Women Have Been Voting for 100 Years. What Do We Have to Show for It?

Staufer

Vril Society Member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
A lot of talk of monarchy here, but how would that work in modern times? I ask because I am ignorant on the topic, so correct me if I am wrong here. But as I understand it, in the past, the monarchy and the nobility had power as it was directly tied to land and agriculture. Sure, kingdoms had trade and colonies, but these were mostly important for projecting power outwards. But it was the land that gave them both domestic power and most importantly a profound connection to their nation and people. Then industrial revolution led to a new, wealthy merchant class which competed for power. What's more, the rise of industry caused deep societal instability that led to workers' revolutions and the rise of labor parties. Power shifted from land to industry: from the old guard with a deep sense of noblesse oblige, to a new guard who cared for nothing and no one except money. Plus, farming became mechanized, and even the population's attachment to the land became less and less.

In short, the rise of industry dissolved the ties that bound both people and rulers to a geographic location and to each other.

But in modern times, with multi-national corporations, big banks, the information age, people moving everywhere, along with only a tiny fragment of the population actually farming, how could it work? What would a new king and nobility possess that would actually tie them to a people, a land, a nation? I know that a new monarchy couldn't be like those past or come about by turning back the clock. It'd be a completely different animal. I guess it'd be more like a fascist dictatorship, but with crowns and orbs and scepters; the trappings of monarchy, but not really.

Overall, I am sympathetic to the concept, but I don't think about it much, as I try to focus on the practical. (Not to mention anything even remotely called monarchy would be utterly rejected in America.)

But for monarchists here, how would you envision a modern monarchy functioning?
You are right. I too have a lot of sympathy for monarchy. It's definitely the superior system compared to what we have now, but there have been too many changes in culture, economy and technology. It's a thing of the past, you can't really bring it back. And it has been a thing of the past already during the times before WWI. Sure, there were many states that were de iure monarchies, but even back then the monarch was often just a representative figure. Apart from maybe Russia there was no country in Europe at that time that could be considered a traditional (=absolute) monarchy. Germany for instance had an elected parliament, a chancellor as the head of government and even though the Kaiser had more political power than the British King he wasn't an absolutist ruler and the constitution and the parliament limited his power.
And today all these countries like Sweden or Britain are technically republics/democracies, since the monarch is really just a representative figure. The only places were absolute monarchy still works are Arab or other third world nations, but this is going to change soon. They're already working on turning Saudi-Arabia into a Western state.
 

Paladin Prime

Only in death does duty end.
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
I greatly respect Hitler for how he turned Germany around and for his genuine love of Germany. However, I can't say that I really "like" him, like I like Alfred the Great or Charlemagne or George Washington, for examples.
Adolf Hitler is the most hated man in history besides Jesus Christ.
 

Paladin Prime

Only in death does duty end.
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
You are right. I too have a lot of sympathy for monarchy. It's definitely the superior system compared to what we have now, but there have been too many changes in culture, economy and technology. It's a thing of the past, you can't really bring it back. And it has been a thing of the past already during the times before WWI. Sure, there were many states that were de iure monarchies, but even back then the monarch was often just a representative figure. Apart from maybe Russia there was no country in Europe at that time that could be considered a traditional (=absolute) monarchy. Germany for instance had an elected parliament, a chancellor as the head of government and even though the Kaiser had more political power than the British King he wasn't an absolutist ruler and the constitution and the parliament limited his power.
And today all these countries like Sweden or Britain are technically republics/democracies, since the monarch is really just a representative figure. The only places were absolute monarchy still works are Arab or other third world nations, but this is going to change soon. They're already working on turning Saudi-Arabia into a Western state.
Juden Raus. That's the first step.
 

Quest 4 The Future

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
Well, to defend myself and my mom. We vote only for men, and the men we vote for are those my Dad and brother say are the best candidates. They are registered republicans but always vote for the most far right fascist man on the ticket.
Unfortunately, the most "far-right man on the ticket" usually boils down to this:



Or this:



Or this:



Of these three white men, only one won the presidency, having been boosted by having his dad serve as a president. The other two....well, the photos should speak for themselves. So the point I'm making here is that the white presidential candidates we keep getting served are all shit anyway, to varying degrees. Some have a greater stench; some a lesser. But in the end, they too play in the globalist cat box.

I also know that nothing is going to get better until all women either vote the way the men in their families vote as a matter of respect and recourse, or do not get to vote at all.
In the 2016 Trump-Clinton presidential race, 1 in 3 white men voted for Hillary and roughly 50% of white women voted for her. In regard to the latter, either these white women didn't have husbands, or they had Trump-voting husbands that they chose not to copy. Either way, the Leftist strain among white voters is strong, even among men.



I will say that it's time for women's rights to be repealed.
Attempting to repeal the women's vote (a body of voters that outnumber ALL nigger-spic voters combined) is not a realistic outlook. Secondly, to wield that kind of power, a pro-white government would have to be in control of the US government. And if that were the case, repealing the women's vote would not be necessary, since such a government would also have the power to permanently remove all nigs, spics, chinks, gooks, jews, etc, as well as all white Leftists, from the United States. But in order to gain that kind of power, a civil war is necessary. At least, that's how I see it.

 

Little Shitpost Buddha

Active member
⏰
The solution to this unnatural level of freedom that Westerners today have is not to subject oneself to totalitarianism.
But this is a matter of degrees. Totalitarianism sucks balls, but it is one step ahead of Jacobin democracy. The latter is the building block of doom. The most sadistic of tyrants such as Stalin proved that in the long run, in the widest sense, disregarding individual tragedies, tyranny can still bring about some good outcomes based on its innate astuteness with regard to populations. Tyranny actually knows something about this concept called "a population". Democracy simply cannot help but tear everything down to the level of sub-mediocrity, with precision and thoroughness that it is truly frightening. To paraphrase Linkola again - a Tyranny at least has values other than indulgence.

Speaking of which - The Protocols specifically say that the whole purpose of democracy is that the masses in the end will *beg* to have a tyranny instead, which Zionsts will of course willingly produce. Thus, they outwitted the Founding Fathers.
 

Enwar

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
But this is a matter of degrees. Totalitarianism sucks balls, but it is one step ahead of Jacobin democracy. The latter is the building block of doom. The most sadistic of tyrants such as Stalin proved that in the long run, in the widest sense, disregarding individual tragedies, tyranny can still bring about some good outcomes based on its innate astuteness with regard to populations. Tyranny actually knows something about this concept called "a population". Democracy simply cannot help but tear everything down to the level of sub-mediocrity, with precision and thoroughness that it is truly frightening. To paraphrase Linkola again - a Tyranny at least has values other than indulgence.

Speaking of which - The Protocols specifically say that the whole purpose of democracy is that the masses in the end will *beg* to have a tyranny instead, which Zionsts will of course willingly produce. Thus, they outwitted the Founding Fathers.
Sure, but it doesn't make sense to support totalitarianism.
 

CaucasianLivesMatter

Member
⏰
Sure, but it doesn't make sense to support totalitarianism.
Of course it does not. Totalitarianism and anarchism are two wings of the same bird. We either support both law and liberty or we support neither. I can make a video on how liberty and the Ten Commandments do not contradict each other. Blessings.
 

Informer

Active member
β°β˜•
You are right. I too have a lot of sympathy for monarchy. It's definitely the superior system compared to what we have now, but there have been too many changes in culture, economy and technology. It's a thing of the past, you can't really bring it back. And it has been a thing of the past already during the times before WWI. Sure, there were many states that were de iure monarchies, but even back then the monarch was often just a representative figure. Apart from maybe Russia there was no country in Europe at that time that could be considered a traditional (=absolute) monarchy. Germany for instance had an elected parliament, a chancellor as the head of government and even though the Kaiser had more political power than the British King he wasn't an absolutist ruler and the constitution and the parliament limited his power.
And today all these countries like Sweden or Britain are technically republics/democracies, since the monarch is really just a representative figure. The only places were absolute monarchy still works are Arab or other third world nations, but this is going to change soon. They're already working on turning Saudi-Arabia into a Western state.
You're insane if you think monarchy is outdated. We're living in a world in which the centralization of wealth and property is increasing rapidly. A monarch absolutely could work, under the guidance of the church, because technology allows for the creation of a centralized narrative. Why do you think China and Russia have chosen to make Xi and Putin dictators for life? It's functionally the same thing as monarchy. Both countries have fused their rule with their respective religious systems. Putin has created a joint rule with the Orthodox Church. Xi is centralizing the Chinese narrative with Han Nationalism and traditional Chinese religions.
Separation of church and state was always retarded.
 

Zaldron

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
A monarch absolutely could work, under the guidance of the church...
Monarchy is one of the best systems of government, as measured by its acceptability to Whites in many countries over long periods, and as measured by results. It has important negatives, but so does everything.

However that right there is the practical problem in our age. First get a trustworthy, pro-white church.
 

Maxbait

Member
Many of the big arguments about how things have gotten worse since women have started voting are quite fallacious, but they're not much more fallacious than most arguments in political discourse. Therefore, I see no reason to care that the arguments aren't perfect.

Because I don't believe anyone should have the right to vote, I'm going to use whatever argument I have in my arsenal, no matter how fallacious (okay, maybe not *that* far), to push back against women's right to vote. Because if we really do *have* to have democratic elections, we should at least have better people casting the votes. In that regard, I think getting rid of minorities' right to vote is of equal importance (I'd say more, but I almost forgot how much of the black vote comes from women, so it's basically equal).
 

CaucasianLivesMatter

Member
⏰
Many of the big arguments about how things have gotten worse since women have started voting are quite fallacious, but they're not much more fallacious than most arguments in political discourse. Therefore, I see no reason to care that the arguments aren't perfect.

Because I don't believe anyone should have the right to vote, I'm going to use whatever argument I have in my arsenal, no matter how fallacious (okay, maybe not *that* far), to push back against women's right to vote. Because if we really do *have* to have democratic elections, we should at least have better people casting the votes. In that regard, I think getting rid of minorities' right to vote is of equal importance (I'd say more, but I almost forgot how much of the black vote comes from women, so it's basically equal).
I am pretty sure that the elections are manipulated. Sometimes it doesn't work, like in 2016, when Trump made it. But by the way it looks right now, Biden will get into the office, abolish the police, open the borders, put down the flag and take our guns away.
 

Enwar

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
Monarchy is one of the best systems of government, as measured by its acceptability to Whites in many countries over long periods, and as measured by results. It has important negatives, but so does everything.

However that right there is the practical problem in our age. First get a trustworthy, pro-white church.
Don't forget that monarchy is the system endorsed by the Bible.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
I don't think the vote was as much of a game changer as women entering the workplace en masse in the 60s-70s, as even the article hints at. half a century after enfranchisement of women across the west, society still hadn't (fully) succumbed to the poz.
you kind of missed the point though. Women never would have made it into the workplace to begin with if they had never been given the vote. Once they could vote, the country took a hard left turn (FDR) and just kept going.
 

GradytheButler

Aspiring rapper
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
half a century after enfranchisement of women across the west, society still hadn't (fully) succumbed to the poz.
The jew likes to take his time. He's been at it for centuries.
 

Informer

Active member
β°β˜•
Monarchy is one of the best systems of government, as measured by its acceptability to Whites in many countries over long periods, and as measured by results. It has important negatives, but so does everything.

However that right there is the practical problem in our age. First get a trustworthy, pro-white church.
People are going to need spiritual guidance once this country explodes.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
Yeah. It sounds great until you get a despot. That's why the USA exists.
George III wasn't that bad. The USA exists because Great Britain attempted to treat the white North American colonies the same way they treated their black and brown colonies--i.e. as targets of economic exploitation. This was further exacerbated by the 3000 miles of ocean between them and us. The USA was the product of a war of independence because they were tired of being treated like caribbean negroes, or subcontinental dravidians.
 

GradytheButler

Aspiring rapper
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Outstanding Achievement in Rape πŸ†
Q. Is your make of whisky nine years old?
A. Nine years old, but I want to explain in that respect that the whisky may not have existed nine years before it was put into that bottle. . . . That brand of whisky which we brand as nine years old blended, means that it is equal to a nine-year-old whisky in smoothness and quality
Let's see what other bullshit jews put on labels, and perfectly legal too:
- all natural
- no artificial flavours
- honey (probably HFCS if it's an ingredient)
- corn sugar (HFCS)
- no GMO
- organic
Etc., etc.
 
Top