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.
H. Rock White,
The basic problems with your article are:
1. You are asking White Advocates in America to go through decades of hell, alienating 100 million potential supporters and playing into the frame that Male WNs are merely motivated by wounded feelings of lost personal status, just for the sake of making the average voter in a White Ethnostate slightly more conservative.
But it will all be worth it when the more Liberal Candidate in an election goes from getting 46% of the vote to only getting 41% of the vote, right?
Give me a break.
I may be an extremist, but I’m also not stupid.
2. You ignore that taking the vote away from Women would have the effect of greatly empowering Moral Libertarians, a group of people who’ve done FAR more damage to Whites than Socialism ever has.
3. You also ignore that the Gender Gap in voting is tiny in comparison to the gaping Marriage Gap in voting.
Really, if we’re going to risk alienating millions of people, we should at least have the intelligence to get the biggest bang for our buck by forgetting about disenfranchising Women, and instead concentrate on disenfranchising Unmarried People.
Plus an advantage of disenfranchising Unmarried People is that it will push them to the civilizing and PROFOUNDLY fertility enhancing institution of Marriage.
There are more White women in the movement than one might think. They’re more represented in the local groups than on the web forums. Many of the most prominent men in the movement rely on very motivated and productive wives. I’ll probably be accused of “white knighting” again, but men often take on the role of being the public face while women do a lot of the managerial and secretarial work.
First time commentator here. Just wanted to give a loud AMEN to Joanne Dee at #226.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, Lena.
It was inexcusably rude and presumptive of me to speak for you.
In sharp contrast, what would taking the vote away from White Women encourage them to do?
Nothing in particular.
Women aren’t distracted from family by voting or politics.
If they were the States with the most fertile Women wouldn’t have such high female participation rates in elections!
Women are distracted from family, their foundational racial duty, by their CAREERS.
So if you want to ban all Women from doing something, ban them from working. At least with that enough good would come from it to justify the heat we’d get for advocating it.
You shouldn’t have to be very bright to understand this.
No! Barb, you were not rude.
Somebody hug Reg.
Finally, more light than heat on this subject.
Unmarried people ARE the problem, including the problem of too few babies. Change the goofy perverse incentives in modern America that pays women to be single mothers and men to act like Roissy.
Entice people to marry with carrots. And discourage singlehood with some bops.
High rates of marriage (and staying married) not only addresses most of our problems, but for WNs, it makes for great talking points to the rest of White people. Modeling ourselves as marriage advocates changes the debate so we can change the image of WN out there from mysogenistic barbarians to eminently civilized people — and attract more women — and men.
And, being a woman, I often have difficulty shutting up, so bear with me for one more serial post.
Advocating more votes for marrieds also (as a happy side effect which we’re not going to talk about in public) disenfranchises negroes — who do NOT, as a rule, marry.
Barb, Lena, Swiss women first got the vote in 1972, so Switzerland in the year 1971 must have been a horrible place for women, likely a horrible place period. Right?
Wrong. I wasn’t there in 1971 to judge, but by all accounts it was a great place. I have no doubt it was great for women too.
I also have no doubt that extending the franchise to women was the worst mistake the Swiss ever made and from that point on the nation of Switzerland’s fate was sealed: it’s going to go downhill and in fact its slide is already started.
It started in 1972.
The Swiss should have kept the vote for men only.
Lena I was just over at your blog. I was very impressed with your erudition, learning, and gifts as a writer.
Erudition and learning are the same thing. I meant to put “your erudition, intellect, and gifts as a writer.”
Barb,
I essentially agree with much of all you said – especially the singles’ thing.
Your right, it promotes ‘Roissyism’ for males (and downright jungle behavior for non-whites – ) and its female counterpart – ‘grrrrl power’ ala Denise and ‘lady raine’ (remember her??).
You are truly an exemplary lady, Barb.
“it’s going to go downhill and in fact its slide is already started.”
I dunno. They voted the minaret ban. Last into the mess, first out?
Fred, consider: A married man influences his wife’s vote. (Steve Sailer did an analysis proving so.) So when he persuades her, he leverages his opinion double. But if marrieds get more votes than singles, he leverages his opinion QUADRUPLE (at least). It would take FOUR or more single people to vote opposite to him to negate his opinion.
Now, today, if a married man is unable to influence his wife, her vote negates his. Marrieds getting multiple votes, same thing. She’d negate all his votes, so no different. The upshot is, with my plan, marrieds who AGREE are far more powerful than marrieds who disagree — or anyone else in the society.
Since men aren’t likely going to be voting pro-feminist, the traditional men are going to be the ones making the decisions. Do you see the genius in such a plan? No talk of denying women the vote and getting them all stirred up. No. We’re just saying, we want to incentivize marriage, but with the EFFECT as if the silly girls among us had never been given the vote.
(I could also make an argument for making military service worthy of an extra vote. Then that man will still cast one vote un-negatable by his contrary wife who’s got no military experience.)
“You are truly an exemplary lady, Barb.”
Thank you, Kind Sir.
WN men … rhapsodize about Asian women
WN men seem to exalt in detailing their preference for non-White women.
There certainly are no examples of that here, at least as public record. I and at least a few others would protest it if there were. One violator has already been driven off after exposing his hypocrisy.
Obviously the article she uses as an example is not representative of white nationalist males, as the author is not white nationalist at all. He’s not even nationalist, as he hates American women specifically, mainly because he cannot satisfy them sexually. Why he thinks people want to know about his sexual failings is beyond me. He should discuss that with his therapist.
Thank you, Kind Sir.
I am kissing your dainty and feminine hand as we speak, Barb 🙂
==
The following passage is all the more reason for White men to not court their women like ‘blacks and brown-ies’ do, in spite of how ‘cool’ and ‘suave’ those cretins may be with, initially, ‘gittin sum’ — for the end result is ultimately the same — broken families, broken hearts and broken lives (just increasingly like so many White proles).
Even the jack-ass ‘Roissy’ can see these trends occurring –
I came in from outdoor work perhaps just in time to contribute something to this long discussion. I was thinking today of the ideal “mixed polity” or republic, in which voting, or democracy, is never predominant but always entirely “checked and balanced” by all the other equally important, essential kinds of governing. Voting is essential, but there are some members of the ideal republic who may never vote at all but nevertheless govern powerfully, in other, different ways. Through observing the complete picture of how the whole polis functions, the issue of who gets to vote appears much less important, much smaller, seen in this perspective.
I think it may be simplistic to say all women should or should not vote in an ideal republic, just as it would be to say all men should or should not vote. In a degraded, dysfunctional political system like the present American, generally everyone, even those who are slaves by nature, may be enfranchised. But now, setting aside theorizing about the ideal republic, we must admit the message of disenfranchisement of women is not practically useful in education. Education, as Thomas Aquinas described it, is leading people from the place where they are to where they should be, and we know the vast majority of contemporary women are as far removed from being quiet, obedient, modest, Biblical “keepers at home” as it is possible for them to be, so they could only be shocked and repulsed by sudden talk of disenfranchisement.
Bear in mind now I am not for disenfranchisement of all women, nor for enfranchisement of all men, and I am against the misuse of the idea of female disenfranchisement, to confuse, humiliate and scare away from us many of the best women who I believe ARE capable, and should vote.
Brothers, let’s honor and cherish our racial sisters. It can be heaven on earth with them, and hell without them. And Denise, thank you for explaining so well.
I have been beat up on so many blogs and forums that I do not even care to contribute to anything anywhere. I only read this blog and contribute when I have the time because Hunter/Prozium was kind enough to link my blog here. But no worries, I do have a pretty thick skin.
I’m sorry to hear that, Lena, I can’t imagine why they would treat you in such a negative way. They must be scoundrels, gay scoundrels at that!
Buxom blondes with nice personalities such as yourself are always welcome here! Latvians have the right idea!
You are asking White Advocates in America to go through decades of hell, alienating 100 million potential supporters
I answered this before, but it appears to have been buried in amongst the delusional rants and straw man arguments of a couple critics.
As the first paragraph states, this is in reference to the myriad secessionist and other new ethnostate proposals appearing recently. I do not propose this as party platform at my local Republican Town Committee meetings. Unless you’re talking about electoral majorities in the current modern day USA, talk of ‘alienating’ assorted blocs is ridiculous.
Not to mention the numerous attacks on WN sites various other groups which make up large portions of WNs, for example US military members, libertarians, ‘Dungeons & Dragons players’, ‘stoners’, ‘Christians’, etc-few of whom threaten to abandon WN because someone attacked some aspect of themselves.
2. You ignore that taking the vote away from Women would have the effect of greatly empowering Moral Libertarians
Completely false. Women are more libertarian on moral issues like same sex marriage, birth control, etc.
As to the ‘marriage gap’, it exists because liberals are less likely to bother getting married, because they see no point to it, whereas many ‘conservatives’ get married for religious reasons or their family expects them to. If liberals actually saw a point to getting married (getting the vote) they’d just get married and we would be right back at the same place.
The beauty of the gender restriction is not only its effectiveness, but it can’t be dodged or manipulated, and is very difficult to commit fraud on. There’s already sham marriages for immigration reasons, fraud up to the eyeballs on taxes and income reporting (not to mention the libraries full of legal manipulations), and places in Britain that sell you a tiny patch of land so that you can be a ‘Lord’.
Any tests would be designed and administered by the type of people who are party functionaries today.
Since Roissy has been mentioned on a few times on this thread, here is some information concerning that degenerate.
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/interracial-loving/
The degenerate pervert Roissy / Jim Wiedmann is a miscegenator who has sex with black women. In that pornographic post, he described such filthy behavior as “positive,” “incredibly stimulating,” “aesthetically pleasing,” and something of which he has “fond memories.”
The right to vote is of little importance. I’d rather live in an ethnostate, whether a republic, autocracy, or some other form of government, in which I did not have the right to vote, than in a decadent multiracial cesspool in which I did have the right to vote.
“I answered this before, but it appears to have been buried in amongst the delusional rants and straw man arguments of a couple critics.”
It isn’t just that this position prevents the attainment of “mass majority support”.
It would also prevent the attainment of the critical mass of support needed to actually do anything worthwhile.
As Kievsky said, your idea gives ammo to our enemies and is a bad strategy.
“Completely false. Women are more libertarian on moral issues like same sex marriage, birth control, etc.”
You here speak of averages, and ignore that the most extreme Moral Libertarians, the ones who actually want to make society far worse even than what it is now, are all Men.
Women having the vote cuts their share of the electorate in half, provides a barrier to their ideas spreading too quickly through the politically engaged population, and stops things like the mass scale legalization of Prostitution from happening.
“As to the ‘marriage gap’, it exists because liberals are less likely to bother getting married…”
That’s a lie.
The same people will become more Conservative after getting married, and especially after having children.
John Lott has written about this.
“If liberals actually saw a point to getting married (getting the vote) they’d just get married and we would be right back at the same place.”
You are vastly overestimating the degree of political commitment possessed by the typical Liberal Voter.
If a Liberal marries someone just so he can vote, he’ll be cutting off his ability to marry someone else in the future, without going through the extreme legal and financial difficulties associated with a divorce.
“There’s already sham marriages for immigration reasons…”
Normal Americans do not engage in sham marriages. The ones that do are too tiny a minority to matter from the standpoint of electoral politics.
“Any tests would be designed and administered by the type of people who are party functionaries today.”
Literacy tests worked in the old South.
Also, this point is irrelevant to the Barb/Reginald proposal to reduce and/or eliminate the voting power of unmarried people.
I just think the tone is all wrong, it’s not like women are subversive. Women in NS Germany weren’t organizing revolts, Confederate women weren’t turncoats. As someone else noted, women are risk averse, they are more likely to go along with social norms. In a white ethnostate they would support it.
Barb – I know what’s “in it” for White women.
A lot of White women do not.
It’s all about getting people from Point A to Point B.
WN is not terribly good at doing this sort of thing.
We know that voting matters very little at all.
Telling civilian women that they are going to be disenfranchised, when they are told, by the Gods of Media, almost every day, that voting is Very Very Important – well – to quote another WN female – “this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”.
Germanicus has some Gor fantasy that WN males will have more women than they know what to do with, once “we” have National Power.
Whites are pretty much completely dispossessed from power, in their own lands. The Hostile Alien Power ain’t gonna go away politely.
Germanicus fails to eludicate exactly what steps will be taken, in order to get from Point A – complete dispossession, and relentless demonization, to Point B – National Power. A Homeland.
Now – I’d like to hear, from every-one posting, exactly how this article benefits the advancement, in the real world, and does not make White Nationalists look like mental cases?
FYI – Once again – females is not going to be disenfranchised. So talking about this, as a strategem, is a complete waste of time.
The only way Western females will be disenfranchised, is if, and when the remnants of the West install Islam. It’s happening in Western Europe. Muslim males are in total control of their females. Men can kill women at will, in fact, and suffer very little punishment for doing so. If any at all. So – the implementation of Sharia may pose an attractive incentive for White Nationalist males. Muslims are essentially in control of thier own lands, unlike White men.
So fellas – why don’t you guys convert to Islam. It could get you what you want.
As McCulloch elucidated, it’s more relevant to study differences in ethnic voting patterns and behavior than it is by sex. Jews are a prime example.
Kulak – good bye and good luck to you, as well.
I do realize it’s wholly acceptable for men to make personal attacks on females – yet a return of the favor is verboten.
Germanicus is correct, but I will continue to put this question to Denise.
WN men … rhapsodize about Asian women
WN men seem to exalt in detailing their preference for non-White women.
Name them, Denise.
Here’s another element, at work, in the real world:
The Media Conservative Truimverate – Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannnity – did what they usually do, and all hype the same stories, all day long (and it does not matter if any-one here likes these creatures – millions and millions and millions of Americans do, and believe what these creatures tell them).
One of their big, and genuinely interesting stories, is that half of the people in the USA don’t pay taxes. While there all all kinds of dimensions, and caveats to this story – the Big Message is:
50% lives off of of the other 50%.
This sort of thing is Heart and Soul of the Tea Party Movement. The Movement that got lots of Average Janes and Joes out of the house, ad away from the TV.
A lot of the Tea Party groups are very very active. A lot of the groups are run by women.
Tell them that giving up their right to vote, and potentially vote out the parasites, will be wonderful and beneficial for them,
Go ahead, boys – do it.
On my All About Me part – my first thoughts, on hearing Todays Big Message, is that I can use this story as a Racialist Educational Opp.
Now why should I?
I will continue to put this question to Denise.
WN men … rhapsodize about Asian women
WN men seem to exalt in detailing their preference for non-White women.
Name them, Denise.
Denise doesn’t strike me as the kind of woman to admit she is wrong, certainly not in public like this. We can take her avoidance as concession.
I am curious if she knows of such people here, because they should be outed.
Mark I wil adress you – the repetitious post by MLGS – and now others, has been cherry picked, and is being used to drive me away. It’s a Gulag sorta tactic.
Which is fine. This tactic may or may not work.
I am certainly not going to answer that question, to “name the Asian lovers” et al, until my legitimate questions are answered.
1) How does posting ludicrous things like this article advance the case for White Nationalism, in the real world?
2) How does this get Whites a White ethnostate, in the first place?
3) Does anyone – anyone – think that this sort of thing is going to make the White Nationalist Movement appealing to any sort of normal woman?
I can respond, in kind, ad nauseum, with repetetive questions, as well.
I am Officially Ignoring this pathetic tactic. MLGS, and all others, can post it til their fingers fall off.
Great. Shows ’em up for the pathetic, catty, shrivelled, petty, pointless little martinets thaat they are.
You made an accusation and refuse to defend it, Denise, because you are unable to do so. If you could answer the question, you would already have done so. Those statements are not cherry-picked, but rather representative of your repeated hysterics about supposed “WN men” who are Asiaphiles. Only a delusional maniac could say that pointing out your mendacity and asking you to support your accusation is a “Gulag sorta tactic” and an attempt to “drive [you] away.” If you are driven away because of my challenge for your to name the men, it will be because you cannot defend your dishonesty. If you retract your claim, I will stop asking you to name them.
For the sixth time, Denise, name the “WN men” who “rhapsodize about Asian women” and “exalt in detailing their preference for non-white women.”
As I said, I agree with your concerns in the general population about Mongolophilia, but white nationalists obviously do not support it. More specifically I’ve seen no one here that defends it. I think you should substantiate your accusations towards white nationalist men and those here at OD.
I and some others here agree with you that arguing against women voting is not important and is harmful to our cause. Should be noted that Imm jumped on it as fast as he could. If Hunter were to do TV interviews no doubt this would be used against him to the fullest.
Additionally, as Denise has been furiously denouncing white nationalist men as supposedly being Asiaphiles, she has also been insulting and denigrating white men as harshly as she can and exalting black and mestizo men. She has stated that she has derived pleasure from attacking white men and praising black and mestizo men.
I’ve been to several WN group meetings. I won’t be coming back anytime soon. There are many men there who are married and time and time again they don’t bring their wives. Why? Could it be that they’re married to non-whites, maybe Asian women? Or maybe their wives are goofballs and maybe an embarassment to them if they brought them?
Since I’ve become racially aware and found this one WN group I was anxious to meet new people in the movement, network and help get things done. Big mistake. There are a few men that go to those meetings who are extremely gracious to me. The rest? I get the cold shoulder. If I sense I’m not welcome, I don’t come back.
There was another elderly lady that came to our last meeting. She was a recent widow. They rebuffed her as well. She has money to spend and time to give to the cause. By those men giving her the cold shoulder, they alienated a woman with possibly good connections and a good heart to financially contribute to the movement.
So for now I’ll continue doing what I’m doing which is my nightly street work feeding white homeless and poor people. Being involved in organizations such as the tea party movement and the NRA where most of the folks are white and whom I have a chance to educate on the racial issues. Especially women with children.
Annie, you touch upon the fact that white nationalists need to reach out to white women more and female white nationalists need to have groups and maybe organizations that speak more to them so they feel welcome and appreciated.
This thread shows the folly of taking women seriously in anything regarding politics. Feminism is always more important to modern women than anything else. This is the key reason they must be ignored (politically) by young white men. Your Father and Grandfathers made the mistake of actually giving a shit what they thought andf then let them have power equal to them. As Fred Scrooby has pointed out, this has led to a total disaster for our civilization.
Most of them become unhinged when men actually wish to reassert themselves while at the same time screaming that men need to reassert themselves. They are all over the map. They are to be ignored as they do not know what is best for them. Women need to take their place politically as a backdrop of history.
Women really are better at homemaking than politics.
Barb being an exception. She is the only woman posting on this blog that is not a harpie.
The WN movement will have to bring in women and families to get off the ground. The men will have to know how to handle the women’s concerns without shitting on them. Thank you, girls, for exposing a new marketing opportunity.
And women will have to reset standards for the the men to live up to. If you want to be treated like ladies, mothers, and daughters, then you’ll have to present yourself as such. Cussing, whoring around and generally acting like the equals of unruly boys destroys your credibility. Women need to rebuild healthy social spaces, and get men’s help to secure the boundaries. Strong, respectable men must once again be in political control, but women must take the social lead and give the men something worth fighting for.
Ferdinand Bardamu is as degenerate as his hero and mentor, Roissy / James C. Wiedmann. Like Roissy / Jim Wiedmann, he revels in miscegenation and is a sexual pervert and moral degenerate. Furthermore, though he expresses antipathy toward Denise, they are really two peas in a pod, much like Roissy and Lady Raine are. Bardamu engages in the churlish “prole behavior” of which Denise approves, and he is as crude, vulgar, obscene, and profane as she is.
Any white racialist who thinks the Roissysphere/Steveosphere/HBD-sphere (all three names are idiotic, but that is what they call themselves) are beneficial for us ought to reconsider this view. The HBD/Race realist/Game types are vacuous and gutless. They run from the issues that truly matter, and many are degenerates.
3. You also ignore that the Gender Gap in voting is tiny in comparison to the gaping Marriage Gap in voting.
Really, if we’re going to risk alienating millions of people, we should at least have the intelligence to get the biggest bang for our buck by forgetting about disenfranchising Women, and instead concentrate on disenfranchising Unmarried People.
Plus an advantage of disenfranchising Unmarried People is that it will push them to the civilizing and PROFOUNDLY fertility enhancing institution of Marriage.
Outstanding.
Since I’ve become racially aware and found this one WN group I was anxious to meet new people in the movement, network and help get things done. Big mistake. There are a few men that go to those meetings who are extremely gracious to me. The rest? I get the cold shoulder. If I sense I’m not welcome, I don’t come back.
Got news for you: This happens as well to virtually all the ‘newbies’, not just in ‘WN’ movements, but anywhere (well, maybe with the exception of the commies, since they seemingly can’t wait to get another recruit to hate on Whites).
As well, with any movement that deals with ‘Whiteness’ is always going to be plagued by suspicion by those already in the organization that the ‘initiate’ may well be a Fed or an informer, so please be a bit more tolerant and understanding of these realities.
*As well, imho, please do not make the mistake that because you are a women that these guys have to turn their serious work into some kind of social club, or that in any way they should be giving you disproportionate attention due to your gender. Many of us became WN because we reject ‘affirmative action’ – and we are not going to start turning positions of influence and control over to women simply because they show-up.
Again, like I said in a few comments previously, this is no better than the Tea Bagger nerds that trip over and piss themselves when a black or mestizo face comes around and deigns to ‘grace’ them with there mere presence.
In our movement, everyone must earn their position, and their respect.
Charlemagne: I’m not asking anyone to bend over backwards for me. All I wanted was a response when I came up to some man and talked to him! Not some grumbling or inane answer and then turn his back on me! I wasn’t interested in some long dissertation, just a simple courtesy of small talk, period!
Earn their respect? I’ve done nothing to NOT earn their respect. I was invited to these meetings – I didn’t know they existed and was continually invited to subsequent meetings as a few of the men there realized my value.
Millirone – I take serious issue with your statement of a harpy. Anytime a woman disagrees or points out the hypocrisy in the WN movement, many of you are quick to resort to name calling or being hateful.
I’ve not done any of the above, name calling OR being disrespectful to anyone on this board. However, it’s apparent that the WN movement will never move forward when you have these backward thinking men.
To the men on this board who continue to make hateful comments about women, shame on you! It’s apparent your Momma didn’t raise you right. Good enough, stay in your little WN circle jerk.
I’ll do my activism in the real world.
“Strong, respectable men must once again be in political control, but women must take the social lead and give the men something worth fighting for.”
Agreed, but I’d like to add: I found something on the internet that I found intriguing and rang true: In the debate running up to the 19th amendment, women who opposed women’s suffrage made this argument:
Women, who are emotional and social, are profoundly fitted to dealing with the local sphere.
That includes home and children — but it also includes running the charities and local agencies. When a woman deals with someone she knows personally, her “pity reflex” is mitigated by her personal experience with that person. So political involvement at the local level, where she knows the citizens, is a good place for women. But at the national level where everyone is anonymous and group averages must be considered, the emotionalism leads to disaster. That’s why women do not belong in federal gov’t.
Welfare today is a screeching failure in part or total because it’s run at the federal level.
Charity takers MUST be known by the admins, who will carefully disburse the hard-gotten donations only to those who are truly the victims of just bad luck. Ne’er-do-wells, alcoholics and lazy bums need to be SHAMED (something women are very, very good at) into behaving uprightly.
But with modern federal level welfare, the caseworkers, who have invested no effort of their own to acquire the monies to be disbursed and who have the incentive to increase their caseloads in order to make their jobs more secure, have no motivation to shame the shameless takers. And because the takers are not personally known to the caseworkers in any case, she has no particular insight into who’s deserving and who’s not, anyway.
So what happened when women were let into federal politics? They went to Congress and took with their normal function of disbursing charity and applied it nationwide. Oooops.
So now we see the divorces, single mothers, disgenics, the “pity” for the illegal aliens resulting in mass immigration, the fact that 50% of America lives off the other 50%, all stem from the fact that the women aid-givers don’t know their clients and don’t have any reason to care who’s worthy and who’s not, anyhow.
So my long-winded point is coming, hang in there.
Women DO belong in local politics, but NOT federal.
Charlemagne: I’m not asking anyone to bend over backwards for me. All I wanted was a response when I came up to some man and talked to him! Not some grumbling or inane answer and then turn his back on me! I wasn’t interested in some long dissertation, just a simple courtesy of small talk, period!
Annie,
I did not mean to take such a strident tone with you, so forgive me if I came across that way.
Much of what I said regarding how newbies are treated really does hold true. I went to several meetings of various political sorts where I was also seemingly ignored and ‘socially shunned’ by many — and I am a big, athletic Nordish-looking fellow — still didn’t help.
At first, I thought maybe it was because of my last name (ends in a vowel – I’m French descent), then I thought perhaps it was because I was relatively new to the scene – bingo.
A lot of these guys, you have to remember as well, especially the IHR folks, while I am sure they are sympathetic to WN, is certainly not their primary, or even secondary focus, since they are academics and scholars, not street activists, and it takes a fair amount of time to even begin to ‘bond’ with any of them.
Good luck out there in CA.
Barb #297,
Fantastic post.
Here is an article from The Thinking Housewife I think touches upon some of the same points you did –
The Thinking Housewife › The Conservative Feminist Sisterhood
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/04/the-conservative-feminist-sisterhood/
#287 – Annie, don’t go away because of some huge egos on the part of a few. Most of us are very frustrated. I understand exactly where you’re coming from but I also understand where some of the guys are coming from. You’ll be walking away from all of us.
Whites do not defend or respect other whites. We are too competitive with – and sometimes resentful of – each other. Instead of joining forces, we work against each other. From the job to the neighborhood to society in general, we make no attempt to support the race. We exhibit no class or dignity and show no respect or civility – unless, of course, “there’s something in it for me.” We don’t care if our children talk properly, spell properly, or act properly. We have destroyed the foundation of Western culture… cohesion, because it’s all about ME!
Our males want whores and our females oblige. We idolized the skanks of society and contribute our money to institutions that work to destroy us. We don’t ostracize those that “US.” It’s far easier not to.
Lester Maddox once responded to a journalist when asked how to stop prisoners from rioting and improve the prison system… Well, what we need is a better class of prisoner.
What we need is a better class of whites.
I mean to say “We don’t ostracize those that hurt “US.”
Our males want whores and our females oblige.
Joanne,
Not to continue to flog a dead equine – but as the old adage goes – “Men display, Women choose”.
Let us never overlook the highly disproportionate role that female hypergamy has wrought on American and Western Civilization.
Barb,
I completely agree with your post #297. Regaining local control of communities and government is among my strongest political desires, for many reasons. Luckily, it is a popular idea everywhere just now.