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.
Gals, don’t be too hard on the fellas here. White men are increasingly marginalized, and that includes from white female affection, and tend to lash out like boys on a playground, pulling the girls pigtail’s because they are too insecure to kiss them.
As white men start to realize the magnitude of what they have done – voluntarily, willingly turned over the country, and their women, to foreigners – you can expect the pitiful cries to get louder.
The main problem is typical for men – their egos. All these highly intelligent white men simply cannot admit how completely they were fooled by their Jew tube and macho conservative politicians. They have literally sent their own kids to die for the very people who attacked them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
If the white men realize what they have done, their only options would be an honorable, Japanese-style suicide, or to live the rest of their lives in disgrace and shame. For their fragile egos, they simply cannot tell themselves the truth.
After all, taking a hard stand against women’s suffrage on a website is a lot easier than doing anything in the real world. I half suspect that’s where a lot of the online polygamous patriarch fantasies come from – if you are reduced to fantasizing about a woman, why not go out all and fantasize about dozens?
WNs seem unable to do anything substantial in the real world, so online fantasy is the next best thing. For such a concentration of men that is the WN movement, one wonders where is all the practical, hands-on engineering skill that are typical of men? I’m new to the WN blogs, but so far all I see is hazy fantasy about the future, and not a single practical step to get there.
>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.
“Government programs” – WN reduced to repeating Ronald Reagan style rhetoric. Bitching about women on welfare, but not a word about the Federal Reserve. Tenured academics complaining about government programs! The ultimate male institution in the military, which is cradle to grave socialism.
The white movement won’t get anywhere until they grow out of their Alex P Keaton conserva-tard phase. Now go dress up like Thomas Jefferson and have a tea party!
Denise and Lena,
Keep in mind this is just a blog. We have a lot of opinionated people here. We’re all friends. If the two of you disagree with H. Rock White’s article, write a rebuttal. I would be happy to post it. We need some female contributors.
Hunter – tell all the fellas to keep in mind that sinsulting, denigrating, and sneering at the hanfdul of White women, who do show up , is the STUPIDEST thing a White male coulsd ever do.
Ghetto Negroes, and Gang Banger Mestizos, are intellgient enough to talk purty to females, at first.
White Nationalists are outliers, and WN females are the outliers of outliers.
I’m very serious. Why don’t you intullekshal fellas know the most fundamental basics of social interaction?
You need White females – young White females – to make White babies. If you are happy with mating with Gooks – pack it up – it’s ove.r It’s not WN anymore. Without White females – ya for NOTHING. Females that show up, and see glowering males, who insult, or ignore them – tell me the reason why they should stick around. Go ahead.
Any of you – tell me what you have to offer women? And do shove your “theories” up or down your pieholes. Not interested in theories!
Go ahead. I’ll check back
The vilest Negro street pimp knows how to draw in a woman. Why don’t you brilliant guys know what a Street Nig knows?
You make a lot of good points here, and it is obvious that female suffrage has led to many problems in the USA and elsewhere since it was instituted, but instead of seeking to restrict all women from voting it ought to be made a special right or ‘citizen privilege’ restricted solely to married White women above a certain mature age (likely at least 25-30).
The reason is that it has been shown that the majority of married White women who have grown out of their late-teens through about mid-20s default liberalism (overly idealistic youthful idiocy) often vote like their White husbands, that being conservatively.
“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.”
Actually, I know plenty of women who think like I do. Not coincidentally, most of us are mothers who are watching our wealth stolen, food taken from our children’s mouths, to support shiftless ghetto trash who haven’t worked in three generations and take every possible opportunity to rape, rob, and kill us. And we’re told that resenting the situation makes us more evil than those who would cause us actual physical harm. And our men are letting it happen.
You want more white women along for the ride? You want them to reject statism and egalitarian socialism, to start voting with their wallet instead of their gut? Appeal to their mothering instincts. Show them that their children’s inheritance is being plundered for the benefit of career criminals and political parasites. Don’t tell them they’re too stupid and weak to make important decisions, since most of them know better. If women were so stupid and weak, the human race wouldn’t have made it past the Stone Age.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing, more unbecoming and pathetic than a white man who hates and resents white women. I’m the farthest thing from a feminist you’ll ever meet, but that doesn’t mean I’ll sit by and let you prattle on about how women are essentially mindless chattel. The bare truth is that women and men need and complement each other, and until you brave WN warriors grasp that simple fact, you’ll keep angrily wondering why beautiful blondes, brunettes, and redheads want nothing to do with you.
I might as well write what I think heaven will be like when I pass through the pearly gates. Would you post that? That would be the same as posting a rebuttal to this “if when” fantasy.
When asked by a woman from Attica: ‘Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?’, she said: ‘Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men.’ Gorgo (daughter of Kleomenes I, born ~506. Married Leonidas I)
Voting shouldn’t be taken away based on gender, there are better ways of reducing sufferage like landowning and educational requirements.
Aservant said “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.”
NOPE. White men are not totoally to blame. Yes, White men caved in, but every race, every nation and every empire has caved in under the weight of organized Jewish corruption and degeneracy. As usual, when you lift the curtain in seeking to find the main cause of the decline, decay, and ultimate collapse of nations, races, and empires you’ll very often find oprganized Jewry behind it. It has happened time after time, in nation after nation and one empire after another: Jews are the termites of nations.
“Hence the result of Jewish domination is always the ruin of all culture and finally the madness of the Jew himself. For he is a parasite of nations and his victory signifies his own end as much as the death of his victim.” — http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc5.html
–
“Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.
The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.
The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too.” — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html
An interesting alternative to our current “one-person one-vote” system might be a multiple vote system, wherein extra votes can be earned by doing socially-useful things like national service, paying taxes, having children in wedlock etc. That way, no one need suffer the indignity of total disenfrachisement, but those who contribute most to society would get more of a say in it’s governance.
“I am opposed to the state or an all white nation state”
Get used to it Yeoman, it will happen again. ^^
Are you against non-whites having a state/land of their own too, especially given their inability do to anything worthwhile with them, even after milleniums in most cases?
There is a reason why it is non-whites who flood white lands by the millions and not vice-versa. Could you tell me what it is?
Divine Comedy – I’ve insulted you in the past. You are a Anti White provacatuer. You’re dead en pointe, in a lot of what you have written, in your last post, though.
I don’t want White men to kill themselves. I don’t want them to assure the death of the Race, by insulting the White female Babymakers.
I do want them to GROW THE FUCK UP – and learn how to function IN the real world.
You are correct in your assessment of their puerile fantasies, based on pathetic egoism. They wil never make anything happen, if they kepe this shit up.
The actual handful of real live White Nationalist females I know, and talk to, do MORE IN THE REAL WORLD, for White people, than any of these guys do in a year.
Women are all about practical application. This theory crap is just that – crap. Delusion. Masturbatory nonsense.
The WN gals I know DO REAL THINGS.
We talk to other other women – WN, or “civilians”.
I know I preach to the UnAwakened non-stop.I don’t NEED to do this, if I get CRAP from men who think they are intelligent.
That LockAhole article, in AlternateRaceTraitor, pissed off a really lovely young woman I know – and you know too, Hunter. Why would you want to insult a beautiful, intelligent, racially comitted young female, of CHILDBEARING AGE? Why are so many of you smirking and insulting and sneering?
You should be on your knees to her, worshipping her – you WN shitheads.
Another gal – who does REAL THINGS – in CA, goes to the IHR meetings, and gets snubbed. She is on the verge of dumping the whole thing. I’m her age. We are middle aged. Why the HELL should WE put up with your crap? What are you guys DOING FOR US? Young women will feel much more comfy, and less threatened, if they see nice, friendly women. “Matronly” gals, who they can trust and confide in.I cannot BELIEVE how CLUELESS you effing geniuses are.
Lena is a MOTHER. A MOTHER. She’s had White BABIES. The hand that rocks the cradle….SHE will make or break this pathetic movement. Not you.
NOT YOU.
NOT YOU SAM DICKHEAD. Lena – NOT YOU.
To all of you – real world White Nationalism STARTS WITH WOMEN.
You’d better learn this lesson right NOW.
Now – where are those apologies?
And Hunter- I will have the Rant of all Rants to you tomorrow. These posts are a mere taste.
instead of seeking to restrict all women from voting it ought to be made a special right or ‘citizen privilege’
Hear, hear.
After we win, how shall we set up our ethnostate’s gov’t? I STILL like Constitutional Republic, with racialism written INTO it. But what about the problems inherent in universal suffrage?
There’s an answer. But you must toss the one-person-one-vote brainlock
I like Mark Twain’s idea: If you behave in ways that benefit society, you get EXTRA votes.
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/gondour.php
It could work like this:: Everyone free, White and 21 gets ONE vote.
BUT, you get an extra vote when you:
become a net taxpayer
another when you get married
and, ONLY IF MARRIED, another when you have children and support them without a gov’t welfare check.
Another for Honorable Discharge from military
So most difficult decisions will be made by who? The most responsible people in the society — married couples (note — the husband will have his opportunity to influence his wife’s thinking, as happens even today in most married households) who pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits and who, because they are raising children, are invested in long-term wellbeing of the country.
The married couples would wield 8 votes between them, whereas single mothers on welfare only get 1 vote.
Macho young hotshot men ALSO get just one vote, or two if net taxpayers or 3 if veterans, until they settle down, get married and support their kids. This would act to marginalize the Roissys of the world just looking for a string of uncommitted, irresponsible lays.
By the same token, you LOSE votes if:
you go on welfare (no longer net taxpayer)
you get divorced
you don’t support your kids
Barb – intelligent and practical solutions! Brava!
“You are a Anti White provacatuer.”
No, I’m a Pro-White provocateur.
I support your call for an apology, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I’ve been waiting ten years for these ignorant tools to even figure out what’s going on. Even the WN are afraid to admit the OBVIOUS. Their need to be “respectable” is like a eunuch combing his hair, when you have no balls you may as well look pretty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAR9BLpGySc
White men deserve their fate, for believing transparent, obvious Jewish lies. Optimism is unwarranted. But it’s ok, most men are expendable, it only takes a few. Maybe the polygamists are right in that sense.
Anthony M. Ludovici wrote an excellent book entitled Woman: A Vindication, which reflects my view on the subject almost exactly. You can find the entire book online, and it’s well worth reading. Here is an excerpt from the preface:
Source: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/wv_pre.htm
Well, MOST of Russian girls are nationalists – having too much diversity in their lives and historic tradition. And they are beautiful of course. So if American females get lost in their tantrums, WN males can always import a number of better and more reasonable females. Presto.
In my experience, most women can be persuaded of the sagacity of traditionalist doctrine on sexual polarity — that is to say, while they may not believe it themselves, they at least come to respect it — if they are open-minded and willing to give me a fair hearing on the matter.
More than once, a woman has accused me of being a filthy misogynist only to later change her tune and apologise for her Amazonian effrontery. This happened with my fiance, in fact; she came to understand the profound difference between chivalry and misogyny, and to greatly value the former characteristic, which I do my best to uphold as a gentleman.
I do not believe democracy is a viable form of government. My ideal White Nationalist ethnostate would combine the best aspects of Sparta, Rome, Prussia, NS Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, and would undoubtedly involve a Ghibelline restoration of some sort. While most WNs I know had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their car two years ago, I kept this one:
http://www.corrupt.org/drupal/files/images/end_democracy.png
Robert – you posted that long and lovely passage.
The a fuckwit like RF shows up. with is idle, moronic threats/
RF – try it. We can undo you, and this movement, faster than you can imagine, as you lie alone in your bed.
DC – you are a man, correct?
You seem to be one of the very few fellows here, who actually seems to be able ot comprehend how all of this is coming across, to women, and to any one else, pro or con, vis a vis WN.
Robert – I love and respect you. The justified, righteous outrage expressed by the women, on this thread, is NOT ABOUT chivalry vs. misogyny.
It’s about the appalling rudness, and the pointless, and destructive blaming, that WN routinely exhibit towards women.
Just the sheer bad PR you guys are generating, all by yourselves, is beyond belief.
I know I am being rude and crude – and that’s what a lot of you guys deserve.
Not you Robert – but please stop “theorizing” You are so bright. Please tell me that you understand how tactically moronic and suicidal a lot of these themes are.
Stop theorizing.
Speak in practical PR “Hi, I’m a WN guy -pleased ta meet ya terms”.
Please.
”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, #9)
This is one of the best articles I’ve ever read at this site. Women getting the vote is THE most important of the several causes of the present race-replacement crisis, more important than the Jews, more than the globalist capitalists, more than the communists. Without women having the vote the Jews could not pull half the destructive crap they pull. They would not be able to race-replace whites as they’re doing now. If the Jews were brought under control tomorrow the fact of women’s suffrage would simply empower them again, the Jews, and in five minutes they’d be up to all their old tricks with full clueless-female-voter approval.
Exit poll data for both general elections and the primaries are irrelevant because by the time of either the primary or the general election the fix is already in with the choice of candidates: no one potentially unpleasing to women – meaning no one who takes race or nation or racial crime or excessive incompatible immigration seriously — has a prayer of getting off the ground as a candidate. Under communism you could vote for your choice of candidates as long as he was a communist. Under women’s suffrage you can vote for your choice of candidates as long as he’s potentially female-approvable, meaning zero talk of race or nation or the racial aspects of immigration, of crime, and so on. Exit polls come way way way after the stage where all the vetting-of-candidates for female-friendliness takes place. Female-friendliness means strictly NO race talk, NO nation talk. Women don’t like that stuff. Women have no idea, zero idea, of what a nation is or how one works and they can’t be taught. Many have tried. Women need to be kept out of the voting booth – either that or the list of matters that can be voted on have to be restricted with an iron hand that no Jew-backed women’s lib bitch can unrestrict. Women – real women — are born to do best barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen – figuratively if not literally.
”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” ( — WP, #10)
Clueless? Stupid? Neither. He’s Jewish, fighting a tribal war. Against guess who?
”Suck up to me, by detailing hoW MUCH you HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATED that Scott FaggotwithGook Ladyboys article, in the RightLimpDick mag.
Now.
Do it. Now.”
( — Denise, #49)
Not meaning to suck up to Denise, but I read that article last night and strongly disliked it because 1) there are more than enough feminine white American women who aren’t at all wymmyn’s libber types and are excellent marriage material – you have only to seek them out while never compromising on your principles (singles bars probably aren’t the best places to seek them out – try familial type milieus, church services and social events, college social events in which the girls attending aren’t in masculine-type majors like medicine, law, physics, engineering, or of course anything to do with women’s lib type subjects), 2) Locklin is the kind of man who wants more devotion from women than he’s actually worth in the war-between-the-sexes open marketplace – instead of saying, “Yeow! That gal is way more than I’m worth – how did I ever attract her?? God must have sent this woman to me — why, I’ll never know, but I’m going to do my best to earn her and be worthy of her” – instead of saying that, he struts around thinking he’s worth way more than he is in terms of the kind of female he can attract and hold in the free battle-or-the-sexes market, and thinks he’s now prove how much he’s “worth” by going outside the culture to where different sorts of pressures on people make them settle for less, like an American tourist who thinks he’s rich because he’s visiting someplace where the American dollar is worth more than the local currency. Earth to that tourist: you’re not rich. Earth to Scott Locklin: you’re probably not worth as much as you think in the free battle-of-the-sexes marketplace. 4) No Oriental, Mexican, or other non-Euro brides for white men please. Oriental women have their own beauty and charm. White women’s beauty and charm is better. White women have them beat. Besides, we’re supposed to keep the race intact, no? That’s why we’re all here. Yes lots of white wymmyn have been rendered untouchable with a ten foot pole by their Jewish college professors pushing wymmyn’s lib down their throats. Just avoid those bitches. There are plenty of the good kind out there. Scott Locklin needs to look harder, and he also needs to take his inflated opinion of what he’s actually worth on the open sex market and lower it a notch. What you’re worth is what the market is willing to pay, Scott – no more and no less. And cheating by going abroad to other cultures where different pressures lower certain expectations doesn’t prove a thing. When that foreign bride you bring back sees what you’re actually worth here in your own native culture and what your competition is over here she may start to lose respect for you. Likely will. Watch out she doesn’t get herself a b/f behind your back when it dawns on her that over here she’s worth more than you and could’ve commanded a “higher price.”
Maybe we need to build a society where voting just isn’t necessary. People will know how to behave and what to do and will settle things among themselves. Leaders would be appointed by consensus, based on the person’s character & ability. With decentralization and local control, going to the polls (i.e., private voting) would be seen to be a sign of mistrust. I guess I’m dreaming.
In any case, my dad used to say, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” He was involved in politics and made sure that my mother voted in every election that came along.
None of us, WN males, on this blog, a WN blog, has said anything about “mating with Gooks.” Whereas you have said several times that Negroes and Mestizos know how to “get women” and have exhorted us, WN males and presumably White Men in general, to act more like Negroes and Mestizos in our interactions with women.
It’s abundantly clear who is insulting whom.
“Scott Locklin,” from what I can gather, is a libertarian or something. His article wasn’t posted here, but on a webzine which seems to be sympathetic and open to our cause but is also apparently trying to be broad enough to include libertarians, Jews, etc., at least currently. None of us here have endorsed his claims in their entirety, especially regarding miscegenation. You’re using a post on women’s suffrage to conflate our views with his own and to insult us.
“4) No Oriental, Mexican, or other non-Euro brides for white men please.” ( — my comment)
Please correct me but I think Scott Locklin actually included Ethiopian or “Eritrean” women as potentially better choices for white men than white American women. I may be confusing it with something else I read but if he did do that, there’s no possible excuse for his writing it or for Richard Spencer’s not spiking the article.
In fact, for several reasons that article should not have been published and should right now be deleted.
Denise,
I would not have made the post which H. Rock White did, for several reasons (one of the foremost being that I don’t believe in the efficacy of voting itself), but I respect his opinion and I don’t think it’s the sort of massive PR nightmare that you seem to believe it is.
I posted the Ludovici quote above because I think it is spot-on, and because it puts the onus where it belongs: on White men.
A masculine renaissance is absolutely necessary to counter the mass confusion wrought by the “war between the sexes,” and it shouldn’t be purely theoretical in nature. For example, when I am out in public and I pull out a chair for a woman, or go out of my way to hold the door open for her, I am practicing what I preach, and reminding women that chivalry is not dead and that it is not the same thing as misogyny. These are small things, but they are steps that I can take right now, in the real world, to influence women I meet every day.
Ludovici’s defense of Western womanhood was eloquent and convincing, and it stands in stark contrast to the article by Scott Locklin that has rankled your feathers so thoroughly:
I’m not sure which posts of mine you found objectionable, but it’s certainly not my intent to offend anyone, and I don’t believe I have comported myself in a rude or crass way.
Universal suffrage has a huge upside: More people don’t vote, the vote becomes less valuable, and this creates an opening for a small and focused percentage of the population to sway elections.
Christian fundamentalists did this in the 90s by galvanizing a base that was only about 15-20% of the population (yes, including female voters).
Arguing against something that could play so well into the hands of a small and focused movement is pretty foolish.
When I was young, before the Internet Age, I was friends with a guy who told me stories about how his father was in business with an Indonesian royal and within a year or two they would all be rich. Being high school age, we both completely believed that this authority figure – his father – actually had a clue.
Of course, this was a pre-internet version of a Nigerian scam, and his dad had fallen for it. He spent the family savings on some ridiculous scam, but no one could ever admit it – it was simply not discussed when it became too obvious and too embarrassing.
So it is with American white men. For 50 years – since the TV hit most of America – white men have believed and trusted in the most ridiculous and silly bullshit that they saw on the TV – and especially, the “conservative” macho Republican, pro-war, pro-military types. Part of being a soldier is the glory – the only good part – but you don’t even have that anymore; your wives are fucking around while you are busy killing ragheads half the world away for Antichrist Kikeistan. And now they are going to take your Social Security check and give it to Goldman Sachs. LOL – what more is left but ridicule?
Pride comes before a fall, which is why the notion of “white pride” has always amused me. You want to take about pride – Whitey Landed on the Moon. The whole world saw it on television. We still have all the equipment in Space Museums all around the country. We could have hundreds of qualified white men competing to be the next Neal Armstrong and it would cost next to nothing, compared to what we pay for bombing hajis and bailouting out Wall Street. Ipods are a million times faster than the computers in 1968, just think what tech we have now. But white people can’t get *back* to the moon.
We are left with watching old Discovery Channel Documentaries of when White Men Landed on the Moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmANxHJ6s9M
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon, if you believe there’s nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool. Man on the Moon REM
I don’t think voting rights should be based on gender or race, but rather on intelligence. Only those with at least an IQ of 100 (or maybe even as high as 115, which is 16% of the population) should be allowed to vote. That would prevent those with lower IQs from using “democracy” as an excuse to loot smarter people.
Fred,
White nationalism is, of course, heavily weighted towards men. But the sum total percentage of men who are WNs vs. clueless conservatards is tiny. (SPLC hysteria screeds about the neo-nazis who are all over the place, notwithstanding.) It seems clear that convincing men ain’t so easy either — even though they are the ones taking the big BRUNT of all this.
Is it really true that women *cannot* be taught the truth of race? I was. Am I really that unusual? Granted, my IQ is high and I never went to wymmyn’s college. But I talk to women all the time who are mothers who say things that make me think, with just the smallest push, she’d be as rabidly racialist as Alex Linder.
I think Denise is onto something. Appeal to women through pointing out to her that her children are going to be in for it when the mestizoes outnumber us. That’s what got me. I think it’s because women who want to be good mothers would tip over to our side easily if they really were ever given the straight scoop about the future their kids face is why the media so, so, so hysterically insists that White men are evil. Because they know that women are fierce when it comes to their cubs and no force on earth can defeat White men fighting for their families.
“That would prevent those with lower IQs from using “democracy” as an excuse to loot smarter people”
Which is why I think mult votes per person would be good. The smarters (who tend to be the people who are net taxpayers, married and providing for own kids) can outvote the dumbs while allowing the dumbs to believe we respect their opinion.
Re: IQ as voting filter.
Terrible idea. High IQ types are more likely to toe the dominant social norms on matters of race. They are more likely to be so-called “clever sillies”; that is, smart but foolish about practical matters.
The average White person has a kind of gut sensibility of how things that should be that takes years for the smarties to find out.
Don’t be so quick to embrace IQ. It has its place but it’s not everything. Asians have higher IQ on average and they are still catching up to White countries.
Oy Vey! Fred Scrooby,
Poor jews living under the thumbs of white woman and forced to act like, well, jews! Yeah, it must be woman’s fault! God damb woman won’t reign in the jew for me boohoo! Are you for fucking real? But, perhaps you are right, a world without white women would be great, no capitalists, communists, globalists, jews or any other perceived evil because, well, there would be no white people to precieve such things. Go figure, you’re a fucking genius man.
I must go now.
Scrooby- I deeply appreciate your very intelligent comments. I don’t want “sucking up to” – I want sane, rational, PRACTICAL views, on how to advance the WN cause, and how preserve the existence of the White Race.
Robert – you are still theorizing. I love chivalry. You know I thnk the world of you.
I am talking about bedrock practical behavior.
White Nationalist guys have to learn how ot appeal to women. Yo must get women to join, in the first place, before you make lofty plans, about voting rights, or anything else – or your plans will never be realized.
Robert – why would an attractive child-bearing age, healthy young White female want to jump into the world HRW, and others, are painting.
I know you have a lovely mate.
Intelligent and beautiful.
Please tell us what you did to get her on board. Did you tell her she cannot vote?
Bernard – damned right I’m insulting a lot of you grotesquely socially inept White Toads. You deserve it – and you are gonna get more. Where can we meet, in person. I want to bitch slap you. Bring RF. I’m gonna bitchslap him, twice. For being an obnoxious little bitch – and for never having a girlfriend in his entire life.
Divine – I am getting an entitely different picture of Who You Are.
Thank you.
I humby and respectfully rescind, and apologize for, all insults I have ever levelled against you.
Night Night!
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.
Astute observation, and misogyny is much more divisive than Nordicism.
they know that women are fierce when it comes to their cubs and no force on earth can defeat White men fighting for their families.
Yes, successful WN might just be about cooperation.
Too radical a concept for now, but perhaps in time…
“…Part of being a soldier is the glory – the only good part – but you don’t even have that anymore; your wives are fucking around while you are busy killing ragheads half the world away for Antichrist Kikeistan. And now they are going to take your Social Security check and give it to Goldman Sachs. LOL – what more is left but ridicule?” – Divine Comedy
—
“Don’t be so quick to embrace IQ. It has its place but it’s not everything. Asians have higher IQ on average and they are still catching up to White countries.”
And if it’s not made about race, but IQ, the Asians who are here now will quickly have us who are White and smart completely booted out of power completely — because they ARE ethnocentric, and once they get the upper hand, they’ll let us have it.
82Lena
Oy Vey! Fred Scrooby,
Poor jews living under the thumbs of white woman and forced to act like, well, jews! Yeah, it must be woman’s fault! God damb woman won’t reign in the jew for me boohoo! Are you for fucking real? But, perhaps you are right, a world without white women would be great, no capitalists, communists, globalists, jews or any other perceived evil because, well, there would be no white people to precieve such things.
You must keep in mind Lena that he is a Jew, a mischling.
You girls have it right, most of these guys against women voting are motivated by malice, they can’t get women, much less know how to please them.
Any sensible person would not advocate against women when we are fighting for our survival. What kind of insane person says that women are even worse than Jews. Mischlings shouldn’t be breeding anyway, so good riddance.
I concur with Hunter, OD needs a female contributor, preferably of Northern European descent and Nordicist.
Good article to draw out the feminist moles. Looks like we have a few here.
Good suggestions from Barb. I’ve thought about these issues before but haven’t come to a firm conclusion. However, there is much to be said for basing the franchise upon demonstrated responsibility and an established stake in the community. The current notion that an equal franchise is the inalienable right of anyone with a pulse and the ability to fog a mirror has to go. The vote must mean something again, it should be a mark of real contribution and responsibility achieved, not just a right that people are begged to exercise because they are still above room temperature. So sure, one vote for being a citizen in good standing (white with a pulse), but more votes for actually showing up in life and benefiting the folk.
If we are to keep democracy at all (and I’m curious about Robert’s ideas on what to replace it with), then it will probably have to be something similar to the Swiss model: decentralization with direct democracy. Our current system simply does not work. Without the citizen check of Swiss style direct democracy, we see what happens, and it isn’t pretty. I don’t think that it is any accident that Switzerland enjoys a high level of personal freedom, but also has a responsive and effecient government (something we can barely imagine here). The Swiss get high marks for everything from water and environmental quality, public transit, education, and health care. They have also developed the world’s best civil defense system, a true militia based on the citizen soldier model, and so forth. There is a lot to be learned from them.
As to the female issue (white ones, anyway, which are the only ones that concern us for a white nationalist society), the main problem seems to be with single females as opposed to marrieds. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen young white women transform from space cadet liberals to “sensible conservatives” after getting married and having kids. In any event, Barb’s suggestions would go a long way toward solving that particular problem.
Back to the Swiss model. Switzerland has its problems, so I would suggest the following modifications for a white nationalist society:
1. The Constitution must be explicitly tribal, making it clear that not only do the citizens have a duty of loyalty to the state, but the state has an explicit duty of loyalty to the white tribe and to its posterity.
2. The oath must be changed to include a specific racial loyalty to the folk that supersedes any other loyalty. This goes doubly for those serving in the military.
3. The Constitution must make it clear that, in a direct democracy, no particular generation of citizens has the right to give away the white nationalist homeland to those who are not of the tribe. Further, in such a situation, it would be the duty of the minority of whites who opposed such a giveaway to resort to armed insurrection if necessary. Yes, the Constitution must make specific provision for armed insurrection to, well, reinstate the tribal constitution and protect the folk. Again, this must apply to the military as well. Sellouts must know that they can’t on a pliant military, but that instead those serving will either desert or rebel as units.
4. We need a militia of true citizen soldiers, similar to the Swiss system. All males serves for at least six months (basic and speciality training for enlisted). Section leaders serve an additional six months, going to NCO school and getting at least some experience leading a section (squad). Officers serve two years, and come through the ranks. They do the six months with the enlisted men, then six months with the NCOs. Then they go to War College for about six months, where in addition to military training they should be instilled with values such as honor, loyalty, chivalry, valor and physical courage, etc. In fact, all males should have to do two years of service as a prerequisite for attending college. Just as one gets more votes (per Barb) for more responsibility demonstrated, the higher the position one seeks in society the more service must have been demonstrated – the exact opposite of today where the well to do evade service.
We need to put an end to the effete, consumer obsessed, Stuff White People Like type of upper classes. Under a true militia system as I’ve described, the colllege kids and upper classes will be made of very different stuff than what we see today.
Once finished with initial service (anywhere from six months to two years), men would return home WITH their weapons. They would then return once a year for refresher training for a few years, then perhaps move into a Home Guard or Civil Defense type organization. The total amount of service days for most men (other than officers) would not be that great, perhaps totaling one year or so over the course of their lifetimes. But the point is that males must understand that it is their personal responsibility to protect the folk at all levels, whether themselves or their families, the community or nation.
5. Reinstitute some form of the Code Duello, with the idea being to restore personal honor while minimizing deaths (perhaps boxing should predominate, and weapons only under unusual circumstances).
6. Jury nullification, particularly in matters of personal honor. If a man defends his honor, or gives an appropriate beatdown to an immoral scumbag, the jury should be informed that it has the right to find the man innocent (unlike what it would be told today, that it “must convict”). The point is that the law should be obeyed – generally. But there are cases where the letter of the law does not provide justice, and the jury must be able to deal with such cases. The deeper point is that assholes should not be able to hide behind the law as they do now. We aren’t niggers, we can handle this level of autonomy. We aren’t going to run around and burn witches, and then let them off with jury nullification. On the other hand, we can and will deal with assholes who harm the community.
7. As in Switzerland, there should be no tenure for public school teachers. Instead, three or four year contracts should be the norm, renewed (or not) by the parents in a vote. Yes, in Switzerland the parents can fire the teachers. Shocking result: responsive, high quality schools that are not at odds with the community (the folk).
8. Keeping the public schools in alignment with the community is fairly straightforward, as in #7 above. But what about major media, or universities? I haven’t decided how best to approach that problem (any ideas welcome), but it is clear that we need to make provision to guarantee that these institutions cannot be used against the folk in the future. There must be some sort of check, perhaps in the form of a referendum (direct democracy).
9. Some form of shunning or ostracism must be part of the system. If someone violates the settled basis of the folk state (as in, advocating non-white immigration or miscegenation), there needs to be some means for the folk to kick his ass to the curb. I’m not yet sure about how best to do this, but we can certainly learn a lot from the Amish on this point. We must get away from the notion that we are all rats trapped in a cage, fighting viciously over the settled basis of the community. Instead, if you oppose the settled basis, it is your responsibility to leave. Communities have a right to maintain themselves.
As this post has already gotten way too long, I’ll leave it at that. I realize that I have given short shrift to many of the issues above, and have left out many other important issues entirely. The point is that we must develop a system that allows the folk to defend itself, and prevents those that would undermine the folk from gaining the ridiculous leverage over society that they now enjoy.
This post is a step backwards – into the 19th century. Sure, there are many American women who are airheads. But would you deny April Gaede the right to vote? What about Denise, who posts on here regularly? She’s about as pro-White and as Jew-wise as they come.
The purpose of White Nationalism is not to re-create the past, but to create a future – specifically, a future for White children.
Women voting is not a problem, if it’s a white ethnostate. What are they going to do, vote socialism in, out of an ‘it take a village sentiment’? Well thank you darlings for caring for us. The problem is women voting in a Multistate, and forcing us to take care of this village that we don’t care about.
In the context of a multistate, the problem is that the female sense is not as selective or at least paranoid, on average, statistically speaking, as ours. Their sense evolved this way in context to a situation where the men always protected their own and guarded the territory.
So the Trojan horse was let in and the gates are closed. Anyways, this can be solved in a future state by stipulating in the constitution that it is to be a White ethnostate and anyone who doesn’t like that can seek asylum elsewhere. Then it won’t matter how socially just feeling whomever is.
That said,
This was a good post. Nothing will be gained by refusing to consider such ideas. The goal is a complete exhaustive diagnosis of the problem and the development of a remedy.
Garrett Hardin wrote an interesting essay “Tactics in Tackling Taboos” about his experience at the forefront of the abortion movement. He recounts a speech he gave in 1963, when abortion was much more controversial than it is now. He speech was going swimmingly until he made the point that making abortion illegal in the United States would cause rich women to leave the country for abortions, while poor women wouldn’t end up getting abortions at all. He asked in passing if it was desirable to have a system that ended up producing more children from poor and ignorant women. The hostility from the crowd was palpable. Later, reflecting on the speech he realized that he had made a huge mistake in introducing an even stronger taboo (hereditary differences in intelligence) than the taboo that was the focus of the speech.
The takeaway: focus on one taboo at a time. Otherwise you’re guaranteed to alienate people who otherwise would be sympathetic to your larger goals. And to what end?
”Oy Vey! Fred Scrooby […] Are you for fucking real? But perhaps you are right, a world without white women would be great” ( — Lena, #82)
Not without white women, just without white women permitted within a million miles of a voting booth. Paradise!
Listen to what women talk about among themselves in the run-up to a big election and on Election Day, Lena. That includes “smart” women.
If you wrote it down and published it word-for-word, people would say you made it up, nobody can be that stupid. It’s not women’s fault and they’re not stupid, they’re geniuses at that they’re interested in — namely,romantic love, babies, interpersonal relationships, and shopping. That’s it. The day elections are about those topics, only women should be allowed to vote, and men should be kept a million miles away because men would only screw up the whole election.
At present it’s the opposite.
In the above post, I mostly addressed the male problem with such proposals as a militia system, Code Duello, and so forth. History teaches us a great deal about how to deal with asshole males, and on the other hand how to bring out the best in men.
But what about females? If we achieve a society in which a man can protect his honor from asshole males, what is he to do about women? This is a tough one. In traditional Western (white) society, there are obvious methods of dealing with troublesome males, but the methods of dealing with women are far less obvious. This is because we whites are willing to use a level of blatant brutality with males that we aren’t with women.
In general, history female behavior was excellent (at least by modern standards), but how to achieve that again is less clear. I’m not interested in resorting to non-white methods of brutalizing women (bagging their heads with burqas, making them walk behind the man like a dog, the sort of shit that non-whites have traditionally pulled). Instead, whites want chivalry and honor. We consider it dishonorable to treat a woman like dirt. We have always sought to protect them (well, until recently under “progressivism”). We walked beside them, protecting them from road traffic, mud puddles or what have you. We protected them in divorce so that they would not be reduced to penury, as opposed to the Arab practice of setting her stuff outside of the house, and uttering “I divorce thee” three times.
We really did have a wonderful culture at one point, but of course it has been destroyed. How to get that portion of it back, beyond obvious measures such as reforming the divorce laws to something resembling sanity? (Actually, that one change would probably achieve a great deal)
It’s very clear to me how to restore sanity to the male portion of the population, far less clear for the female side of the equation. Having said that, I think that if we get the male problem under control, a lot of the female problem will fix itself. I’d be interested in hearing ideas on this subject.
The reality is that, without a sound white citizenry, the white ethnostate will not endure. On the other hand, with a sound white citizenry, it will endure. Therefore, the problem isn’t really white women voting per se. Barb has offered a reasonable technical solution to that particular problem. The real problem is creating a healthy culture, a healthy tribe. I’ve tried to address some of that above. It may seem off subject, but I don’t think it is.
I don’ think these posers are actually females. They are probably transvestite, federal-agent provocateurs (Tfap’s).
BTW, my wife & I both agree with the article and we have been married for nearly 20 years- AND she doesn’t work, I support my family myself.
So there…
”the problem is that the female sense is not as selective or at least paranoid, on average, statistically speaking, as ours.” ( — Mike, #92)
What’s going on, Mike, is the “us-them” thing is a testosterone effect (plus an effect of whatever hard-wired nervous-system circuits are involved). Women don’t have the “us-them” thing, weren’t born with the circuits or the testosterone, and can’t have it and still remain women. Bulldykes who shoot themselves up with testosterone sometimes have the “us-them” thing. But not women, otherwise they’d be bulldykes. The “us-them” thing is our job. Women have other things they have to do. The “us-them” thing isn’t one of them.
”this can be solved in a future state by stipulating in the constitution that it is to be a White ethnostate and anyone who doesn’t like that” can fuck off. ( — Mike, #92)
Basically agreed although in the final analysis you can never let your guard down, or before you know it the Jews will come along and say Negroes are white or some damn thing, so should be part of your white ethnostate, and all the clueless women voters and bimbo white female college students will think it’s the most intelligent thing they ever heard and vote the Jews back into genocidal overlordship.