providing love and nurture for their loved ones. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this as it reflects their primary nature, and one which men look for in a woman.
But when you have feminists indoctrinating society with a lot of nonsense about how men and women are equal in every way, not only does it make women look ridiculous, but also leads to the destruction of society. One only needs to look back throughout history and even the present to see the disasterous end results of what happens to society when women are in charge. From the Thailand political riots, to the Poll Tax riots in the UK and now what is happening in Germany, all of these incidents have occured when women were in charge of leading a country.
It is an actual fact but most of great civilizations were built and led by great men. All of the world’s greatest inventions were built and contributed to society by men. All of the biggest multinational corporations and Fortune 500 companies were all built and financed by men. Women on the other hand, are very good at building little boutique shops and other related businesses which cater towards the female demographics. But when it comes to developing large sized enterprises which create thousands and thousands of jobs, they are not there to do so.
Now with more women in the workforce than ever before, and now in positions which they did not earn such as management and now leading teams and controlling the arms of employment through human resources departments and feminist driven legislation to support their ideology of replacing men, all of the great contributions provided by men, are going to waste. We are seeing the very downfall of society and it does not matter at what level women are leading, be it at a company level, or at a political level of leading a nation, it is almost guaranteed to lead to a disaster. At this moment in time, with men being replaced at every level of society and having no function to provide whatsoever, one can only sit back and watch the decline and wonder, how far we have really fallen as a civilization.
I agree with you entirely.
The deadliest and also most pointless war in history of humankind was not started by a woman. As a result, many countries were thrown back a hundred years, both economically and culturally.
War is a necessary part of humanity. Always has been, will continue to be. And there will be bigger wars in the future.
I recently watched the TV series about Pablo Escobar and his take-down. There were many references to war and many real-life bombings and shootings and killings of women and children. If there is any thing “real” about good and evil, then you have to choose sides and follow it though.
Evil is an underdeveloped amygdala. Which most people have today.
Enoch Powel’s “Rivers of Blood” speech starts of:
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.”
“One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.”
In WW1 the suffragettes were handing out chicken feathers to school boys to shame them into enlisting. Many underage boys died and some even faced the firing squad despite being underage.
Which war would that be?
It certainly wasnt fought or ended by a woman either.
A leader has to be fair and impartial in order to rule in such a way that those under him won’t revolt and overthrow him (notice how I said “him” and not “them”). Women are incapable of doing this. While some women are able to be impartial when looking at a scenario from a distance, all are incapable of being impartial when directly involved. Their emotions rule them completely.
Reading this article my thoughts were “yes…..of course……obviously they aren’t leaders”, while I have no doubt anyone outside of our circle of readers will splutter and complain and disagree completely (while providing no counter argument, just name calling). I guess that’s what the “red pill” is.
Women can’t lead because they don’t have the ability to relate abstract concepts, they can’t see two steps ahead, and are very risk adverse.
What a truth. Women can learn abstract concepts, with more penuries than men but they can. What they can’t do is integrate concepts in a comprehensive vision of the world. They aren’t able to see or build a system, in their minds.As consequence of their inability to relate abstract concepts they lack deep understanding of every aspect of our world. That’s true even for high IQ women. I’ve checked it in multiple times within my family and friends. They are parrots, if you know something and you are unable to link it to other concepts and build a logic whole based on empirics you’re a fucking parrot. For that, no matter how much women study and work they will never hold up to our high.
P.S. Do you know that there is affirmative action in I.Q. testing???
Check that out, I’m sure you’ll like it.
http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-equality/sex-differences-general-intelligence/
Men’s brains develop slower, we tend to be 2 years behind. Hence a 5 year old boy has the language ability of a 3.5 year old girls. Boys are now going to school too early since mother wants the child minding. The boys become frustrated and disillusioned with school and hence perform poorly. We have our puberty 2 years latter. By 25 we are pulling ahead of women.
Apparently girls are motivated by pleasing a teacher. Boys not so. Even chimp females dutifully learn how to use tools to get termites etc whereas the males are just interested in play fighting.
Then there is the problem of reduced testosterone in western males due to some environmental issue, 17%. This feminises the brain and reduces motivation.
I love that link, Rushton and Lynn both picked this up.
Indeed. The one thing men have and women don’t is the ability to understand how different subsystems will fit together BEFORE such subsystems were even designed. That’s two levels deep abstraction.
It is not inconceivable that men are on some strange exponential curve where we are complete fuck ups at a young age and then have to wait 15 years to exceed women in all respects. It is rather obvious that – even if men and women are “equal” – we run the standard deviation play to be both the best members of society and the worst.
You’re wrong in one thing. Brain development being slower doesn’t mean we are less intelligent, even in childhood. Humans are so intelligent due to a gene called SRGAP2c which slow the maturation of the brain, amplifying the “critical period”.
Slow development(aka neoteny) is equal to increase cognitive capacity, which is a enhanced human trait, and within the humans, is an enhanced male characteristic.
Our development cycle is not only in a different order, it is slower and longer and yes we seem to end up superior intellectually interestingly about the time male income exceeds female income (about 25-32). I suspect boys need rough and tumble play, mock aggression.
In most species slower growth and maturity is associated with higher intelligence.
It’s probably best to delay a boys entry into school to 6 at least.
My friends can tell of sticking fuse wire in a school power socket to cause an explosion, rolling rocks down valleys, smashing lights with a sling shot above the park rangers porch as he sat there so he’d chase us in the forest, handing in an essay with a swastika to a Jewish school teacher, putting a cracker in a friends pocket, hanging a kid upside down 4 meters high and dropping him accidentally (he fell, got up and unharmed said ‘fuck you’ and gave the finger). Putting toilet lollies in someone’s drink, I made hydrogen sulphide gas bomb and my friends placed it and evacuated a McDonalds, jumping 10 meters from the ceiling in the school auditorium, though the stage ‘ghost door’ and into high jump mats we’d placed below.
It was never malicious, done for excitement and fun. It’s certainly different to what girls do. Once we’d done it, didn’t want to do it again.
Stick to stories about your sweet sword collection, what you posted brought this thread down several notches.
Well-said truth.
In the entire history of man, no tyranny has ever been resolved without war. We cannot self-improve or reason our way out of this.
Completely agree. I just sign in to upvote this post
Ann Coulter has said that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and she’d be happy to give it up, it would be worth it. She also thinks voting age should be raised to 26. She does say that women should still have the right to stand for election.
Those feminists in Britain doing pro refuge “die ins” and those German girls welcoming “rapefugees” in scantily clothing gives us pause. No matriarchal civilisation has ever survived or developed.
There is reason: The male brain has a portion called the amygdala. It is not an emotional portion of the brain, it doesn’t do feelings. It provides
1 Threat detection
2 Motivation.
It requires testosterone to work. Hence the term “balls”.
If you are a women or a liberal this function is probably quite weak in you.
Women are simply not capable of threat detection, they can’t see and balance problems. Most tend to head to pure empathy.
See
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/study-shitlibs-really-do-suffer-from-a-case-of-my-feels/
Note there has been a 20% reduction in testosterone levels in western men since 1960. Probably endocrine disruptors.
There are a lot of other things that can cause a reduction in T levels:
Being overweight / obese.
Lack of muscle building activity (weight lifting will increase your T levels). Given that many jobs are sedentary compared to the past, we don’t build muscle at work much anymore.
Low vitamin D, which is a major issue now for lots of people (spending a lot of time indoors).
Excessive sugar intake. Insulin spikes can reduce T levels
It may be changing politics.
I’m putting in an effort to increases them through sleep and exercise.
Masturbation and stress levels also contribute
Barbara Mikulski that fat disgusting senator from MD said it the other day that she didn’t want the Constitution being involved in the Supreme Court decision regarding Obunghole’s illegal granting of amnesty. A senator does not know the reason behind the Supreme Court’s existence? We are doomed.
Every time I come across such stories involving cunts who have no regard for the sacred Constitution, I’m reminded of Nietzsche’s famous dictum, or commandment of sorts:
“Going to see a woman? Do not forget thy whip.”
“Fuck the Constitution!” – Patrick Henry
Females want government by feelz.
The Constitution was only important to liberals when it could be used to forward their agenda…getting God out of schools, protecting ‘freedom of speech’ when an ‘artist’ wanted to wipe his ass with the American flag, destroying the nuclear family, creating a generation of entitled drunken whores, etc…under the aegis of ‘Hate Speech’ the left continues it’s agenda to divide and now finds the Constitution an annoyance…the Second Amendment prevents victimization by the unwashed hordes, the First Amendment blocks attempts to shut down expression by labeling it ‘hateful’, etc. The Constitution now stands AGAINST the liberal agenda, showing how depravfed they truely are.
The left was all for constituional protections when they were not in power. Now that the Left firmly sits on the throne of power it is an obstruction to their agenda. Power is the issue nothing else.
It is not a coincidence, that shortly after women got the right to vote, this country voted to ban alcohol.
Prohibition was enacted before suffrage.
However, a lot of temperance movement was female (even among the anti-suffragists), and I imagine the suffragist movement allowed them to organize for Prohibition (hence why the amendments were so close together).
They were concurrent movements. Prohibition was rammed through by the same manginas deferring to female illogic. The bogus rational was that so many men were off getting drunk at the pub that women were occupying the role men used to have and therefore deserved to vote. After several years of prohibition when that fallacy became obvious to all, prohibition was repealed but women’s right to vote wasn’t. Prohibition was a beta male shaming tactic used to get women the right to vote.
Here’s the kind of women our thirsty great-grandfathers bent over for.
That is one of the reasons that God (the One in the Bible) allowed men to have more than one wife at the same time. With mandatory monogamy, the wife has ultimate veto power. She can say “my way, or no sex for you”. When patriarchal polygamy is allowed, the husband can overrule her veto by saying “then I will take an additional wife”.
That was actually a spoof done by the anti-prohibition crowd way back then.
Not to split hairs, but women’s suffrage was approved by the Senate in June 1919 and the Volstead Act in October 1919…both ratified by the states in 1920
Serious question (the intent is not to look an idiot if I mention this outside the ROK sphere): sources?
My information is saying 18th was ratified January 16, 1919 (taking effect about one year later) and 19th was ratified August 18, 1920: and I have checked with more than one (they both could be wrong…).
Thank you for this. I’ve often posted out that the stupid temperance crap was pushed by women.
The Anti-Saloon League was heavily dominated by women, but was relatively ineffective for decades in the late 1800s. In the early 1900s it was taken over by men and became much more effective. The KKK was actually the primary source of power behind the prohibition legislation. The suffregettes were not a strong driver of prohibition although it was on their agenda. So, current but not necessarily driven by the same groups.
Also, note the problem was not alcohol but men’s spaces. When prohibition came in men and women started drinking together in speakeasys. Before that the men drank at all male saloons and women drank at home. When prohibition was repealed emen and women still drank together and the all male saloon no longer existed. The drive by women was to eliminate all male spaces not to eliminate alcohol.
Prohibition was national. KKK had no political power outside the south.
The KKK ruled the solid south and had several presidents elected from their ranks including Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman (although he repudiated his alligence once he got to Washington.) To say they had no power on a national level is ludicris.
Not sure what role if any the KKK had in getting presidents elected, they likely lost as many votes as they gained for candidates outside the south.
You’ve get the idea that racisim was isolated to the south. You also have no regard for half the country maybe having a say in the national politics of the time. How quaint.
Segregation was a national issue, but less of the dominant issue outside the south. It was just one of other issues in other states. Voters in the south were more single issue voters that way.
Why the fuck would the KKK care if anybody drank or not? All the best whiskey is from the south.
Because the Kkk was also a nativist and religious party. It was anti-immigrant and anti catholic
The Irish (catholics) immigrants,Poles,Russians, Germans, were big drinkers….whiskey and beer.
Prohibition was a way of turning the legal system on and against these urban immigrant populations….
Think of it like the ‘War on Drugs’….mainly a way to turn the legal system on Blacks.
It wasn’t until the 1970s that the ban on women in bars was lifted here in NJ.
Woodrow Wilson says otherwise
Not to mention that the most noxious, toxic, loud, and virulent gun control “voices”, the majority are these liberal cunts.
I’ve been banned from all the usual suspects of the left cesspool i.e. Vice, Daily Beast, simply for engaging, always in a polite and courteous manner, the vociferous gun control cunts to debate the issue … again always in a gentlemanly and super-polite way. Their response: banning from the site! Not only are these cunts irrational but grotesquely intolerant of reason, logic, and simple dialogue.
You got in the way of their “FEELZ”.
What the fuck are you doing on Vice anyways? Bunch of faggot hipsters spewing utter bullshit.
I hear ya, mate. I hear ya loud and clear. Once in a while, it’s a form of penance and self-inflicted wounds. When I’m angry, and I want that anger to turn into rage, I go on these first-rate pussy and cuntocracy sites … and let all that contempt boil to rage … balls-out, double-fisted, skull crushing rage, which I can then blow off on something constructive!
Yeah I can’t even read a paragraph from any given article on vice without my blood starting to boil.
Agreed, dont be traffic for those shit eaters.
Banning booze was awesome! Two bit local hoods were able to become national and international gangsters as a result. If this didnt happen, we never would have gotten great movies like the Godfather and Goodfellas… so many great quotes woulda never existed.
Harlem Nights
LOL- we wouldnt have the Kennedy clan either….
Or the Bronfmans.
As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster.
“Get da fauk atta hea!”
Touchée! I hear ya … what would life be without “say hello to my leedle friend!”, or “fo-getta-bad-it!”, etc etc
Prohibition was popular among a large swathe of society for decades prior to the Volstead Act. During prohibition, many people saw that it was a great success. Thomas Edison the great inventor said during prohibition that “prohibition is the greatest invention to benefit mankind” because it had a major impact on reducing poverty, increasing savings, reducing violent crime (which despite the increase in organised crime was greatly reduced due to reduced drinking) and improving health. Prohibition was repealed in 1933. However, a generation of youngsters had grown up without drinking and they never took it up afterwards, even when it was legal. Because of this, alcohol consumption didn’t return to the pre-prohibition levels until the 1970s. A legislation that kept alcohol consumption down decades after its repeal is surely a great success.
Alcohol was repealed partly by the arising decadent elite of the time that disdained the traditional morality of the middle classes and because recent immigrants (German, Irish and Italian) did not understand prohibition (which had been a middle class WASP movement) and did not support it. Furthermore, big business lobbied to remove prohibition using the economic argument, which was taken seriously during the great depression.
Furthermore, prohibition was seen as a success outside of the USA too. Copying the example of the USA (the USA was seen as a progressive enlightened country in those days by most Europeans), Britain brought a bill for local option prohibition which won the House of Commons but was defeated in the House of Lords.
Prohibition was probably the most successful anti drug law ever enacted in the Western World.
The standard anti-prohibition view we hear today is largely due to the success of revisionist propaganda from the alcohol industry.
For a more scholarly opinion, see this link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/
Don’t forget the war, too. Women are the worst of warmongers. It’s the old “let’s you and him fight”
It women want to vote then they should be required to register for military service at 18 like men. If they can’t pass the physical qualifications for combat like maybe 90%, then they get non-combat support duty. If you want the privileges of citizenship then you must have the obligations. Otherwise you might as well give illegal aliens the right to vote.
Yeah if we instituted that the same ‘feminists’ who insist having a body like the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man is ‘beautiful’ would demand a change in military entrance requirements to avoid ‘body shaming’
It’s already like that for women , at 5’5 190-200 lbs is acceptable for women in the army . I’m 5’8 200 and have to be put on a weight control program because 181 is my make allowable weight .
Feminists want to make it discrimination on a legal level to discuss a woman’s weight.
aw hell, just make it a hate crime.
I can’t imagine what a woman at 5’5 200 looks like . I’m built like a brickwall at 5’8 and I’m majority muscle , I know that woman isn’t .
Half the female population in america has that BMI now. That’s a lot of votes.
I think 190-200 lbs is about my ideal weight. I’m 6’4″. A woman at 5’5″ should be about 120-130 lbs.
Yup, I was on a special weight plan and had to get waivers every time standards were checked. At 5’11 1/2′ and 235 lbs, having under 10% bodyfat levels maintained by power lifting made the difference or I’d have been disciplined.
Jesus tap dancing Christ. When I was in, I was 205lb at 6’1″… I was told I was fat as my weight should have been 185lb. I had under 10% body fat the whole enlistment and went through the BS every 6 months.
not surprised as that’s the fucking elephant in the room, so to speak..
Any man under 200 pounds is lacking a lot of muscle.
Naw, sorry, any woman under 5’7″ should be 101 tops.
Feminists want what is an obligation for men to be a choice for women. They want obligations for women to become choices. So don’t expect new obligations like registering for the draft for women any time soon.
Ive read recently that they are dying to add women to selective service.
It would serve the feminazis right to be bullet absorbers for the policies they help enact.
So I’ve heard. Won’t happen. Feminists will fight it like they always do with real equality.
The only reason they ever win fights is because we let them.
Even an optimist like younis worth a thousand feminazis in an actual fight.
They only seem like a large movement because they spend all their time online making themselves out to be a force to be reckoned with.
Also, since the spy masters know the deleterious effects of feminism, it is shored up by them to keep the population weaker.
You and I have more self respect than to be boot lickers who spend all their time ingratiating themselves to policy makers.
Thats one reason they seem formidable.
Originally the justification for the draft was giving all men the vote. If all men could vote then all men could go off and die when the state said so. Then a few years later all women could vote with no such exchange. The state got both cannon fodder and women to vote it more wealth.
Somehow, illegal invaders DO have the”right” to vote.
Completely agree. Or else back to the kitchen! As for illegal immigrants, just deport them.
Illegals? Crew served weapons….
We should encourage women toward traditional feminine roles while not excluding genetic outliers that can do great things for the US and Britain.
Margaret Thatcher was one of our best Prime Ministers in history. However, most women don’t realize that she was literally a 1 in 1 Trillion genetic anomaly of a woman who could be Prime Minister.
Further, Elizabeth I saw a Golden Age for England.
Women need to be reminded that it is highly unlikely that they have the talent of Maggie or Elizabeth I, and that such talent is blatantly obvious and rare. 99.999% of women should be encouraged, even with a strong hand, to adopt female roles in society.
The true anomalies will rise and do great things, even with great barriers in place.
Those women also piggy backed on the backs of great men .
All great leaders relied on talented subordinates. Nelson needed Captain Hardy, Wellington needed Picton, and even Napoleon needed Ney, Soult, Grouchy etc… Robert E. Lee depended on JEB Stuart’s cavalry reconniassace.
The Prussian General Staff, likely the best land based military organization in history (the sea going to the Royal Navy), was based upon Army commanders piggybacking upon talented subordinates.
None of this is meant to negate the fact that Elizabeth I relied heavily on Walshingham’s spy network or the guidance of men. It is to say that talented men rely on other talented men, so the fact that Elizabeth I and Maggie did so as well doesn’t significantly negate their efforts as genetic anomalies.
One of the greatest men I met was a janitor. He drove a nice car he took good care of. Had 5 kids he raised well. And was a likable person. He managed his money well and seemed to do very well for himself.
On the other hand, I had a hard time dating a career woman who was NOT an overgrown teenager who expected men to pay their way, blew their money, or if they did save they were stingy and cheap (and quick to accuse men of the same.)
Yes, there are exceptional men and women who, usually due to birth (including Donald Trump) can go on to do great things. And they’re worthy of respect (plenty of men of birth wind up being unmemoriable f*ckwads). But there’s the common man (and woman) who are NOT noticed that should be. When I see a working and/or middle class woman working hard and living frugally, I marvel at what a class act she is. There are a lot of such women but they tend to get married young.
If I was smarter, Id have written an interesting piece on Walsingham to submit.
Write it. I’d love to see it. I am working on an article about Historical Revisionism this weekend to be submitted.
Remember your game: you don’t bang 100% of the girls you never approach.
Good advice.
I argue women find these roles despite Feminist attempts to drive them into areas they aren’t interested in (like STEM) ; Look at the number of grade school teachers, nurses, librarians, HR officers, secretaries…women went to these roles because they had communications skills, were nurturers, and worked in pattern based organization. In other roles (telephone operators) they were sought out because (as the tale goes) men connecting calls could get angry and argumentative and it was felt women dealt better with customers (which holds true in many areas of retail today). I have to add I always find it funny when feminists complain there are ‘not enough’ women in STEM or game design…well how much is enough? 25%? 50%? Why aren’t we complaining about how women dominate the Nursing profession, or how they dominate grade school teaching, or social workers…etc.
The complaint is there are not enough kids willing to be engineers period. That’s because our society has been devaluing engineers since the moon program reached its goal in the summer of 1969.
When Nixon severed the last tie between the USDollar and gold in 1971 it was the beginning of the end for difficult productive professions like engineering. Science was taken over by the state and can still be quite profitable so long as one sells his soul to advance political interests. Anyway, corporations desire to keep engineering salaries low. (H1B visa program anyone?) Work people hard for pennies and make millions on the products.
But the financial industry pays people a lot more. They were always alternative but since Nixon the divide just gets wider and wider. This is why american kids don’t do engineering. If you have the brains to be an engineer you can go make a corporation millions of dollars and maybe make 50-100 grand or so depending on where you live and how long you’ve been doing it. Or you can make a wall street firm or bank millions of dollars and make hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions. And we wonder why kids aren’t becoming engineers?
Just increase the pay to match the productivity and they’ll have all the boys and girls they need getting engineering degrees. Make a company 20 million dollars and get a $200,000 bonus, a measly 1% and that will get more talented kids interested than all these special programs for the last 30 years combined. Make it 5% and there won’t be any problem finding talent.
“they have the talent of Maggie or Elizabeth I”
Just because they reigned doesn’t mean they ruled. Many a reign of a male monarch was ruled by another man in the shadows, and such is true of almost all “successful” female leaders. The normal scenario in which a female leader runs a company/country into the ground, in those cases, some idiot probably did REALLY put a woman in charge.
Not having been in the court of Elizabeth I or insider information on the Ministership of Thatcher, it is difficult to ascertain who was directing the show.
To assume that any leader wasn’t really leading, or mis-attributing successes to others without solid evidence or proof is wasteful supposition. Especially if such assumptions without evidence are done in the name of promoting an ideology. This is a friendlier way of saying “revisionist history”, which is a favored pastime of those who let ideology trump evidence.
To assume any successes by leaders who don’t conform to your ideological dogma (whatever that may be) were attributable to subordinate leaders who were more likely to conform to your ideological dogma is stupid unless you can bring evidence to the table that not only did said leaders not do their jobs, but that they had no hand in bringing about positive outcomes during their reign.
The devil is in the details. The fact that Elizabeth I didn’t marry was in itself strategy. Marry a Spaniard or a French prince, she risked foreign domination. Marry an English noble, she risked a brutal civil war like the Wars of The Roses.
It’s the ethics they followed and kept their emotions in check.
Basically imagine a stay at home mom who’s house is the State
Churchill and maggie are blemished with regards to the Irish.
Otherwise, they are historic leaders.
Axel Munthe in ‘The Story Of San Michele’: “Women, though they do not seem to know it themselves, like far better to obey than to
be obeyed. They pretend to be our equals, but they know jolly well themselves that they are not. Luckily for them, for if they were our equals we should like them far less.”
Women are (ideally) nurturers so of course staying in groups and being collective appeals to them…if every one is ‘equal in the tribe’ all ‘resources’ are shared. For women this makes sense since caring for children requires energy and a woman who is nurturing children isn’t able to say, go out and gather berries (and certainly not take part in the mammoth hunt) ; conversely, looking at the ‘survivalist’ movement, it’s clear it has a very masculine basis since most men, given a choice, would rather have their own homestead and be left alone to be in charge of their own affairs with no ‘tribe’ or ‘collective’ to watch over them.
Hillary is closet socialist who has tried to present herself as moderate because that’s where she thought the votes were in the past. As Sanders is stealing votes from her, expect her to increasingly be more open about advocating leftie ideas. Hillary will co-opt Sanders rhetoric, then offer him the VP slot.
A little good news about the gender gap. It appears in the states that men tend to vote right more than women vote left. This is a somewhat recent trend, I suspect, as married women now more closely align with their spouses as compared to men of the past becoming more liberal in order to appear attractive to women. Today, if a man is earning enough to get married, he doesn’t need to switch his politics.
In addition, the gender gap isn’t that large really. Control for race where non-white women tend to not marry as much as white women and the gender gap shrinks to the lower single digits. What this means is that race now trumps gender in identity politics.
The Hillary vs Obama paradigm of 2008 shows this. About 40 years ago, it would have been a no-brainer: A white woman easily would have defeated a black man. But as the left has chased whites out of the Democratic party, the remaining white women don’t have a significant support base anymore. Much like how ISIS is invading Europe, the left is seeing this happen internally.
Any man that votes for the Democratic party is an idiot. However, there are plenty of idiots to go around and get democrats elected. Maybe men are wising up and starting to vote their class/gender self interests.
married women now more closely align with their spouses as compared to
men of the past becoming more liberal in order to appear attractive to
women
Yup- I cant tell you how many women I know magically became conservative once they got married and had a child.
“My Body! My Choice! My Tax Deduction! My Mortgage!”
Once someone starts making good money, they lean to the right. If they say they’re left leaning, they either just said that for points or they have old money.
I dont know if its so much making good money as it is forming a family.
Over in the states, we give benefits for starting a family and crapping out kids so that can swing someone either way.
Or have Government jobs
As they say. All liberals are conservatives that were not robbed by the state yet.
Keen observation.
Until women are both drafted and placed on the front lines no bitch should be authorized as Commander-in-chief.
Up vote to top.
I insist they must have the same casualty rate as men or no go. The fatalities and serious wounds must be distributed 50/50 across the genders or there is sexist bias.
Or just send them to fight ISIS.
This has been posted many times, but a female leader with command over uniformed men is a society already being lowered into a grave.
These euro nations have outsourced their defense to the US via NATO. Their armies function as nothing more than internal police forces. They let americans do all the real work of protecting them, and they act all morally superior with their feminist male shaming. Feminism is such a fraud.
Complete agreement. Apart of the EU compact with the US under the transistion, was that all particpating European members of NATO would spend at least 3% of their GDP for defense. None of the European countries honored that in the end.
The Germans, Dutch, Norwegians, and Swedes had better hope they don’t get into a war with Russia. That dude looks like he means business.
Damn! Those ladies look like schoolteachers.
The Dutch one looks kinda doable.
Too thirsty for your own good.
If you are anywhere under 70, you should be ashamed of yourself.
The Australian Minister of Defense is now also a woman.
“For behold, the Lord Yahweh of hosts is going to remove. . . both supply and support, . . .and the people will be oppressed, each one by another, and each one by his neighbor; . . the inferior against the honorable. For [the West] has stumbled and. . . has fallen, because their speech and their actions are against Yahweh, To rebel against His glorious presence.The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.
Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths.”
Isaiah 3 NASB
A little of history repeating. If there’s one thing you learn from history, it’s that people don’t learn from history.
Hers is a political religion, an updated Social Gospel- light on the Gospel, heavy on the Social”
Nothing new perhaps, but this is a well written and intelligent analysis. Politically the word ‘social’ is catnip to women, just as ‘working with people’ is always go to be slip into career ruminations and ‘relationship’ isn’t going to poison their idea of sex / matrimony. I first really noticed the word though when it was being insinuated into a social sciences course I did. Virtually every page of the course material would emphasise social, or social practices, etc. At the risk of stating the obvious it became increasingly clearer that this was aimed against the old paradigm of ‘individuality’ – and therefore of male-think. The course was highly feminist, and noticeably marxist, sometimes overtly so. So, we have a kind of perfect storm here: women voting instinctively for ‘the social’, a word which on closer examination often serves to index, not merely ‘communitarian’ values (not necessarily meant in the trade mark sense) but hard left and marxist values.
I’ve been meaning to read goldberg’s ‘liberal fascism’ for ages, but keep putting it off. On twitter he’s obsessed by his dogs for some reason
China has become demographically male-majority because of its one-child policy and because Chinese women abort female fetuses. If China turned into a democracy with a universal franchise, what kinds of policies would the men there vote for, considering that they outnumber female voters?
Women should be required by law to do 50% of all the shit jobs men have done for eons.
They should be 50% of war casualties, 50% of work place deaths, 50% of suicides, 50% of murders etc this should be law.
At the end of the year we tally up the dead, if less women dies we have a lottery to make up the number, till they are equal with men.
“In response, weak men are followers of their causes and beliefs. This is something men, young and old, should strive to be conscious of every day.”
So, I think men are. Indeed, its starting out slowly, but, then again we must adjust for many headwinds. But, as I’ve been saying for a while, the proper level of awareness and solidarity that is now imperative for men to realize is inevitable. Why is that? Well, because of feminism and how its revealing itself to be utterly toxic to men. With each passing day there is another false rape, another lost job opportunity to a “diversity hire”, another incompetent bitch boss, another diversity person being promoted over a competent one (guess who’s the woman and man), etc etc etc…therefore with each passing day our ranks swell. feminists may relish in how they have taken over the “system” but now they can’t hide the true face of feminism, which, as we all know is the very thing they say they were against – oppressive, inequitable, intolerant. They can’t hide not even if they wanted too. That’s why seeing a “male feminist” is so fucking sad. I want to shit in my own mouth when I here of one because the kind of man that would allow himself to feverishly identify with an ideology that literally labels him obsolete and inferior is truly special kind of pathetic. Outside of those dickweeds we can thank the implementation of feminism to be source of our future rank and file neomasculine men. Over time we’ll coalesce into our own voting bloc and counter act women.
Hillary’s idea of “it takes a village” is among her most dangerous beliefs, as it denigrates the role and authority of parenthood. Throughout her terrible book mentioned above and her legal writings, she expresses contempt towards the idea of parents having authority over their minor children and makes the general argument that children should be largely “liberated” and treated identically before the law as adults; being able to take their parents to court, being protected from ever being spanked or disciplined, being able to vote at an earlier age, and for girls, having the right to abort without any parental consent or notification. Such a society is one without any family bonds or loyalty, and with no freedom at all.
The state aims to destroy all competing loyalties.
creates a whole new hyper consumer from an even younger age. She also twists the idea of parenting as a group. In large families, children benefit from more family members helping out. In her version, the family is replaced by a whole outside group and children given legal power as well.
Gandhi said the village was the most perfect form of human organizations. So the bureacracy claims to make its synthetic replacement.
Their “planned villages” are hell on earth where control freaks rule. They claim to program scientificallly the happiness from their lofty heights of the ivory tower.
Pity those below under the watchtower.
most of the things women care about shows why they shouldnt be in politics
Like their menzies.
There is no socialism as most people understand it in the USA. None. Zero. Not even Bernie Sanders. Let’s look at the most basic socialist program, food stamps. What does this program do.
1) It takes money from productive people as taxes.
2) It allows the low and unskilled workers to bid their labor lower if they take part in this program. The person who doesn’t take part in it actually has to make enough money to feed himself. (this is true of other welfare programs as well)
3) The money sent out to the participants after government workers and politicians and crony firms managing the cards, etc get paid is then spent almost entirely at large corporate chain stores buying industrialized food made by those with an inside track with government.
If we look at the so called socialism in the USA often it is really some way by which the insiders get their hands on the wealth of productive americans. When it isn’t a mechanism to take wealth it’s mechanism to indulge social engineering, increased dependence of the population on government, and growing government in both size and power.
Hillary Clinton is a projection of the power of the big wall street banks and other interests which benefit from this american brand of socialism. She sells it to people a certain way but she doesn’t believe her own BS. At least there is no sign that she does as she customizes whatever she’s saying to the audience at hand. She has no principles of any sort. What makes HRC richer and more powerful is what she does. If that’s the opposite of what she said two years ago so be it.
An actual caring collectivist or socialism would be anti-war. War is a huge risk for a collective to undertake. She’s a vicious warmonger. Why? War is another racket that benefits the insiders at the expense of individuals that are outside the loop. She sends other people’s children off to die for the benefit of weapons makers, contractors, corporations operating overseas, and so on.
Socialize the costs, privatize the profits. That’s the real american way.
In truth, this is how socialism works everywhere it is applied. It is always oligharchal, as it is designed to be. So, we actually have socialism in America. Don’t try to defend socialism by holding to an ideal meant to cloud people’s judgments about it.
Huh? I was pointing out the reality of it and how it is the opposite of the perception. The problem with a collective is someone has to run it and it will always be run to their benefit.
War is another racket that benefits the insiders at the expense of individuals that are outside the loop. She sends other people’s children off to die for the benefit of weapons makers, contractors, corporations operating overseas, and so on.
Indeed. One of the best examples of companies who made serious cash at the expense of soldiers is Halliburton:
This is truly fucked up.
In other news…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
Holy shit! Did that judge just plagiarize Sheldon Cooper’s Roommate Agreement?
Does the order apply to hookers?
Women lack the intrinsic understanding of conflict that underpins the notion of western civilization. This is why they betray it without even realizing they’re doing so.
“The fate rests in the hands of men”…again?? The fuck.
Hillary Clinton: It Takes A Village Idiot
“look no further than the new Star Wars and Mad Max to see the effects of this feminization”.
I don’t watch modern entertainment, whither it be TV or Movies. I was once capable of shutting out the leftist bullshit when I was younger, but now? It literally makes me sick.
Re-watching old shows helps, sure, but it’s also sad to see how far down the rabbit hole society has gone in just the past 10+ years.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin
http://no2marriage.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/fossil.jpg
Like it or not you’re getting Hitlery for president. It’s already been decided.
The Jews brought the Marxist to the U.S. and they now go by the name of AIPAC, formerly known as American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs.
Marxism and the class-struggle were politicized by Moses (Moshe) Hess.
Zionism was introduced into the U.S. by Moses (Moshe) Hess (January or June 21, 1812 – April 6, 1875) was a Jewish philosopher and socialist, and one of the founders of Labor Zionism.
The class-struggle was replaced in the circa 1960’s with race-struggle, and circa 1970’s Marxism became all inclusive incorporating class, culture, race, gender, sexual orientation, you name it struggle.
Europeans have allowed OUR nations to be infiltrated by a divisive ideology call Zionism.
Zionism is a divisive ideology, which seeks to amplify conflicts, by bringing opposing groups into close proximity with each other; this allows the Zionist to begin their demagoguing, and demonization of the majority population.
In Short, Zionism is a divisive tool pitting one group against the other causing hostility and discord wherever it’s allowed flourish.
The Jews support one religion, the religion called Zionism.
—-
They just don’t make’em like Betsy Ross any more !
You should be more worried about all the fat manginas who vote for her.
Itd be fun to see a new french revolution happen and clintons head rolling around to the music of a new robespierre singing praises to whatever spirit of the new era is on and about
In Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen’ (Ecclesiazusae) the women also take the right for all to chose to mate with the most desirable men.
I see her book is available for a penny, which means it’s overpriced. Still, it might be worth picking up a copy just to better understand the old twat. Know thy enemy.
Women got the vote in the early 20th century for the same reason working-class men got the vote in most countries in the late 19th century. It no longer mattered who was chosen to govern.
Banks had already taken over the money supplies and economies of the civilized world, and no government could still function without access to the credit needed to finance standing armies, even despite the fact they were much smaller than they are today. Figure out who controls the money supply in a country, and you’ll know who makes the laws. The people who controlled the money, and made the laws, were all men when women got the vote. And they still are, a hundred years later.
(Women only are allowed positions of real responsibility in institutions in irreversible decline. That’s what should really worry you about Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen and President-to-be Hillary Clinton. The Good Ship America is sinking. None of the men want to go down with it—though they’ll make a bundle pillaging the wreck for treasure.
I digress.)
The suffragettes were mostly the daughters of what might today be called the one percent. Daddy was only too happy to let his baby girl vote—it would shut his little girl up, and he would still be in charge either way. A make-work job in the bureaucracy where she could mark time till marriage? Why not! The poor people would the ones paying the taxes so baby girl could have a room of her own.
Women who were serious about power have always known how to get it—marry a man who’s going places. That’s how Hillary did it.
I’m hoping Hillary Clinton gets a serious illness and dies before the election. It will not change anything. Might in fact make things worse as she becomes a martyr. But it least we will not have to put up with that bitch.
Lose the picture of the women around the Nazi flag in your article, comes off like a liberal hitting Godwin’s Law. Exactly how an SJW forms an argument.
The thing about “It takes a village” may have been true in previous times before the rise of the modern state. The rule now is that “it takes a loving father and a loving mother” and then for the village (ie. state) to mind their own fucking business.
Justin Trudeau is now the Prime Minister of Canada. Holy fuck: if Hillary takes the While house then I will have nothing to do with that Quadrosphere for the next 4 years.
In my opinion the one thing Saudi Arabia does right is not letting women in politics and not allowing them to drive!
I dunno.. maybe Hillary is the president the US needs. After two terms of spending the world’s richest nation into economic ruin, perhaps a third term of running it as a Democrat feminist totalitarian state will make American men wake the fuck up, smell the coffee and recover their testicles.