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.
Charlemagne, I’m not familiar with that adage but it would be better stated “women display, men choose.” After all, the fairer sex is the one that gussies itself up…
Don’t get me wrong, many women are whores on their own.
Barb #297,
Fantastic post.
Ditto!!! You are very, very sharp.
I wasn’t interested in some long dissertation, just a simple courtesy of small talk
Well there is the problem right there. The type of people who attend IHR functions are presumably interested in long dissertations, not small talk. That’s why their wives don’t come, because their wives are normal women who aren’t interested in hearing about chemical studies of Zyklon B. Groups like the IHR, TOQ, and AmRen attract very few women, while social networking sites like NewSaxon and facebook groups attract the most.
Yet, the fact that they have wives disproves the insults which claim such men are ‘losers who can’t get women’. Most of the men who I know who are far more extreme than me on the gender issue are married and have children.
Anyways, for those interested, there are a couple pro-white women’s groups:
Women for Aryan Unity: http://wau14.com
Also, the NSM has a women’s division: http://wd.nsm88.org
Charlemagne, I’m not familiar with that adage but it would be better stated “women display, men choose.” After all, the fairer sex is the one that gussies itself up…
Joanne,
I know, right, seems simple and intuitive enough that women, as you say, ‘gussy themselves up’. I use to think this was so as well.
However, there is one big caveat to all this: Women ‘display’ themselves to a rather narrow subset of the male population. SO in this respect, women are indeed being the choosers since they are drawing from a very small and select group of the available men in a given time/area/generation.
As a result of this rather abundant female attention to a, relative, few men, of course these men are going to hold out for ‘perfection’ and, seemingly (to us mere mortals) unrealistic standards.
The problem fundamentally really is, though, women are disproportionately going for these men who, if they do not treat them ‘badly’, at the very least, treat them disdainfully, because they have so many more women ‘in reserve’ that they do not value or appreciate any one in particular.
Yet women still keep pursuing them — and many of these guys don’t often have all that much money — it is just their dominant, aggressive personalities that these women seem to be attracted like bees to honey towards. Paradoxically, it is the men who often make a lot of money, who, in order to work, and advance, in the Jew-dominated ‘American’ white-collar workforce, have fine-tuned their already supplicating and groveling personalities, again, in order to get ahead in ‘corporate Babylon’.
This attitude carries over in much of their personal lives, where the women in them can smell their weaknesses like a bulldog does a t-bone steak, and pounces on them accordingly (and often daily). Poor basturds.
Anyway, the article that best explains this poorly understood and often covered-up phenomenon, is the excellent, marvelous articles by F. Roger Devlin titled Rotating Polyandry – and is Enforcers and Sexual Utopia in Power.
Devlin’s articles are no longer freely available on-line (he is turning them, along with a new article, into a book), but here is one of the best reviews of his research –
Argumentations – Rotating Polyandry — and its Enforcers [part 1]
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_7731.aspx
*Be sure to read part deux as well.
I know, right, seems simple and intuitive enough that women, as you say, ‘gussy themselves up’. I use to think this was so as well.
Oops, I meant to finish this sentence by saying that ‘women gussy themselves up so men will choose them…’.
That’s more like it.
“Ditto!!! You are very, very sharp.”
Thank you, Ben.
I am a woman, and I am emotional. But I am also middle-aged. And with menopause, the emotionalism does decrease somewhat and the ability to face facts increases.
The harsh reality that will befall my children is stirring my emotions. Therefore, I am going to use my emotions to motivate me to tell the truth (even if it hurts feelings) so that my own children might avoid the mestizo-created hell that’s otherwise coming. Which is why I believe it would be beneficial for White Nationalism to make its pitch to older women by telling them the ugly fate that awaits their grandchildren. Hm. How to get the message to them, since women are less interested in politics? Now, there’s a puzzle to solve. Through independent movies is one way, I’d think.
Another great Devlin article challenging so much of the anti-male prejudice and shaming tactics CONservative female misandrists often use against men –
F. Roger Devlin on Wendy Shalit’s GIRLS GONE MILD
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
Rusty @ 292-
With all due respect Sir, we are in a battle for our survival, and Woman acting like ladies as if we are dwelling in some kind of bourgeoisie middle class of 150 years ago is crap, if it ever existed at all. It is the last thing we need. Do you think the pioneering women like my own Great Grandma was a Lady? I can assure you she was not. None of the women in my family had the luxury to be “ladies.” They were too poor.
Men, answer this question- If you have a daughter, are you going to teach her how to use a gun? Defend herself, or be ladylike and submissive? I know how to fight because I have had to and I can be obnoxious, and you know what, I have never been raped or found myself in circumstance many of my lady friends have had to suffer. Most of which are so damaging and horrible they never recover. I have actually had to defend a few girlfriends from men. What do you think of that?
It’s interesting that a post in favor of male-only suffrage to be instituted following the establishment of an ethnostate, rather than to be used as a part of a platform to mobilize a movement, has unleashed such a torrent of vitriol. Especially considering that comments in favor of polygamy, something much more radical than male-only suffrage as far as gender relations are concerned, in the past went by relatively unscathed from the excessively indignant in this thread.
In any case, it would probably be prudent to seriously consider instituting restrictions on the franchise, including on women, in a future ethnostate. And for all those who bring up the red herrings and straw mans about how we’re not being like White Men and we’re acting like “teh muzlins,” well we don’t have to look to aliens to get any ideas about traditional social and cultural practices conducive to fostering a healthy society and norms. We can look to our own history, culture, and forefathers for ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling
What I think of that is it’s a shock to know that kind of thing goes on in NZ which I had always imagined as an almost all white and very sedate place. NZ women are having that hard a time? Are those white men doing that, or Maoris?
– Thomas Otway, The Orphan
Fred- I am not from NZ. But to answer your question, yes, brown on white crime is a shocking problem here like anywhere else. In fact it was NZ Islanders that attacked the white crippled man in Australia recently, nearly beat him to death. Australia wants to extradite them back here, GREAT…they will perhaps serve four years or something. The penalty for violent crime is so lenient, it is just incredible.
The violent beyond belief in this country.
By the way, thanks for the kind words above.
Kiley,
“It’s interesting that a post in favor of male-only suffrage to be instituted following the establishment of an ethnostate, rather than to be used as a part of a platform to mobilize a movement, has unleashed such a torrent of vitriol. ”
Anyone in the World can read this article saying that Women should have the vote taken from them.
The moment it was published, it became part of H. Rock White’s Platform, at least.
If you want to spring something on people after you create an all White Ethnostate, at least have the intelligence to keep your goddamned mouth shut about it in forums that are visible to every Human Being on the Planet with a computer.
“Especially considering that comments in favor of polygamy, something much more radical than male-only suffrage as far as gender relations are concerned, in the past went by relatively unscathed from the excessively indignant in this thread.”
This is because the Women here are far wiser than you are, and realize that Polygamy would be a radical IMPROVEMENT over the status quo.
In contrast, it cannot be denied that taking the right to vote away from politically engaged Women would be a hard blow to them, even if society as a whole would slightly benefit .
“In any case, it would probably be prudent to seriously consider instituting restrictions on the franchise, including on women, in a future ethnostate.”
You rightfully speak in the future tense. If there is ever a White Ethnostate, people should be allowed to consider anything they want to ponder without fear of excessive censure.
But in the meantime, articles like H. Rock White’s are extremely dangerous.
“And for all those who bring up the red herrings and straw mans about how we’re not being like White Men and we’re acting like ‘teh muzlins,'”
Actually, Women are allowed to vote in the highly Muslim nations of Iran, Pakistan, and even the extremely conservative and high birthrate nation of Iraq.
We should copy the Muslims in a lot of things, but even if we started to copy them in all things, it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection of Woman’s suffrage.
“well we don’t have to look to aliens to get any ideas about traditional social and cultural practices conducive to fostering a healthy society and norms. We can look to our own history, culture, and forefathers for ideas:”
You utterly and completely disgust me. There was nothing healthy about allowing Men to sell their wives to other Men.
Such a custom only serves to turn marriage into a form of Sexual Slavery, with the Husband as Pimp and Rape Facilitator.
Svigor asks, Why are there few White women in WN?
Denise asks, What’s in it for White women?
The question was rhetorical. I know perfectly well why there are so relatively few women in our movement. I just wanted to watch the wymmin squirm trying to dance around an answer.
As I’m sure has already been pointed out by someone in this thread, women will come when there’s air conditioning, and buttered bread on the table. Women in general are incapable of bringing a vision to reality on any serious scale (so are men, but the fractions are really skewed, and it’s a matter of degree). The more abstract or “out there” the vision is, the less likely women are to “get it” or bring it about. It’s just how they’re built. Try convincing a woman of “the plan” (“the plan” can be anything you like, it doesn’t have to be racialism) and their eyes glaze over every time.
“Polygamy would be a radical IMPROVEMENT over the status quo.” ( — Reginald)
Count me absolutely, postively, and forever out of that opinion. Marriage = one man and one woman. Period. End of story.
Reginald, you’ve written some good stuff. I guess everything good must come to an end.
“The more abstract or “out there” the vision is, the less likely women are to “get it” or bring it about.”
Right, and that’s okay, because she’s busy (or oughta be) bringing about a “vision” or “plan” in “here” (i.e., babies) That’s why men bring about grand visions for large-scale society. That’s their baby.
One thing I wish WN men understood: Yes, women are status seekers. So make marriage and stay-at-home motherhood a high-status occupation and women will seek it.
She doesn’t really want to be a doctor or a lawyer, but motherhood is granted low status, especially for smart women.
(In fact, men if we’re telling the truth. men are status seekers too in that they want status for being leaders of men, and not just entirely because it gets them women. They like hierarchy, and being at the top is way fun.)
I’d support restricting the franchise if there was *any* indication that men do a better job of voting than women, on average. Considering the reasons given – men vote for Republicans (snicker) I don’t see the point.
A lot of the guys I knew back in the primaries were into whatever that old actor’s name was, which the conservative press was talking about how “sexy” he was for an “old man” who smelled of “Old Spice” – are you kidding?
Most white men in America are befuddled idiots who watch TV all day long. Their votes, for my entire lifetime, have been nothing but disasters.
If we were to restrict voting to maybe 10% of men over 30, I might see it. Otherwise you’re flattering yourselves.
Right, and that’s okay, because she’s busy (or oughta be) bringing about a “vision” or “plan” in “here” (i.e., babies) That’s why men bring about grand visions for large-scale society. That’s their baby.
Yep. When I point out these differences, I don’t mean “men great, women suck.” I think we both know that. It gets old having to put caveats and sweeteners in everything. I get enough of that in real life.
White women and white men are two halves of the whole.
One thing I wish WN men understood: Yes, women are status seekers. So make marriage and stay-at-home motherhood a high-status occupation and women will seek it.
She doesn’t really want to be a doctor or a lawyer, but motherhood is granted low status, especially for smart women.
Consider it understood.
(In fact, men if we’re telling the truth. men are status seekers too in that they want status for being leaders of men, and not just entirely because it gets them women. They like hierarchy, and being at the top is way fun.)
Oh, yes. HUMANS are status-seekers. It’s just that, men can forgo it long enough to get certain things done. Men can break off from the herd and make a new herd. Men can run off into the mountains alone for years to come back with a stack of pelts. This ain’t a paean to men, it’s just facts on the ground.
Here is a selection of quotes from Ferdinand Bardamu’s post. This ought to convince any white racialist that the HBD/Race Realist/Game types are in no way allies or friends of ours.
Bardamu: “I’ll attack white America because it sucks.”
Bardamu: “Why the fuck should I have white kids with a white American chick”
Bardamu: “What precisely has white America done to earn my loyalty?”
Bardamu: “I would rather jerk off to a video of Jennifer Hudson backin’ that thang up then nail one of the half-human, half-doughy things that amble through the aisles of a Kentucky Walmart.”
Lindsey Abelard: “Listen to me very closely. I don’t need another human being to tell me what kind of sex life I can have … My life, mind, and body are mine and mine alone.”
Lindsey Abelard: “my interests and involvement in life extension and cryonics as well as my move to Japan … [I] am married to a Japanese wife”
Lindsey Abelard: “What is silly about … the ‘white nationalists’ is that they expect me to feel commonality with them simply because they live in the same region of the planet as I or am of these same race as I over, say, Asian people who share the same interests and objectives as I.”
Ancel De Lambert: “Tribalism is the final failing of humanity. … For fuck sake, race isn’t even genetically tenable. Fuck a foreigner, your children will thank you for giving them a robust immune system.”
Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech: “The WNs are manginas, period.”
Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech: “As far as I’m concerned the white race can go to hell, and I’m white.”
Whiskey/testing99: Completely deranged and delusional as he always is
I knew leaving the HBD/Race Realist/Game/Men’s Movement was a great decision.
Charlemagne :
I was invited to the IHR by a nice young man I met online through Stormfront. WN’s are outliers. We’re on the edge politically and socially. It’s IMPERATIVE we network and communicate or we’re doomed. That’s why I started going to those functions. To network with fellow like minded people. I realize now IHR meetings are a big fat time waster and so I will continue to go to groups that attract racially aware white people. Thank you for the group suggestions.
If we continue to do nothing about this high brown/black birthrate, our children are in DEEP SHIT in 50 years. I do not want my blond haired/blue eyed nieces and nephews living in the US and have it resemble South Africa, no way Jose.
Denise is my friend. She’s a good person. She would give you the shirt off her back if she needed to. The mean spirited comments against her here are absolutely unnecessary and shows a complete lack of class and respect from some of the men here. There is no reason for such snide remarks. Some of the remarks she’s made about white men are true. Sometimes the truth hurts. I can handle the truth. And if I need to make personal changes in my life, I have and will continue to do so. I’m certainly not perfect.
My only purpose in the movement is to empower white people. That could be helping a white person get his/her taxes done pro bono so he/she could get their refund back and infuse some much needed cash into their wallet.
If you don’t recycle save your cans and bottles and give it to the white homeless man you see on the street. You may think he’s a drug addict, but maybe he’s a homeless vet who has PTSD. At least let them have some money to buy a hot meal, or better yet, next time you go to a fast food joint, buy an extra burger and fries and give it to that street kid or homeless man or woman. Lord knows the mexicans and blacks have all types of handouts from the local charities.
”Scrooby […] so what have you got to SHOW for your nine years of contemplation?” ( — Denise, #331 in the other thread)
I’m donating a set of Richard Simmons infomercials to play at WN meetings to make them more touchy-feely.
‘For the sixth time, Denise, name the “WN men” who “rhapsodize about Asian women” and “exalt in detailing their preference for non-white women.”’
No, no, no, you’ve got it backwards.
It’s the Japanese artists who get aroused by Nazi uniforms and thus have to keep drawing cheesecake illustrations of them.
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/04/26/nazi-moe-never-has-fascism-been-so-sexy/
“Women have no incentive to be involved in this at all.”
…and White men do?!? Denise is a good reason why White men should have nothing to do with White Nationalism, she demands respect, even though it’s not deserved.
White Nationalism DOES NOT work in the interests of White men. If White women can’t brainwash you into thinking how they want you to think, they’ll literally try to Black-Male you into doing what they want. White women want it all, they want all the men of the world, of all races, even though they wont admit it, but look at how pissed off they get at 2.5 million Asian American women. Most of the White women here are into White Nationalism because IT DOES work in their interests, more than it works in interests of White men.
Every White male should stay away from White Nationalism, if White women want White men to be involved in White Nationalism, then it’s time for them to chase us for Whiteness because they’re quite aware of the privilege that their Whiteness brings. Whiteness is a burden to White men, you as a White male know this, what you’ve experienced in society is something that White women have NEVER experienced. Listen to these White women whine about how bad they’ve got it, White women are worshiped in Western Civilization. Let me ask you this, how does White Nationalism work in the interests of White men? By preserving the White race? That’s it? White Nationalism alienates the White male in society, it makes us the bad guys, it makes us undesirable.
I’ve surfed the internet quite a bit, and many times I’ve come across White men spewing hatred at women of other races, but I don’t see White women doing this that often, I don’t even see WN women doing it that often. 🙂
For some reason these morons think if the ridicule women of other races enough it will make White women love them more, nah.
I can’t believe that I actually bought this BS at one time. Look deeper into the rabbit hole my White brothers, stop being used by White women.
I’m sorry if I’m off topic, but I got here from another blog. Forgive me, but I like to say controversial things.
Also, everyone should have the right to vote. This is just plain stupid.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/04/25/white-nationalism-more-like-white-knight-nationalism/
Oh?? The increasing divorce rates have nothing to do with psychotic, abusive, alcoholic or otherwise incompetent men?? Maybe MEN need to stop battering women and raping and then the fucking stakes will be fair
Maybe women should smarten up and stop driving them to drink as well