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.
Why stop there? Let’s go back to our pre-Jacksonian roots: restricting the franchise to white male property owners. It doesn’t make sense to allow people who don’t pay taxes to vote.
If more women were like this chick we’d be alright!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230666/Denise-Helms-Woman-fired-reported-Secret-Service-Facebook-threat-President-Obama.html?ICO=most_read_module
30 years or older, property owner, net taxpayer, male.
Oh, but that would be “white supremacy”!
” …but that would be “white supremacy”!”
But that would be the America the Founding Fathers created, envisioned, and left to ‘…us, and our Posterity.’
More and more, I see these gentlemen as saints- men ennobled with the Holy Spirit who saw the future, and could read the past, whose masonic membershipwas little more than play acting, a ‘good ol’ boys club’, etc., precisely because their involvement with it predated 1776, Weishaupt, and the creation of the Illuminati.
All of the current ‘de-sanctification’ of the Founders is, imho, an attempt to demonize DWEM’s, and nothing more.
This article below clearly shows that divine providence was linking our past with THE Past, and why Christianity clearly is, (and of a right ought to be) the “White Man’s religion.” Andy why America will not exist, without the ‘symphony’ of Church and State.
http://faithandheritage.com/2012/10/conservative-historians-refuted/
Change took place: what drove the change?
It was the Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. The Zoroastrian idea that despite bodily differences, the souls of people are equal and will be judged by God based on their good or evil deeds.
Against that what do we hope to juxtapose?
For that we must look to peoples that have managed to resist being blended into a universal humanity: not the Persians, but the Chinese.
The Chinese are a naturalist people and a heirarchical people. “Justice” is not afforded to the individual, but to the society as a whole. Societies have to be grounded in anti-universalist beliefs or they will go the way of the ancient Persians into Brown Out.
Whites world wide, not just Alabama, face a Brown Out. What would you abandon to preserve your people?
An interesting illustration of HOW LAWS CAN BE USED to create the “electorate” that suits “Ruling Elites.”
Idk, Afterthought—
Authoritarianism did not help Europe. Fascism morphed in the U.S. into Militarist-Corporatist-Medicalism BUT with a “multi-cult.”
That’s what Fascism became in the U.S., (and the System also used all the “left” think-tanked advances in social control, using “psychiatry,” (anthropology, etc, the newly created “social sciences,” and so on).
There is no going back.
I wonder how many White yankees who voted for romney would have renigged if the nig wasn’t doing such a shit job?
Plus lets not get joyous over the map. the damnyankee gave us lincoln which is why we have most of these problems
Buried in the link, Jim—
—-is a story of a dead pig wrapped in a “Romney t-shirt” left outside a now closed-down Republican campaign office.
This is what Calhoun, in the other post, was saying about Yankees.
When they win— they hate more. It is a cue to do harm.
They cannot “take in the reality of the other.” Winning is perceived as a “revenge.”
Who cares what the vote looks like or who has it? The government has clearly indicated that it doesn’t care at all what the “voice of the people” says.
In the first term of the evil George Bush, the president himself went on record saying that he was going to ignore the laws he had taken an oath to uphold, and that in his view anyone from anywhere could illegally barge into the country he had sworn to defend, so long as they were willing to work more cheaply than an American. He really said that.
In the second term of the evil George Bush, his evil amnesty plan was shouted down by the American people, and yet two years later it had been put back on the table, and now Boehner is going to cave on something the American voters explicitly and actively rejected.
In 2010 midterms the Tea Party swept Congress clean and installed a new House, which promptly ignored their wishes.
Voting merely selects which individual vulture will get to sit in the chair and enjoy the perks of office. Voting does not select the course that the country will take, which is decided elsewhere without the electorate’s knowledge or consent.
I opened your link to “What the Map Would Have Looked Like” and noted the map showing “if only white men and women had voted” — where only the six New England states and New York, and Washington and Oregon, remain persistently blue, and all other states are red!
The main factor that tips the balance nationwide seems to be the Megapolis that stretches from Boston to Washington D.C.
To understand and interpret the elections results properly, we need to consider the trees (counties, and local-level political conditions) also, not just the forests (states) — and also correlate local electoral results with population density (urban or semi-rural or rural) and demographic statistics and trends, and historical factors such as those behind why some white “traditional Democrats” continue to vote straight ticket.
Best of all was the map “If Only White Men had voted” — no problem there, except three New England states (including, of course, Vermont and Massachusetts) and “Portlandia.”
Interpretations based on state maps and results are too easy and simplistic.
The simple fact of the matter is that we were soundly beaten for two reasons: our side surrendered the moral high ground and humanities to the enemy, and our leaders delt with the enemy in good faith that they would do what was best for everyone.
Since abandoning the highground our people have essentially been routed. Oh they win a skirmish here or there, but the majority of us are in full retreat or defecting to and surrendering to the enemy. We hardliners are now in the citadel manning the walls as Yankees sappers are at work to bring down our last bastion, the South.
Are greatest weakness is that we lack funds and influence.
These changes to the electorate have all worked to the advantage of Vermont and Massachusetts.
Another vindication of White Nationalist vanguardists (among various other Rightists from different schools and traditions). The more egalitarian America has become, the sicker it has become. True all over Europe and every nation of the Euro diaspora.
“Yankee sappers are at work to bring down our last bastion, the South” — another variation of the constant theme of this site.
Mosin Nagant said
“The main factor that tips the balance nationwide seems to be the Megapolis that stretches from Boston to Washington D.C.”
😉 They should have their own country, then- unencumbered by the “less enlightened”. The minions, at least, seem more than happy to let us go so that they can have their way. Time is of the essence. In a few weeks, barring any truly heavy misery coming down, White Americans will have lapsed back into their stupor & resignation. God Only Knows what the left will do next. We can’t be too hasty but we sure can’t dally, either.
So, analyzing the map, we see that the “women’s vote” resulted in only 60 more lefty electoral votes than “White men only,” whereas we also seel on this map, giving minority men (sans any women at all) the vote resulted in 179 more electoral votes!
So “just men” voting is far more lefty than “just Whites” (meaning including White women).
How can this be? Because White women who vote are generally married women. Married White women are far more conservative than single White men!
As always, contra the MRAs, White *people* (meaning White men and White women) is a far more conservative bloc than “men” (meaning White married and single men, black men, mestizo men and jewish men).
So, was giving “women” the vote the cause of America’s veer hard left? No, if by women you are referring to White women (which IS what MRAs are always talking about).
No. The problem sprung from giving minorities the vote (meaning black women and men, and mestizo women men and jewish women — especially, especially jewish women — and men.).
And note, the HARD swing left from giving minority men the vote was much greater than when you compare “White men only” to “Men and Women” (because White married women vote conservative — 63% went for Romney, which is 12% more than even single White men). So giving “women” the vote (and by that I mean White married women, since that’s the lion’s share of women who vote) resulted in a swing BACK towards conservatism from the status quo of “men only” (including minority men) voting.
And NOTE: It was WHITE MEN who decided to give minority men the vote — and this all happened BEFORE White Suffragettes nagged their hubbies into letting them vote.
SO, it’s a reasonable conclusion that were MRAs fantasy to come true of taking away women’s vote, America would be more left than before!
So MRAs are unintelligent, innumerate and emotional leftyism promoters — which, ironically, are the insults they often direct at White women!
Back on my hobby horse.
To disenfranchise the hard leftists and (and extremely weakly, only just barely, right-leaning White men), we ought to make it a WN platform plank to give married couples two extra votes, as a reward for being the responsible people in society.
Doing so leverages married White women’s and married White men’s conservatism, while diminishing the leftyist inclinations of minorities (who don’t marry) AND single people (including single White men!)
and extremely weakly, only just barely, right-leaning White men)
Edit: extremely weakly, only just barely, right-leaning SINGLE White men
“30 years or older, property owner, net taxpayer, male.”
Nope.
Has to be 30 years or older, net taxpayer, MARRIED.
Because single White men, having voted for Obama 48%, are too lefty.
Has to be married.
Since married White women are reliably conservative (only 37% for Obama, 63% for Romney) we can let them keep their vote.
The main problem is that whites, who are generally unexposed to black depredations get to vote at all. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine should be banned from voting in the electoral college as they are too white. Swap them for Quebec or something.
From a post by Landshark on another thread:
“None of them are reading this, and certainly none of them hate that alignment. So you’re not hitting your target audience. You’re hitting people from the North that have happened to have woken up. Sure, you’re doing it for the benefit of your Southron readers, your main target audience. But the gratuitous demonization seems self-defeating in the overall scheme of things. Wouldn’t the idea be to be seen favorably by people in the north inclined to your ideology?
Shit, people get tired of being called “damn Yankees.” I have a feeling the constant pestering was one of the aggravating causes of the Civil War.”
Meanwhile on *this* thread, he says: “30 years or older, property owner, net taxpayer, male.”
So, Hunter, he DOESN’T want you to do any “self-defeating gratuitous demonization” and overgeneralization and alienation of any hypothetical recently-awakened Yankees, but he’s *perfectly* willing to demonize an ENTIRE demographic — married White women — needed for a repaired America or even just a Southron nation, by telling them, YOU don’t deserve to vote.
Huh?
Headscratch.
Ironic when MRAs exhibit the very traits they accuse White women of: self-contradiction and poor analytical thinking.
There are a couple problems with that whites-only electoral map. One, they gave New York to Obama even though the exit polls show that Obama and Romney tied among white voters at 49% each. New York should properly be classified as undecided.
Two, because there are no exit polls from 19 states and DC, they had to guess who the white vote went to in all those places. I believe that they guessed correctly in all of them except Delaware, which they gave to Obama. Delaware voted 62% for Obama, as did neighbouring Maryland. But in Maryland only 43% of whites voted for Obama, down from 56% in 2008, the biggest statewide drop in the nation. White Marylanders’ initial infatuation with Obama is clearly over and they seem to be returning to their Southern roots in voting patterns. Whether this also happened in Delaware is unclear, but they shouldn’t have given the state to Obama based on zero evidence. Instead, Delaware should be classified as undecided as well.
So the whites-only electoral vote should properly be listed as 441 for Romney, 65 for Obama, and 32 undecided. Compare this to the 2008 whites-only electoral vote of 315 for McCain and 223 for Obama.
If we break down the whites-only electoral vote by region, the Northeast voted 34 for Romney, 33 for Obama, with 29 EVs (NY) undecided. This compares with 2008 when Obama won 65 EVs compared with McCain’s 36.
In the Midwest, Romney won 112 EVs compared to only 6 (IA) for Obama. In 2008, Obama edged out McCain 65-59.
In the South, Romney romped to victory with 190 EVs compared to 3 (DC) for Obama and 3 (DE) undecided. In 2008, McCain trounced Obama 173-16.
In the West, Romney won 105 EVs compared to 23 (WA OR HI) for Obama. In 2008, Obama beat McCain 77-47.
So we see that whites in the Midwest and West thoroughly denigged since 2008, and even the Northeast partially denigged. The South never nigged in the first place. The only sub-region not to denig, and where Obama’s share of the white vote held steady since 2008, is New England, the last bastion of race traitorism in America.
Gippo,
The upper Midwest Renigged. 313Chris was on here lying about white enthusiasm for Romney among whites.
Wrong again, John. Romney won the theoretical whites-only electoral vote in the Midwest 112 to 6 (but I repeat myself), he won 11 of 12 states and the white popular vote by about 57% to 42%. Whatever your definition of the ‘Upper Midwest’ is, among white voters Romney won it easily.
“Who cares what the vote looks like or who has it? The government has clearly indicated that it doesn’t care at all what the “voice of the people” says.”
If the people vote their will either through the state legislatures or through the initiative process in states that have it the laws are overturned in the courts. Think Brown vs. Board of Education in ’54 or Roe v. Wade in ’73 or any number of other state laws such as voter validation or immigration or gay marriage etc etc etc.
The executive branch hasn’t bothered to get a declaration of war since 1941, just a bunch of mealy mouthed resolutions surrendering that power to the executive branch.
Obama ignores even those nowadays, ruling by executive orders that overturn the laws on immigration or just ignoring any semblance of legality whatsoever such as his unilateral use of military force in Libya.
Ave Caesar!
” he’s *perfectly* willing to demonize an ENTIRE demographic — married White women”
In European civilization going back for millennia women have had the right to inherit property but not to vote. This is as it should be.
Good visuals. Max usage would see it sent to seething, fence-sitting freepers and such.
I can only imagine the reactions of Rimjob and 313’s.
Some Brits despise New Englanders who revolted against the monarchy, and “Yankees” is their favourite pejorative label — and even for Americans in general. Those foolish rebels who could have remained British but didn’t want to pay taxes!
jeppo, your reasoned dispassionate analysis is refreshing here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mosin.
“The main problem is that whites, who are generally unexposed to black depredations get to vote at all.”
Oh, yeah?
Explain Wyoming.
We are only slightly less-White than Vermont. (And this mild browning is due to an influx of Mexican mestizos just the last 10 years or so. Damned cockroaches get into *everything*.)
Yet, White as we are, we are SOLIDLY red. Always read. Second only to Mississippi red. And this has always been true. Even when we were 98% White we were voted conservative. (Occasionally we would elect a Democratic governor — who governed like Wallace because the Republican legislature wouldn’t let him get away with any shit.)
So if it’s proximity to blacks that makes Whites sensible, why are Wyomingites sensible?
No. The South is red for the same reason Wyoming is red. We are the same people, and this is our nature. See, Wyoming’s founding stock is former Confederate soldiers who, having lost their property by Sherman, came to Wyoming to be cowboys. You’ll note, when they came after the Civil War to be cowpokes, they did NOT bring the naggers with ’em.
Ah, Wonderful Wyo,
where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play.
Where seldom is heard
a discouraging word
and you’ll see no darkies, all day.
“In European civilization going back for millennia women have had the right to inherit property but not to vote. This is as it should be”
Sputtering.
SO, men without property can vote themselves the goodies off of women propertyholders. Got it.
YOU, sir, are a communist.
“Those foolish rebels who could have remained British but didn’t want to pay taxes!”
Nobody likes to pay taxes. The issue was really more of one of taxation without representation.
No need to take the vote from women. All we need is to create a for profit industry that sues and fines anti-whites and the people that back them financially.
The Jews have their Holocaust Industry which makes them billions. We will have the White Genocide Industry. If we don’t have the White Genocide Industry, we would lose anything we took back in a short time.
“Has to be 30 years or older, net taxpayer, MARRIED.
Because single White men, having voted for Obama 48%, are too lefty.
Has to be married.”
While I sympathize with your support of the institution of marriage, single men are far less likely to own “real property” land, buildings, and improvements. “Net taxpayer” should not be a requirement since taxes should only be levied on real property and through excise duties and tariffs. The taxing of earned income is an abomination as it inhibits the accumulation of capital and therefore decreases productive enterprise and the upward social mobility of the productive hard worker into the property owning class.
Barb,
Don’t argue for the sake of arguing. It’s exhausting. Exhausting. You understood the point.
Fcking feminists. There’s no need to hide the aim in some clever structural reform.
Just kick the shit out of blacks. Simples.
patriarchy worked. Dismantling it and giving power to women has not. Hells bells the harridans here aren’t even great full for the vote but do more bitching and can’t even began to comprehend women are part of the problem
@English John
Did Hunter forget to put fresh food in your dish this morning? Just lay down facing the front door. He’ll get home eventually.
@Yancey
So when’s you Dixie boys’ big secession gonna happen? You guys said ” worse is better” all year long. So let’s see it. What, you mean it was just all talk? Well I can’t say I’m surprised, but cheerleader-John is gonna be heartbroken. He actually believed your bullshit, LOL.
Thanks for that Barb.
I should have said why antagonize as yet undecided Yankee men who object to the use of that term.
Women who aren’t man-haters have no problem not voting, and I’m not going to convince any man-haters to see things differently. But a Yankee man might have been convinced otherwise before he realized he was already classified as the enemy.
I’m not an MRA. As I said before, I don’t want women voting because it’s the second form of multiculturalism, the first being destruction of the Faith, and the third being the color issue, and I’m not a multicultist. There are many women who are fine with that. There aren’t many men who enjoy being slandered before they’ve opened their mouths.
“patriarchy worked. Dismantling it and giving power to women has not. Hells bells the harridans here aren’t even great full for the vote but do more bitching and can’t even began to comprehend women are part of the problem”
Ah, but patriarchy DIDN’T work. The patriarchs gave the vote to minority men (and, note, this was long before the Suffragettes nagged hubby into voting to give her a vote). Take away White women’s vote and give the patriarchs sole voting power back, and we’ll be here again, toot sweet. The patriarchs gave their wives votes and that helped (didn’t ENTIRELY fix the problem they’d created giving minority men a vote, but it helped) swing things back towards better — as shown by the fact that Married White women vote conservatively.
I comprehend the problem perfectly, SL.
The problems are:
1. Minorities (non-White people, male and female. Particularly the jewish minority. White women are NOT a minority since numerically they outnumber White men.)
2. Single people (most especially single mothers, but even single men are scarily lefty — having voted for Obama 48%. Mon dieu!)
Now, you can recombine them and say poor people (since minorities and single folks are generally poorer than White married folks.) You can say “women” are the problem, but that’s not even quite right. Minority women, especially, especially, Jewish women are a problem, and single women, especially, especially, single mothers are a problem, but Married White women are NOT a problem.
Married White women, who are more conservative than single White men, are part of the SOLUTION.
Therefore, the problem is NOT “women” but minorities and single people.
The answer therefore is to double the effective voting power of the responsible folks in society: give Marrieds two extra votes. (Since minorities don’t marry, you’ve solved one problem. Since single men are a near-problem, you’ve solved that issue, too.)
“harridans here aren’t even great full for the vote”
It’s because I AM grateful for my vote that I’m bothering to try to make my case. You are the ungrateful one, because you’d rather have your petty revenge on all women, because you’re ticked off at your bitch of an exwife than ACTUALLY make a country for White people and a future for White children.
Sorry about your exwife. Shit happens. It happens a lot. I’d be sympathetic, but for the fact that you are trying to get your revenge on HER by making my children’s lot in life worse.
“can’t even began to comprehend women are part of the problem”
Any reasonable person who has read my data-driven, incisive analysis, can see that in FACT I comprehend that, in fact, *some* women are a problem. I ALSO, unlike you, recognize that some women are not a problem, but an asset, and I have developed a SOLUTION, a politically palatable solution, that would leverage the voting power of women who are our allies and disenfranchise the problem women (and men).
It’s YOU , SL that’s stuck on stupid — and namecalling.
“Women who aren’t man-haters have no problem not voting”
LS, I am neither a manhater, nor a womanhater. I have children of both genders. I can see that married White women are an asset. If we disenfranchise them, we are leveraging the power of anti-Whites (including the 48% of single White men who are anti-Whites).
The solution is, be careful whose vote you leverage. My plan, doubling the voting clout of marrieds, accomplishes ALL the goals we say we want, in a politically palatable way, withOUT ticking off people who are on our side.
But barb, why throw women’s issues into the mix? It only splits the men again, then those cracks can be widened by further dissemblers.
I like the idea of weighting the ballot to increase the vote of a parental unit.
But it’s too clever by half, it hides the racial intent. It could also turn negresses into queen bees who pump out niglettes by the dozen.
I’m fine with only married men voting barb. Doesn’t bother me.