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.
Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
Without the non-white vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one (1964) after 1948.
The “ethnic gap” ( http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v1n1/TOQv1n1McCulloch.pdf ) is much more pronounced and of much greater importance than the “gender gap.”
Those who hype the gender gap but ignore the ethnic gap are gutless cowards.
Contrary to the delusional ranting of some on racialist websites, a majority of white women voted against Obama. There was only a five-point difference between white men and white women, inconsequential in comparison to the differences in the vote by race. In some states, white women voted against Obama at rates equal to or greater than those of white men.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
White men: Obama 41%, McCain 57%
White women: Obama 46%, McCain 53%
http://depts.washington.edu/labpics/repository/v/KKK/photos/Women+March-1.jpg.html
Women from the KKK march in Bellingham, May 15, 1926. Photo: Whatcom County Historical Society.
Thanks to Desmond Jones for posting a link to this photo at Majority Rights.
H.R.W.,
If you’re speaking about some White ethnostate in the future then that’s that. If you’re speaking about smart strategy for our current situation, then I believe this is a non-starter. Women have the vote and will continue to have the vote unless there’s a true sea change in our political circumstances. As such, the relevant concern should be figuring out how to reach White American women and gain their full support.
Naturally, even pondering on the potential for removing their right to vote is unproductive. Nobody wants to join a movement which is using them temporarily and intends to disempower them once victory is assured. We need to build the largest coalition possible while remaining true to our tribal identity. This means courting White American female voters and their concerns.
In the current political context, this really boils down to schools and neighborhoods. Far too often, we White Advocates spend too much time immersed in the larger and more abstract political considerations…like the advisability of female suffrage. I believe it would suit us to get local. If White women see us out there on the frontlines of the fight to keep schools, neighborhoods, and communities safer and better, then we’ll earn their support.
Good post except for advocating taking away suffrage. Talking about divorce and replacing men with police and welfare is spot on.
Actually saying we should take away the vote from women is giving ammo to our enemies though. Bad strategy.
Rock,
Excellent observations and comments. Men need to be men again. They must step up and take back their responsibilities in every area so that women can do what women do best, and so that women no longer feel the need to replace the men with other women and the state. I assume you are a regular reader of ThinkingHousewife.com.
Rusty
What is left unsaid is that the changing of divorce laws was itself brought about at the demand of female voters.
That’s not how it works. The political class identifies a change it desires and then manufactures consent or at least the appearance of consent.
Kievsky is right of course.
But the better approach would be to simply establish electoral census – an examination of political maturity with passage mandatory to get voting rights. And make it expensive and hard to pass. This will fairly and naturally filter out not only majority of females, but also poor and stupid of both sexes. Formally it is very fair – one has to deserve the right to vote, while in reality it can serve a great filter.
This article assumes a “vote” means something and perpetuates the insidious fantasy that the “masses” participate in politics. They don’t, and nothing is further from the truth. Why lie? The lie only serves to scribe some woman hating nonsense. This is one of the ugliest, stupidest and most simplistic articles I have ever read here. I am considering never reading anything here again.
Just passing some info along: David Brooks (Jew) is either clueless or stupid in saying that “America’s future is exceedingly bright” because in the next 40 years the USA will add another 100 million Mestizos, Asians, Blacks, Jews, and others – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06brooks.html?src=me&ref=general
I applaud Mr White’s courage for posting this essay. True leadership does not draw inspiration from opinion polls.
The emergent controversy reminds me of the book “Alive.” I can imagine similar moral posturing among the crash survivors when cannibalism was first suggested. Without a doubt, the moral narcissists among them were the first to die.
Living conditions in this nation will soon be very bad. Just wait until the US dollar loses reserve currency status – most people here probably do not understand what this means.
Keep fiddling while Rome burns…
The feminine mind seems to abhor the notion of “responsibility” instead focusing on the feel good emotions. Of course we “masculine” logic thinkers are vastly outnumbered by either sex emotional thinkers, but all is not lost. Merely implying responsibility is like a mirror, a cross or daylight to a vampire, they send the vampires scuttling back into the shadows.
Watch the first ten minutes of “Starshiptroopers” the teachers lecture on the difference between citizen and civilian.
Universal suffrage is a bad idea. This goes for men as well as women. I’m in favor of retaining the republican system of government, but there must be constitutional amendments that restrict voting rights to the virtuous and engaged class of citizens.
http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/jone-mar.htm
Quote:
‘Mother’ Jones has been criticized as not being a feminist. Her focus, though, was on the rights of workers — men, women and children. She strongly opposed the suffrage movement, feeling it supported a passive inactivity; whereas she was wholeheartedly about taking action. She pointed out that the women of Ludlow, Colorado, had voting rights in the state, but it did not stop the massacre from happening. She said:
“[Women need to realize that with] what they have in their hands there is no limit to what they could accomplish. The trouble is they let the capitalists make them believe they wouldn’t be ladylike.”
Yes, brilliant. The way to gain sympathy for the white nationalist cause is to start telling white women that they’re too stupid, weak, and risk-averse to vote responsibly. That’ll win ’em over for sure.
It would make much more sense to remove suffrage from welfare recipients. Those who live on the backs of the productive should have no say in politics, as politics is simply the act of deciding how to violently confiscate and then redistribute wealth. Of course, this assumes that a vote actually means anything beyond giving the gullible citizen a reason to believe that he actually controls his government instead of the other way around.
>75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men.
Yes, thanks to all the “conservative” men for voting for George W. Bush and Dick “Amnesty” Armey. If women couldn’t vote the men could continue to elect Zionist Republican war mongers who send their kids to fight for Israel and spend their money bailing out New York banksters. What an improvement!
What is it with the so-called “pro-white” movement – it seems these men do nothing but blame their problems on everyone but themselves. I read constant bitching about women – either they are too slutty, or for the “Game” crowd – not slutty enough.
Maybe white men should stop pointing fingers at their women at look at themselves. Here’s a place to start: What kind of ignorant tools can’t see what is right in front of their face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Most white “men” watch this video and start stammering to themselves some lame excuse they heard from a TV news anchor, then will go back to saying we need to fight “Al Qaeda.”
Since this tack isn’t working, let me suggest another – let ONLY women vote. They could not possibly do a worse job than the men.
Reason 5,576 why I am opposed to the state or an all white nation state: absurd ideas like this.
“as politics is simply the act of deciding how to violently confiscate and then redistribute wealth.”
You are one of the .01% of women who see and and would express it that way and I applaud your bluntness.. Unfortunatel you would be happy with the result and you and the other 99.99% of women would not be happy with the process if the 19th Amendment had never been enacted.
Racial voting restrictions were not discussed in this article because it is premised on a ‘future white ethnostate’, which has been discussed for example for the Boers in South Africa. As Lott discusses, the results of female voting started to kick in decades before nonwhites had anything beyond marginal power, which was not until the 1960s. Likewise, some property/class/welfare restrictions may be a good idea, but I decided to focus this article on one particular issue.
Regarding whether this ‘loses support for the white cause’: winning mass majority support only matters in electoral politics. So, I won’t pass this article around at my next Republican Town Committee meeting.
Regarding the poor quality of Republican candidates: most people just vote for a candidate that they think most closely matches their ideology, so it’s a good gauge of overall ideology.
Selecting voters on an individual basis is simply not practical, given the numbers involved. Also, it would get politicized the way legislative redistricting is.
@Andrew Yeoman: “Reason 5,576 why I am opposed to the state or an all white nation state: absurd ideas like this.”
“Absurd ideas like this” were the status quo a little over a hundred years ago. Not surprisingly, a little over a hundred years ago the White race was at its zenith in terms of power, demographics, and prosperity. Both women and men prospered during male-only suffrage. It could be argued that there is no correlation between women’s suffrage and the decay of today, however, the same line of reasoning could apply to forced integration, multiculturalism, feminism, etc. The truth is that it’s probably not any one ideological crusade that killed the West but a combination of all of them together.
If the West wants to return to sanity it needs to return to the values that benefited its people in the past. If after rejecting the 20th century’s ‘isms the West is prosperous enough, it should again take a gamble in allowing women the vote (with a critical eye on the outcome).
I’d like to thank H. Rock for posting this. His was not the average post preaching-to-the-choir. When an idea is rejected out of hand as absurd there’s probably something in the idea disturbing at a fundamental level which deserves greater consideration. The average person’s reaction to the idea of white identity is a case in point…
Here is data concerning the (subsequently edited) claims in comment 19 regarding older female voters in the 2008 Republican primary in New Hampshire.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHREP
2008 New Hampshire Republican primary exit poll
Vote by gender
Male: McCain 35%, Romney 31%
Female: McCain 38%, Romney 32%
Vote by age
18-24: McCain 27%, Paul 19%, Romney 17%
25-29: McCain 37%, Romney 33%
30-39: McCain 38%, Romney 28%
40-49: McCain 35%, Romney 31%
50-64: McCain 38%, Romney 30%
65 or over: Romney 44%, McCain 40%
‘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.’ Yankee Doodles and Jew changed Japanese woman worse. Please American read ‘To watch Jews is to see the world clearly’ by Masami Uno. Buy store all for girl friend. Yankee Doodles and Jew responsible IMHO.
Good article, and very true. If we’re going to talk about mental/physical/genetic difference between races, we must eventually come to terms with the differences between the sexes, and between the classes/castes.
“Selecting voters on an individual basis is simply not practical, given the numbers involved.”
An IQ test would be completely practical.
This is why you gotta love Red Jeffrey, he’s always right on queue you can set your watch to him.
Yes, the New Hampshire data shows men 275% more likely than women to vote for Ron Paul, who was the only acceptable candidate in the race.
IQ tests would not work for the reasons discussed in the article, differences between male and female thinking are entirely divorced from IQ: men and women have about the same average IQ
That’s not how it works. The political class identifies a change it desires and then manufactures consent or at least the appearance of consent.
Yes, succinct and correct. I don’t know if thinking like this is genetic, or requires a certain IQ, or what, but it needs to become more common amongst us if possible.
This article assumes a “vote” means something and perpetuates the insidious fantasy that the “masses” participate in politics. They don’t, and nothing is further from the truth. Why lie? The lie only serves to scribe some woman hating nonsense. This is one of the ugliest, stupidest and most simplistic articles I have ever read here. I am considering never reading anything here again.
Lena, no offense meant, but you’re now exhibit A as to why women shouldn’t be voting. (For the record, I agree with Kievsky, promoting disenfranchisement of women is a bad idea)
I am now an exhibit? Cute. Most of you boys have no idea how to be men or even what the practical concerns of women, mothers and families are, not a fucking clue. Why don’t you idiots grow up, get married have kids, then write some scribe about how great women have it. Fuck off with this shit.
Lena,
Why don’t you write a post detailing your own views of universal suffrage?
Lena, I believe Svigor is referring to your highly emotional response to the article in question. By the way, I agree with the first part of your original response; that voting little matters in this day and age. Rather than furthering debate by writing an article in opposition to H. Rock’s you swore to never frequent this site again.
If the West is to be lead out of its current troubles it will be done by cool logic and not hot emotion. Leave feelings and emotions to demagogues like Jeffrey Imm and his counterparts in the pay-media. Good people are more apt to be manipulated by emotions than reasoning.
Threaten to do something outrageous to group X because they’re too emotional. When they react, tell them that they’re confirming your point.
Comedy gold.
There is no such thing as universal suffrage, it is an abstraction.
Furthermore, women are not the ones that fill up large piss smelling stadiums to watch a bunch of useless spooks toss a ball around!
I have done my battle for our race, it happened in the silvery room, more then once, and you?
Silver delivery room…and one even at home, when later in the day I cooked a roast for the entire family.
Yeah, men are so cool and logical as they cheer ball tossing spooks.
“Threaten to do something outrageous…”
Is history outrageous, Matt? Women’s suffrage was unprecedented before 1893…
I do understand the ideas contained in this article, and basically concurr, however; consideing the Anti-Female snarkfest cotained in that repulsive article in Yellow Fever Right mag, committed by the odious and juvenile Scott Locktard, and the even worse Comments posted, by the cranially and anatomically deficient acolytes of same – I’m with Lena.
You boys, instead of plotting strategy – why don’t you all take courses and Charming Women? Cause you all seem to be obsessed with driving women away.
I guess you fellas want a Womanless Homeland. Keep going fellas – yer doing great.
Absolutely fantastic article! I don’t think there was a word of it I disagreed with.
Anton had a very good observation, feminism has been nothing but a power grab in reality, based up lofty, nice sounding ideals that are completely unrealistic, no different than the rest of “progressivism”.
I too agree with Lena’s first observation about most not taking part in the political process, but still, this has little or nothing to do with the issue covered in this article. Also, her strong, un-rational, venomous reaction to the article proves HRW’s point completely. That is, if you want to destroy an advanced civilization, coddle and empower women to dominant positions throughout society.
Is a woman that is ready to betray you just because they don’t agree with your opinion one that you really to have your back in a high risk movement such as this one? (Exhibited by, “I am considering never reading here again”, and the childish adjectives used to describe the article.) This aren’t the times for “coddling” and “getting along”, just to “keep the peace.” Lena is obviously accustomed to this treatment, as are most women in the West today.
But, Lena also has a strong point that most of the so-called “men” in our society are boys in fact. It isn’t a wonder she has little to no respect for them, actually, it is a normal, healthy reaction for a woman that has been betrayed by her men. There is no doubt that the multicult hell we live in today, including feminism, is a result of the failure of men, overwhelmingly white men at that. It will also only be correct through men assuming the leading role as well.
Rusty, are you a regular reader of the THW? Great work Laura Wood does there. I think she may be a “closet white nationalist”, and is a race-realist for sure. Her strong, educated, intelligent position is what needs to be encouraged and nurtured among whites.
EB, very erudite post.
HW, I agree with your post as well. Sufferage should be earned through achievement in society, basically, your “citizenship” must be demonstrated by being a worthy citizen. There are many, many who should be restricted from sufferage. And perhaps some women should be allowed to vote, if they are well informed and actively and competently involved in the macrostructure of society.
Denise! I thought you had disappeared. I have been waiting for the article you offered to write. Is Hunter letting you post it, or is it a men’s only club here? Well, if you would like to write something for my blog I would be more then happy to let you put up whatever you want there.
Lena – the sad truth is that the ghetto dwelling ball tossing spooks are a lot better at GETTING women, than thse brilliant WN men are.
The Spooks, et al, treat females like dirt, adter they do get them – but they get them, in the first place.
Guys – the onus for attracting women is on YOU.
ON YOU.
Got it?
Females, WN, or otherwise – don’t need you. Most females couldn’t give a fingernail clipping for all your theories. Women are emotonial. Even though society is going to Hell fast – right now – they have what they think they need.
Start learning how to attract and keep women. Only White people can have White babies, right?
Hunter – through out Mutual Friend, we have discussed the contribution of content. I’ve been wildly busy, this past week. My entire day is booked, today.
You will get content on this issue, tomorrow.
I promise.
Lena – I have been insanely busy in 3D world. I was gonna write an article, “Ed Rendell is a Talmudic Jew” – and I have 3 other ideas, too – but between work, Fam, Easter, and general electrical issues – I have been swamped.
I am goin to make time ofr an article, that is decades overdue, on this issue. It wll be done tomorrow.
It will be a Rant to End all Rants. I’m on my dinner break now. I do not intend to give this issue short shrift. I’m gonna give it my All.
Beware!
Oh – Lena – I’d love to post on your blog.
I’ll do a list of non-socially retarded WN males.
So far – the list will contain Andrew Yoeman, and Matt Parrott. And Robert Campbell, whom I adore.
Ummmm, so Aservant decides to agree and disagree with my “unrationality?????” Were the white men in US army being “rational” when they decided to point their guns at girls and force them into school with niggers? We never voted for that. Yeah, I must be insane, perhaps I due for my period or something. You assholes got us into this and now you want to cowardly hide behind our skirts, blame us. Like I said before, I did my battle. What battle are you boys fighting? One with girls?
And Kulaks, and Mosin.
Denise,
you can give me your e-mail on my blog or just have Hunter or one of the admins send you my e-mail (it is okay to give it to Denise) and I will get you access to the blog. GREAT! Thanks for this.
@H. Rock White
I see your point re. IQ.
Fellas – you are going to have to prove- right now – that you are worthy of mating with White females.
Apologize to Lena, for this article. Tell her, in detail, just how wrong you are. Make her BELIEVE.
Suck up to me, by detailing hoW MUCH you HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATED that Scott FaggotwithGook Ladyboys article, in the RightLimpDick mag.
Now.
Do it. Now.
Sam – I’m certain that you meant, by your last little comment, that WN females have much higher IQ points than just about any-one else – right?
Cause you fellas are really pissing us off.
The real question is what you mean by ‘traditionalist’. Since it leaves so much up in the air I imagine it is little more than an empty word like a garbage pit which anyone may fill with what they will.
No matter what system you set up, by force or fraud, I shall seek and possess what is mine. I expect others to do the same. It seems most here are seeking a mongolianism. The spirit world, the boggie of the geist still hovers with wings over you. Never yet have you come into your own. Some still haven’t over past the christian desire to over come the world of real things through the world of ideas, the world of spirit, the rational world of words. Others, devolving, see nothing more than that in front of them in their new found negritude. Happy the man who has got to the back of the world and the spirit and come into himself as his own possession.
What ever system you create will be mine and I shall undermine and destroy, or support and energize it.