SwordoftheVistula
04-08-2010, 05:31 AM
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/07/why-voting-should-be-male-only
Many of us have come to view with serious consideration the concept that a ‘traditionalist’ state may be constructed in the future which will not be a direct continuation of the current form of the United States of America. As such, we must consider what form of government this new state will have.
A fairly large and vocal contingent of traditionalists opposes the idea of ‘voting’ altogether. Who decides how to run the country is somewhat unclear, but one form appears to be some sort of ‘national socialist’ politburo. How exactly this will be set up is completely indecipherable, since most internet ‘national socialists’ are long on bumper sticker slogans and short on real world solutions. The other solution proposed is a ‘return’ to a ‘natural hierarchy’ of a caste or feudal system which will instantly vault its proponents from the trailer park to a new leisure class of nobility.
Most of us recognize that these forms of government will be completely unpalatable to the people who created the Magna Carta and the Althing. Most of us also recognize that unlimited democracy with universal suffrage is a terrible idea, and largely responsible for the problems we face. Something in between must be found, a limited republic or democracy without universal suffrage. The central point of the argument then, is who will be in the voting pool and who won’t.
The most important delineation that we must make is to restrict the vote to men only.
Blogger April Joy Gavaza wrote recently “I’ve met women my age who are almost proud of “knowing nothing about politics.” A mom told me once, “Can you just write up a list of people we should vote for?” Her playdates, soccer games, and story times at the bookstore were much more important.” This mirrors my personal observations.
The fact that this mother is busy being a mother is not the problem: it’s what she should be doing. The problem is that she asks someone else to tell her who to vote for. In past times, this person would have been her husband, which mitigated the damage of female suffrage in the first decades after it became law. Today, it is far more likely to be the lone female friend of hers which is heavily involved in politics (probably of the far left sort), or some organization which displays a cutsified African child or other animal as its logo.
The reason for the difference is simply that male and female brains are different, as confirmed by numerous scientific studies. Among the differences discussed in a recent publication by Dr. Louann Brizendine is that “The “defend your turf” area — dorsal premammillary nucleus — is larger in the male brain and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males. And his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear and danger is also larger in men. These brain differences make men more alert than women to potential turf threats.” This right here gives us the explanation of why the white nationalist movement is predominantly male, as the white nationalist movement is essentially the ‘defend your turf’ mentality at the national level.
On the other hand, according to Dr. Brizendine, “the “I feel what you feel” part of the brain — mirror-neuron system — is larger and more active in the female brain.” Thus, movements which are based on emotional appeals for the ‘downtrodden’ elements of society appeal much more to women, for example the ‘civil rights’ movement, environmentalism of the ‘greenpeace’ sort, foreign aid, and assorted welfare systems.
A recent article berating the failings of American women noted that they “tend to believe in deeply unattractive insanity like “gender as social construct feminism,” astrology, socialism, putting unsightly tattoos all over their bodies, and moral relativism of all kinds.” However, an observation of left wing ‘feel good’ movements in other countries shows that women are just as active in those movements as in the US. The only countries where this doesn’t seem to happen is ones where the populace is too busy living hand-to-mouth to engage in any sort of ‘socially conscious’ political participation, or where political participation by the public at large is severely restricted.
Continuing in her summary of differences between the male and female brains, Dr. Brizendine discusses how “because of the way their brains are wired, men use their analytical brain structures, not their emotional ones, to find a solution.” Obviously, you want the people who use analytical brain structures to be deciding the course of a nation, not those who make emotional knee-jerk responses.
Freedomnomics author John Lott has an excellent summary of the effect of women’s suffrage on the direction of the country. Some highlights:
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.
single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor. The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women’s share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.
Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.
But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.
Women’s suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the “gender gap” is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.
What is left unsaid is that the changing of divorce laws was itself brought about at the demand of female voters. It is not a coincidence that divorce and family laws began changing at the same time as the female share of the vote reached its full potential.
Once given the vote, women replaced individual men with the government. Women once depended on the individual men in their lives for physical and economic security. Now the police state provides physical security, and the welfare state provides economic security. Of course, the police state hates competition, so men who use violence on an individual level to defend their interests are now locked up as common criminals, and individual gun ownership is restricted. Women don’t have much need for individual men to provide these things anymore, so as a result we end up with confused gender roles, as evidenced by the ‘emo,’ ‘hipster’ and ‘metrosexual’ phenomema.
The whole thing is one massive, inevitable, downward spiral. Once women had the opportunity to change the rules of society, they did so, in a way which gave them all the privileges of both genders and none of the responsibilities of either. This can be expected to repeat in any future white ethnostate in which women have the vote, since it results from how the female brain works. Familial laws and behavioral codes which feel too restrictive are removed, which results in the breakdown of the family. This increases the risk of being an adult female without individual men to depend on for physical and economic security (feels scary!), thus the ‘need’ to implement a police and welfare state.
Rebuttals to this argument come in two main forms. The first comes along the lines of “Not all women are like that! My great aunt Mabel loves guns and is the most right wing person I know!” True, there is a huge variation amongst individuals of both genders, and many women are ‘analytical’ and ‘right wing’ and many men are ‘emotional’ and ‘left wing’.
Thus, there is no need to prevent female politicians from running for and holding office, or choosing to become involved in political activism for righteous causes. In these instances, women may be judged on their individual merits. However, voting is the way ‘the masses’ participate in politics, so we must look to general tendencies of to evaluate wide swaths of the population, and whether or not they should be allowed to vote.
The other type of rebuttal to this argument comes along the lines of “modern men suck too! Both genders are at fault!” followed by the claim that it would be unfair and/or ineffectual to limit voting to men only. However, to properly analyze this claim, we must carefully examine what caused the demise of ‘modern men’. The police state crushes the souls of individual men, and the welfare state destroys economic growth. Note the large number of men who are recent graduates of universities and unable to find jobs due to the economy.
Naturally women are put off by men who would flee in fear from a burglar while desperately dialing 9-1-1 on their iphone, as well as those who continue to live with and remain dependent on their parents for years after completing their education. Yet, these men would be few and far between without the modern police state and welfare state.
In conclusion, regardless of the other failings of society, any state constructed in the future must restrict the vote to men only. A failure to do this will result in disaster.
Many of us have come to view with serious consideration the concept that a ‘traditionalist’ state may be constructed in the future which will not be a direct continuation of the current form of the United States of America. As such, we must consider what form of government this new state will have.
A fairly large and vocal contingent of traditionalists opposes the idea of ‘voting’ altogether. Who decides how to run the country is somewhat unclear, but one form appears to be some sort of ‘national socialist’ politburo. How exactly this will be set up is completely indecipherable, since most internet ‘national socialists’ are long on bumper sticker slogans and short on real world solutions. The other solution proposed is a ‘return’ to a ‘natural hierarchy’ of a caste or feudal system which will instantly vault its proponents from the trailer park to a new leisure class of nobility.
Most of us recognize that these forms of government will be completely unpalatable to the people who created the Magna Carta and the Althing. Most of us also recognize that unlimited democracy with universal suffrage is a terrible idea, and largely responsible for the problems we face. Something in between must be found, a limited republic or democracy without universal suffrage. The central point of the argument then, is who will be in the voting pool and who won’t.
The most important delineation that we must make is to restrict the vote to men only.
Blogger April Joy Gavaza wrote recently “I’ve met women my age who are almost proud of “knowing nothing about politics.” A mom told me once, “Can you just write up a list of people we should vote for?” Her playdates, soccer games, and story times at the bookstore were much more important.” This mirrors my personal observations.
The fact that this mother is busy being a mother is not the problem: it’s what she should be doing. The problem is that she asks someone else to tell her who to vote for. In past times, this person would have been her husband, which mitigated the damage of female suffrage in the first decades after it became law. Today, it is far more likely to be the lone female friend of hers which is heavily involved in politics (probably of the far left sort), or some organization which displays a cutsified African child or other animal as its logo.
The reason for the difference is simply that male and female brains are different, as confirmed by numerous scientific studies. Among the differences discussed in a recent publication by Dr. Louann Brizendine is that “The “defend your turf” area — dorsal premammillary nucleus — is larger in the male brain and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males. And his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear and danger is also larger in men. These brain differences make men more alert than women to potential turf threats.” This right here gives us the explanation of why the white nationalist movement is predominantly male, as the white nationalist movement is essentially the ‘defend your turf’ mentality at the national level.
On the other hand, according to Dr. Brizendine, “the “I feel what you feel” part of the brain — mirror-neuron system — is larger and more active in the female brain.” Thus, movements which are based on emotional appeals for the ‘downtrodden’ elements of society appeal much more to women, for example the ‘civil rights’ movement, environmentalism of the ‘greenpeace’ sort, foreign aid, and assorted welfare systems.
A recent article berating the failings of American women noted that they “tend to believe in deeply unattractive insanity like “gender as social construct feminism,” astrology, socialism, putting unsightly tattoos all over their bodies, and moral relativism of all kinds.” However, an observation of left wing ‘feel good’ movements in other countries shows that women are just as active in those movements as in the US. The only countries where this doesn’t seem to happen is ones where the populace is too busy living hand-to-mouth to engage in any sort of ‘socially conscious’ political participation, or where political participation by the public at large is severely restricted.
Continuing in her summary of differences between the male and female brains, Dr. Brizendine discusses how “because of the way their brains are wired, men use their analytical brain structures, not their emotional ones, to find a solution.” Obviously, you want the people who use analytical brain structures to be deciding the course of a nation, not those who make emotional knee-jerk responses.
Freedomnomics author John Lott has an excellent summary of the effect of women’s suffrage on the direction of the country. Some highlights:
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk-averse than men. This could be why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.
single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor. The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women’s share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.
Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending.
But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.
Women’s suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the “gender gap” is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.
What is left unsaid is that the changing of divorce laws was itself brought about at the demand of female voters. It is not a coincidence that divorce and family laws began changing at the same time as the female share of the vote reached its full potential.
Once given the vote, women replaced individual men with the government. Women once depended on the individual men in their lives for physical and economic security. Now the police state provides physical security, and the welfare state provides economic security. Of course, the police state hates competition, so men who use violence on an individual level to defend their interests are now locked up as common criminals, and individual gun ownership is restricted. Women don’t have much need for individual men to provide these things anymore, so as a result we end up with confused gender roles, as evidenced by the ‘emo,’ ‘hipster’ and ‘metrosexual’ phenomema.
The whole thing is one massive, inevitable, downward spiral. Once women had the opportunity to change the rules of society, they did so, in a way which gave them all the privileges of both genders and none of the responsibilities of either. This can be expected to repeat in any future white ethnostate in which women have the vote, since it results from how the female brain works. Familial laws and behavioral codes which feel too restrictive are removed, which results in the breakdown of the family. This increases the risk of being an adult female without individual men to depend on for physical and economic security (feels scary!), thus the ‘need’ to implement a police and welfare state.
Rebuttals to this argument come in two main forms. The first comes along the lines of “Not all women are like that! My great aunt Mabel loves guns and is the most right wing person I know!” True, there is a huge variation amongst individuals of both genders, and many women are ‘analytical’ and ‘right wing’ and many men are ‘emotional’ and ‘left wing’.
Thus, there is no need to prevent female politicians from running for and holding office, or choosing to become involved in political activism for righteous causes. In these instances, women may be judged on their individual merits. However, voting is the way ‘the masses’ participate in politics, so we must look to general tendencies of to evaluate wide swaths of the population, and whether or not they should be allowed to vote.
The other type of rebuttal to this argument comes along the lines of “modern men suck too! Both genders are at fault!” followed by the claim that it would be unfair and/or ineffectual to limit voting to men only. However, to properly analyze this claim, we must carefully examine what caused the demise of ‘modern men’. The police state crushes the souls of individual men, and the welfare state destroys economic growth. Note the large number of men who are recent graduates of universities and unable to find jobs due to the economy.
Naturally women are put off by men who would flee in fear from a burglar while desperately dialing 9-1-1 on their iphone, as well as those who continue to live with and remain dependent on their parents for years after completing their education. Yet, these men would be few and far between without the modern police state and welfare state.
In conclusion, regardless of the other failings of society, any state constructed in the future must restrict the vote to men only. A failure to do this will result in disaster.