BRA
Buzzfeed Politics compares how the 2012 electoral map would have looked under the system created by the Founders and after various Yankee improvements: black male suffrage, women’s suffrage, universal suffrage, and universal suffrage plus younger voters.
Note: These changes to the electorate have all worked to the advantage of Vermont and Massachusetts.
“Property made her more “eligible.”
No. You said most eligible.
MORE eligible is not MOST eligible. ONLY when the men are poor and dispossessed with poor prospects does woman’s property even enter into a man’s calculation about who to marry.
MOST eligible is goodlooking.
A choice between goodlooking and rich, for the average up-and-coming guy, goodlooking wins hands down.
“Teetotalism and prohibition was clearly part and parcel of Suffragette reforms.”
Nope. You don’t win the argument with that one, either. CERTAINLY the Suffragettes nagged their hubbies to vote what they wanted. But it WAS the men that did the actual voting for it.
So were Men Only to vote, the ambitious women, lacking other outlets, will nag them. As passage of Prohibition, and then, Universal Suffrage demonstrates, men can be nagged into things.
BETTER that women be given the vote as an outlet so that, at most, a lefty woman cancels only her husband’s vote, rather than that her nagged husband cancelling another, more sensible, conservative man’s vote. Meanwhile, the votes of conservative men get doubled by the wives’ sensible conforming to his interests.
MRAs either need to come to their senses and see my plan for the genius it is, or start nagging other men (especially the 48% of single White men who voted for Obama Mon DIEU!) to vote pro-White.
Susan B Anthony founder the Temperance Moverment in the US.
I win this argument. Temperance lead to Prohibition.
Barb,
You barely know what you are talking about. The Suffragists were keen Temperance busy bodies. I’m not saying that booze is a good but Prohibition was the top of the spear.
barb
What do you think the majority of WN women would do, if there were two White Republics, one allowed voting for women and one did not?
“I win this argument. Temperance lead to Prohibition.”
No ya don’t. The required VOTES to get the process started toward the enactment of the Prohibition Amendment, were cast by men.
Which utterly destroys MRAs assertion that if America was Men Only, we’d be in Shangri-La. Clearly, men are prone to being nagged into things. Ambitious anti-White women will nag, and if no other avenues are available, will nag unto death. Better her efforts are drained off by giving her a vote but LEVERAGING the voting power of conservative men and their sensible wives.
“barb
What do you think the majority of WN women would do, if there were two White Republics, one allowed voting for women and one did not?”
Equal in all respects? No naggers no jews, especially no jewesses in either one? Pick the one that allows her to vote.
But, folks, we don’t have the luxury of the choice of two White Republics. We’ve got one, anti-White, country, where women DO have the right to vote, along with anti-whites like jews blacks and the 48% of single White men who voted for Obama (Mon DIEU!)
I’ve tried to think in a practical sense of a politically palatable way to actually GET our Republic back through voting, not bloodshed. Giving marrieds TWO extra votes does it, cuz White marrieds are conservative, getting married MAKES you conservative, and giving Marrieds extra votes promotes getting married (for Whites –b lacks being dumb matriarchal Africans won’t care anyway).
barb is worse then a feminist; she is delusional enough in her thinking to think of herself as pro White man when all she does is run White men down and want to keep us tied into the same failed feminist policies ( with a small twist of course)
I have much more respect for women who are clear with their intentions toward men then I do for the women here like barb
” Ambitious anti-White women will nag”
If anti-white women or men are allowed, in a Pro White country, it would be inevitable, we’d be right back where we started, in a few decades.
Anti-whites are The Problem and they have All Got To Go. No anti-whites in a Pro White country and you have no problems with anti-whites.
What you have to figure out is how to get rid of anti-whites if and when they appear.
Make life so miserable for anti-whites, they all pack up and leave.
They are not loyal to us, so why do we want them around?
“You barely know what you are talking about. The Suffragists were keen Temperance busy bodies”
I certainly DO know that. You’re attributing a point to me I’m not making. Yes, The Suffragettes were all kinds of skilled at nagging their husbands.
But the Suffragettes did NOT vote for Prohibition, because they did not have the National vote yet.
For 18th Amendment, it WAS the men that VOTED for Prohibition. Prohibition as a bill, the first step towards amendmenthood, was passed by 2/3 vote in the 66th Congress by MEN Congressmen.
So the women got their way by nagging. Take away women’s vote and, guaranteed, the nagging will commence like you can’t imagine. You’re misogynist now? I’m telling you, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.
Better the anti-white women have the vote as a safety valve, while sensible conservative men and their sensible conservative wives vote to give themselves EXTRA voting clout.
“I have much more respect for women who are clear with their intentions toward men then I do for the women here like barb”
Aw, you’re just mad because I keep winning the argument with facts and hardheaded, persuasive analysis.
“Better the anti-white women have the vote as a safety valve, while sensible conservative men and their sensible conservative wives vote to give themselves EXTRA voting clout.”
No barb. anti-white women do not get a vote. Anti-white women get the boot.
“If anti-white women or men are allowed, in a Pro White country, it would be inevitable, we’d be right back where we started, in a few decades.”
Agreed. My proposal would make a good test. You want to take away the 2 extra votes for married (i.e., White, since blacks don’t marry) people? You’re anti-marriage, and since married White couples do the best job at making, and rearing well, White babies, ergo you are anti-White! OUT!
“No barb. anti-white women do not get a vote. Anti-white women get the boot.”
Aye, but that’s putting the cart in front of the horse, unless your way of achieving that White Republic is hot lead and cold steel.
My way is Mindweapon stuff. Advocate giving marrieds (i.e., pro-White Whites) extra votes under the marketing it’s for the purpose of promoting marriage.
Once we have that massive voting clout, tossing the anti-Whites OUT is child’s play. But we have to get that voting clout, first, which is impossible at present because anti-Whites aren’t going to vote to disenfranchise themselves. It’s going to require subterfuge.
That’s my whole point. Subterfuge. Misdirection (well, not entirely. I DO want marriage promoted. The subterfuge is in not stating the other benefit — disenfranchising anti-Whites by stealth.)
Or Hot Lead and Cold Steel.
“ONLY when the men are poor and dispossessed with poor prospects does woman’s property even enter into a man’s calculation about who to marry.”
Then you obviously haven’t hung around with very many rich people during your life.
“Once we have that massive voting clout, tossing the anti-Whites OUT is child’s play. But we have to get that voting clout, first, which is impossible at present because anti-Whites aren’t going to vote to disenfranchise themselves. It’s going to require subterfuge.”
Problem with using physical force is anti-whites will pretend to be pro white, so you can’t tell who to get rid of.
Either way, I think Pro Whites are going to secede from the anti-whites, we aren’t going to take them over. So we will start fresh with a Pro White Republic.
When we have a Pro White Republic we have the problem of anti-whites appearing within our population:
This is a rough description of Bob Whitaker’s plan, for ensuring anti-whites can’t ever come back, with their “community organizing”:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/11/10/how-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-without-universal-suffrage/comment-page-2/#comment-787366
“she is delusional enough in her thinking to think of herself as pro White man when all she does is run White men down and want to keep us tied into the same failed feminist policies ( with a small twist of course)”
Ah, pooey.
The only White men I want to run down are anti-White White men. And I put MRAs in that category, because the policies they advocate, such as stay away from White women, do not marry White women, hook up with yellow women, or tomcat around, all those policies lead to either White babies not being conceived or being poorly reared, which baby boys suffer from especially.
If you are anti-White women you are anti White babies, and that makes you anti-White. And since half of all White babies are boys, policies that lead to them not being conceived and / or well reared, makes you anti-White Men. Because what could be more anti-White men than advocating policies that lead to those men never being conceived in the first place?
Or, if you, like Stonelifter, advocate placing White women’s ova into desi uteri and then bring them to U.S. to be reared by their single-parent dad, that makes you anti White children, also, because babies need and want their mothers.
barb’s ramblings on this thread is evidence enough for me to conclude that women’s right to vote should be revoked.
Barb’s idea has merit, because there is a marriage penalty for married taxpayers. Doubling their vote would give them more representation with that taxation.
I have a question to the MRA’s who want to strip all women of the vote.
In Muslim countries, men have life and death rights over their women, but they do not have the right to vote.
I have noticed that the more powerless you feel over the political process the more control you want to exert over women in general.
So, just how much political control over the system would you be willing to forfeit, gentlemen, if the tradeoff was unlimited control over the lives of your women?
Just curious.
The reason wealthy women are more desirable to men of wealth is due to trust.
A poor woman is more likely to be with a wealthy man to fleece his wealth, then divorce him and steal what ever is left after he has caught on to her gold digging intentions.
“Problem with using physical force is anti-whites will pretend to be pro white, so you can’t tell who to get rid of.”
Right. I still say my idea’s a good one. You MUST be in favor of giving marrieds (i.e., pro-White Whites, since marriage MAKES Whites more pro-White and blacks don’t marry) extra voting power, or you’re anti-White.
That outsize extra voting clout by reliably pro-White voters (i.e., married White couples) assures that anti-White policies never get voted into the system, jewish money be damned. And we can pass laws that make anything that’s the least bit anti-White, even the mere act of agitating for anything anti-White, punishable by exile. Ah, you don’t like it? You’re anti-White, out you go.
“even the mere act of agitating for anything anti-White, punishable by exile. A”
Yeah this is what I want. Politicians usually give themselves immunity from such laws, so we need to figure out how to stop them doing that.
As for exile it is not enough, I want their money. All of it.
You saw Rudel’s reaction when I posted the link above and I saw the same reaction, from another “kosher” anti-white. He laughed at everything I said, until I said we will go after their money. Then he threw a fit.
Obviously hitting their hip pocket, when they doing their anti-white agitating, would make it impossible for them to make any progress. If they keep it up, when they are being informed on and fined, they will end up begging in the streets.
You have to remember other countries will be watching us. If we use force to get people out, we will be hit with economic sanctions. If we are clever like the Singapore govt, we can use legal means to crush opposition and there would be no sanctions from other countries.
Not on the face of it a bad idea! Children count as a half a vote.
“Then he threw a fit.”
If it was a “fit” it was a fit of laughter at your mirror image Southern Poverty Law Center lawsuit strategy combined with East German STASI style intel of children ratting out parents or some such.
As I recall you already admitted in earlier posts to being a nigger so I can only assume that playing along with nut cases like barb is your idea of some sort of disinformation campaign. Let me tell you you are wasting your time. Most of the folks who post here aren’t all that well informed to begin with. LOL!
The MRA has a lot of legitimate points. None of which you will concede because doing so would start breaking the power woman ran america gives you. Just as you love to try and but little digs into White men here like how we like V8’s. At least be honest.
You’ve not won shit. You have ignored the links with stats I posted in the past so I simply ignore yours
You could go to dalrock or the spearhead, but you simply refuse to look at their numbers because they are “anti woman” and you throw terms like bitter around like your leftist sister use the term racist.
I like it that you post here though as it shows more young White men what they will get in terms of american White women. You and all the other ladies here but one, do my work for me.
no barb your idea of extra votes still ties White men in to the corrupt family court system
men should refuse to marry until women lobby to have the divorce laws/ family court laws changed
“You MUST be in favor of giving marrieds (i.e., pro-White Whites, since marriage MAKES Whites more pro-White and blacks don’t marry) extra voting power”
I’d much rather give them money than votes. A sliding scale of subsidies based on the mean IQ of the parents and a compound multiplier for each extra child in the family. Conversely I’d offer a bounty of $250,000 to pre-pubescent black girls who agreed to be sterilized. It would actually pay for itself in the long run due to reduced lifetime welfare payments and food stamps.
“little digs into White men here like how we like V8?s”
WTF!?! Vegetable juice or small block Chevy’s with four bolt mains?
I’d offer a bounty of $250,000 to pre-pubescent black girls who agreed to be sterilized.
That would be money well spent. However, I would also add a restriction of any foodstamp or welfare benefits for life upon the 250,000 payout.
LOL
I’m a Ford man myself Rudel.
Given the two options I would choose complete authority over and responsibility for my family vs voting. The family is where most men want to spend their time, want to have the biggest impact etc and our votes don’t mean jack shit. As things stand now society, courts etc hold men responsible but go out of their way to remove our authority, and the courts are 100% against men
barb you could also check out the girl writes what youtube videos. She’s a leftist but she crushes feminism and many of your arguments and destroys the men use to leave their old wives meme. Which is something else you’ll spin away in your own mind
“You have ignored the links with stats I posted in the past so I simply ignore yours”
No, I haven’t. Either I wasn’t here to see it or you didn’t post it.
“no barb your idea of extra votes still ties White men in to the corrupt family court system ”
No, it doesn’t. Leveraging the votes of pro-Whites (i.e., married White couples) means ALL anti-White laws, including the divorce laws are up for change. Your status quo just lets you stew in your anti-White bile.
Because this whole idea of men’s marriage strike, while it, if employed, would impact the lives, right now, of lonely young men, the time it would take to actually effect policy is…decades? before enough women even notice and do something?
Decades that we don’t have, as a people. We need babies now.
And what young guy who is in love is going to refuse to marry his girl based on some abstract principle from some anonymous dudes on the internet that he ought to deny himself the joys of family life until other random women decide to go march on a Legislature building?
“men should refuse to marry until women lobby to have the divorce laws/ family court laws changed”
This whole idea of men’s marriage strike, while it, if employed, would impact the lives, right now, of lonely young men, the time it would take to actually effect policy is…decades? before enough women even notice and do something?
Decades that we don’t have, as a people. We need babies now.
And what young guy who is in love is going to refuse to marry his girl based on some abstract principle from some anonymous dudes on the internet that he ought to deny himself the joys of family life until other random women decide to go march on a Legislature building?
Also, advocating that men should refuse to marry is anti-White. Because married White couples are the only ones competent and reliable to make and rear well, White children. Your ostensibly pro-White men policy is just anti White boys. Because what’s more anti-White male than advocating policies that White males don’t get conceived, in the first place, or well reared in the second?
MRAs should go work on the 48% of single White men who voted for Obama (Mon DIEU!) Meanwhile, us pro-White women will tell our female associates to Vote Their Race.
You’ll say, why didn’t I lobby for divorce law changes? Because I don’t know the first thing about going about it. Do you? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know any lady lawyers. Nor do I have the foggiest clue WHAT the laws should be. Do you want shared custody? My state’s got it. Do you want that women are forbidden to file for divorce, ever, irrespective of reason? Because I do think that adultery should be sanctioned some way. Do you want the law back that fault must be proven, including an award of lifetime alimony if the man is proven to have cheated? What?
I mean, it’s all academic to me. I’ve never gotten divorced. After 25 years of marriage, I still love my husband. I love my kids. I hope they do a good job of choosing a mate.
Meanwhile, I’m no more empowered to change divorce laws than you are.
My idea of WNs advocating for extra votes for marrieds, if taken up by pro-White leaders, would not only help improve the p.r. of White nationalism, abut if it ever were made law, would make changing the divorce laws, and all the other anti-White laws, eminently achievable.
“barb you could also check out the girl writes what youtube videos.”
Link please? You haven’t given me much here to go on.
So Rudel is still at it with his foul smears and now outright lies.
Do we need any more evidence that this plan is the one, that upsets anti-whites most???
Here is the plan folks:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/11/10/how-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-without-universal-suffrage/comment-page-2/#comment-787366
Don Black trusts Bob Whitaker enough to use his work and so does David Duke. I guess Rudel is calling all three Niggers and Jews.
Cool story, Rudel. 🙂
When someone who refers to White people as “Mutts”, starts follows me around trying to smear me after reading one post, you know you are on to something good.
Thanks for your input Rudel. We’ll be seeing you in the future, I’m sure. 🙂
There’s only two valid aims
1) If white people in your state are already voting 70%+ as an ethnic bloc then agitating for pro-white or pro-pre-secessionary policies (e.g. state bank) or pro-secessionary policies.
2) If white people in your state aren’t already voting 70%+ as an ethnic voting bloc then trying to get them there in whatever way works best.
Blaming women en masse is not only completely pathetic it’s also completely counter-productive in both aims. If a person feels the need then it’s possible to make the exact same points using a non-100% term like “feminists” or whatever instead of a 100% term like “women.” It’s deliberate divide and rule and anyone attacking women as a whole is on the enemy’s side.
“test says:
November 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Blaming women en masse is not only completely pathetic it’s also completely counter-productive in both aims. If a person feels the need then it’s possible to make the exact same points using a non-100% term like “feminists” or whatever instead of a 100% term like “women.” It’s deliberate divide and rule and anyone attacking women as a whole is on the enemy’s side.”
Yes. ^^ THIS.
I used to frequent a pregnancy/parenting web site years ago. Right before the election, I was going through some old bookmarks and came across one for a blog run by someone else who frequented the parenting board. I read her latest blog entry. She wrote that she still didn’t know who she was going to vote for, and that perhaps she would vote for some libtard female celebrity like Rosie O’Donnell or something. Really? I thought about leaving a comment chastising her but decided it wasn’t worth my very limited time. I deleted the bookmark.
I would love to take away the right to vote for those like the person I described above, but it won’t happen. Women can vote. Truly, I wish many of them couldn’t, but they can. It will not change. And as Barb pointed out eloquently, men passed the 18th and 19th amendments and 48% of single White men voted for Obama.
All women are not the problem. All men are not the problem. Anti-whites of all genders and races are.
Africans are matriarchal. The destruction of patriarchy is implicit Africanization.
You shouldn’t argue with Barb. You should ignore her. Industrious white men did very well for hundreds of years without women having a large say in how things outside the family were run. Women voting has become a giant distraction for women from what should be their primary occupation – raising the next generation.
How every non-white people see white man’s relationship with his women:
“When someone who refers to White people as “Mutts””
I didn’t refer to White people as mutts, I referred to Englishman as “mutts” and backed it up with evidence from the stormy war torn history of England and DNA studies. Almost all Western Europeans except those in remote corners like Far Western Ireland or the Basque region derive from a fairly mixed background of various ethnicities. The Völkerwanderung after the fall of the Roman Empire ensured that.
What do you contribute to this site? Half-baked theories of fascist repression that will take place after an unspecified White National nation is established by means unknown. Sounds like you have been reading too much Ward Kendall and Harold Covington teenage adventure fiction. Grow up. Better yet, STFU and GTFO. You’re nothing but a Russian agent provocateur.