FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Female Power and the Vote

Before female suffrage there had already been a huge and influential temperance movement for decades.  It was partly the cause of sanctimonious WASPs trying to sabotage the finer things in life for Catholic immigrants.
More importantly, though, it was staunchly backed by legions of matronly housewives who resented their husbands spending money at the pub instead of on her kids.

The prominence of the temperance movement shows us that women had great political influence long before they got the vote.  Not to mention, history is replete with concubines and mistresses who molded the most iron-fisted emperors to their wills.
Average Joes were like play-doh in their hands when it came to pursuing a political agenda.  Moral pontificating from ladies’ associations backed by sob stories about drunk and abusive husbands was enough to trigger vast armies of white knights into action.

Female suffrage, then, was overkill.  The temperance movement grew from an already powerful political lobby into an overwhelming force that banned alcohol altogether, with disastrous results.  With females given the vote themselves soon afterwards, they were all but crowned as empresses.

As we would expect, the West has become a de facto matriarchy.  Women bloc vote more than men since they are by nature more collectivist and can recruit the millions of white knights who are already under their control.  

 If we look at the particulars of the female vote, we notice there is one great divide in the matriarchy.  Single and married women play a great game of tug-of-war over society’s resources.  Married women mostly try to enable the wellbeing of their husbands and families.  Single women, on the other hand, try to provision themselves by using government as an extractive proxy provider.  Worse, they form traitorous alliances with hostile outside tribes to pry even more concessions from the married woman side of the matriarchy and the masses of hapless male helots.

An eternal truth, though, is matriarchies last only until the next invasion.  A society that doesn’t make its men the primary shareholders, always loses.  As much as people like to speak of fairness and equality, women simply don’t have the same territorial impulses common in men.  Whenever some bereaved band of unfortunates comes begging at the gates, women evaluate the situation through the nurturing instinct rather than the male’s timeless drive to act as guardian.  The territory itself to some extent is naturally a male concept.  Females, in some sense, have no country, especially when they are young and single.  A conquerer who just butchered all the boys she grew up with will get her pregnant just fine.  He might even be an upgrade as far as her genes are concerned.

When the walled city is under attack, every man knows he will be killed or enslaved, his family dissolved, his property plundered if he’s on the losing side.  For young women, especially those without kids, the consequence of conquest has been the inconvenient shuffling from one sheikh’s tent to another’s.  Even older women are not expected to risk their lives on society’s front line as men are though they have outlived their immediate usefulness to mother nature.  Modern society erroneously continues to assume they are involved in nurturing young ones even as they age.  

Women simply don’t have as much skin in the game.  As a perpetually protected class they haven’t undergone the brutal culling of life and death struggle for power, status, and territory every male ancestor has survived through back to y chromosomal Adam.  Women just don’t understand high stakes and danger in the same way or with the same sense of urgency that goes down to every male’s very marrow.  The way women fear rape by undesirable men to the very bottom of their psyche, men fear being conquered and disenfranchised.  

First the tribe must protect its holdings, then other issues may be settled.
At the very least, we could recognize the incentives and natural tendencies that make single and childless women unreliable potential traitors and thereby strip them of the vote and bar them from political office.  Principles aside, we might hope this would sufficiently compensate for the vast underground reservoir of female soft power that has always been there.

When weighing whether someone should vote, whatever their sex, we might ask: “What happens to them and their own if the walled city gets sacked?” Beyond that, we ought to test for judgment and intelligence.  After all, weak and stupid men were pawns of women anyway back in the “good old days” before women could vote.  Maybe it’s better a competent woman who owns property, has kids, and runs a business can vote while a man of poor character and weak wits who she’d manipulate with ease loses his vote.  Perhaps then we approach a somewhat more balanced equation where soft influence and hard power coincide.  Though the tribe is founded and defended by men, the reality of female power might then be incorporated within reason into a functional political system.

17 responses to “Female Power and the Vote

  1. oogenhand June 25, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    Turn the tables. Don’t Holocaust enemy women, put them in your harem. Four wives is NOT enough.

    Monogamy: dorks breed.
    Celibacy: nerds don’t breed.

    Polygamy is the solution.

    • Mycroft Jones June 25, 2017 at 11:13 pm

      Recent research shows that the older the father, the longer his children are likely to live. Something to do with telomeres and sperm being unique.

      Now, in a monogamous society, marital ages are fairly equal. A recent computer simulation in which every man was given 2 wives, shows that this isn’t a physical impossibility. The result was that every man who reached the age of 27 (or during periods of extreme low birth-rate, 40) had two teenage brides. The numbers just work out; bring polygamy back, men will marry a bit later, life-spans and overall genetic health will increase. And no man will go without a wife who wouldn’t go without a wife under monogamy. But the better men will breed more, having more wives.

      Monogamy is a perverted system, which has empowered and enabled all the white knight crap. You will notice Muslim societies never fall too far into white-knightism. After periods of liberalism and feminism, the pendulum reverses quickly.

      • Sam J. June 26, 2017 at 7:50 am

        “…Recent research shows that the older the father, the longer his children are likely to live…”

        That’s really interesting.

        I can’t say I agree with you on polygamy. I don’t see Muslim States as a decent model to follow. Monogamy leans towards more of a middle class less violent society which I prefer.

        I think in order to convince me you would have to come up with some model on how Muslim societies had better “genetic health” than European monogamist societies which ,after all, ruled the world for a fairly long time and even in our dotage are not outright beggars.

        If we want to choose success then why not choose Negros which seem to be exploding in population? Have sex with Women then leave then.

      • Giovanni Dannato June 26, 2017 at 3:19 pm

        The lifespan of any animal will correspond to how long it is practical for one specimen to survive and reproduce. The age our ancestors were finished having kids or dying from environmental hazards is the cutoff point where we start getting old.
        Our own bodies stop investing in our survival as we start to outlive our use to nature’s plan.
        So the older we reproduce, the more we justify more years of life for the species.

    • Ex-Ranza June 27, 2017 at 10:41 pm

      What is the difference between a dork and a nerd?
      What politics do they espouse?
      What jobs do they tend to have?
      What websites do they visit?
      What games do they play?
      Define geeks and dweebs as well.

      • oogenhand June 28, 2017 at 11:01 am

        English is not my first language. I used the following definitions:

        “dork” = weak, ineffective, hence unattractive man
        “nerd” = awkward, ugly, yet intelligent man

        What definitions do you use?

  2. Sam J. June 26, 2017 at 7:41 am

    Some Women are against Women’s suffrage.

    • Giovanni Dannato June 26, 2017 at 3:25 pm

      Exceptions to every rule, but I would imagine they are vanishingly few. There is scarcely a human who will willingly pass up power.
      I just watched the video you posted. None of the women in it actually know what “suffrage” means. They think he’s talking about some movement to stop female suffering.

      • lalit June 27, 2017 at 2:48 am

        Hahahaha! I think you are right. They really do think Female Suffrage means Female suffering. Hahahahahaha ….aahah …..ah

        Now wait just a minute …….

      • Sam J. June 27, 2017 at 7:30 am

        I know I thought it was funny and germane to the idea of Women voting.

  3. Atavisionary June 26, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    Good article. Suffrage is bad in general, but female suffrage was arguably the biggest mistake made at any single point in the whole democratic experiment.
    http://atavisionary.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-worthless-degree/
    I wrote a similar article a few years ago and basically classed modern woman as largely a class of defecting free-riders. Society can’t tolerate many free-riders before suffering drastic consequences and it is arguable we are already past the point of no return.
    http://atavisionary.com/of-madonnas-and-whores/

    • oogenhand June 27, 2017 at 5:59 am

      Young man in Japan, ca. 1930:
      “Father, I want to study Indigenous Languages of North-America!”
      Father:
      “No, son. You should study something useful like Chemical Engineering instead.”

      • Atavisionary June 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm

        The possibility of occasional exceptions doesn’t negate the fact that millions of people are overpaying for degrees, training and skills which aren’t useful to them in their eventual work.

  4. oogenhand June 27, 2017 at 12:39 am

    “I can’t say I agree with you on polygamy. I don’t see Muslim States as a decent model to follow.”

    They dominate us, and more importantly, have OUR women on their side.

    “Monogamy leans towards more of a middle class less violent society which I prefer.”

    As I said, dorks. Useless in a society in which the government sides against you.
    Muslim violence is directed outwards, not inwards. Compare crime rates of Muslim countries to ours.

    “I think in order to convince me you would have to come up with some model on how Muslim societies had better “genetic health” than European monogamist societies which ,after all, ruled the world for a fairly long time and even in our dotage are not outright beggars.”

    No, Europe ruled the world only between 1750 and 1950, while monogamist Christians were kept on a very short leash. Christians could only defeat Pagans because of the language barrier. Christians knew Germanic, while Pagans didn’t know Latin.

    “If we want to choose success then why not choose Negros which seem to be exploding in population? Have sex with Women then leave then.”

    Your information is outdated. Most Africans are monogamist Christians and polygamist Muslims. Contrary to popular stereotypes, black women are MORE chaste than white women. Somalis in particular have incredible birthrates.

  5. lalit June 27, 2017 at 6:45 am

    “Not to mention, history is replete with concubines and mistresses who molded the most iron-fisted emperors to their wills”
    These were the skills women possessed in the days when they could be committed to a mental Asylum on the mere word of their husbands. Of course, the overwhelming majority of men did not exercise this option.
    It seems in the modern age, as women have gained political power, they have lost these skills to manipulate men. The ability to manipulate white knights does not count as those losers are basically begging for a mistress to Lord (lady?) it over them.

  6. John June 28, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    A severe culling process targeting the female population is due. Yes, many men should go as well, but it’s the reluctance to cull rotten females — the tolerance of female misconduct — that is at the root of the modern malaise evident in the intrasexual dynamics.
    I’ve heard that Japanese women are good. It could be related to the “suffer no nonsense” attitude on the part of Japanese men. Perhaps the West, particularly the Anglosphere, should conceive of some “White Bushido” rather than “White Sharia”.

  7. Mark Richardson July 7, 2017 at 1:47 am

    Regarding the soft power of women, Cato the Elder, despite being a respected patriarch of one of the most patriarchal societies in history (ancient Rome), once complained “We rule the world and our wives rule us.” Women always have the soft power, seems unbalanced for them to have half of the rest as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: