Should Women Vote?

Should women vote? Was the 19th Amendment a mistake?

Basically, women should not vote; and the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

The idea that voting rights should be given to all men is, itself, a fairly new and extremist position. In the early days of the American Republic, voting was often restricted first to men; and of course White Men; and often there was some kind of property requirement.

Wikipedia on the history of voting rights in the American Colonies and the United States

This is illustrated in this chart:

We can see that, before 1860, only about 15% of the adult population voted.

Now, it is important here to understand that the Founders, and also philosophers going back to Aristotle and earlier, considered Democracy to be a degenerate system of government that tended to rapidly fall apart.

This opinion was based on the history of Democracy in the various Greek states. Usually, the Democratic majority would basically vote to confiscate the wealth of the wealthy, and distribute it. Of course this quickly led to chaos, and then the aristocrats would be asked to come back and re-establish order.

Wikipedia on Politics by Aristotle.

With this in mind, the Founders did not conceive of a “democracy.” They wanted a balanced government, with elements of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy (or Republicanism).

Basically, following the successful examples of Rome and Britain, this meant:

A President who would be like a Monarch, capable of quick, decisive action;

An Aristocracy of the “best, brightest, capital and wealth,” that would secure the interests of business.

A Democracy or Democratic Republic that would protect the well-being of the common man.

Here’s Rome:

In Britain, this was:

The King;

The House of Lords;

The House of Commons

In the United States, it was:

The President;

The Senate (originally appointed by States and not elected)

The House

Today, we have Way Too Much Democracy.

This Mixed Government would also be confined within the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The Federal Government was basically responsible for foreign affairs, including: The Military; Borders, Immigration, and Naturalization; Trade and Tariffs.

The States would be responsible for all other Domestic policy, in turn limited by State Constitutions.

In other words, the Federal government would not be involved in:

Any kind of domestic welfare programs, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or all means-tested welfare benefits.

Also, the Federal Government was effectively banned from Direct Taxation (Income Taxes). Of course this was changed with the Sixteenth Amendment. Basically, there were only Indirect Taxes, such as sales taxes.

The Federal Government was supposed to keep the dollar’s unchanging value in gold and silver; and eventually gold alone in the Gold Standard Act of 1900.

I bring all this up to illustrate that More Democracy Is Not Better. Democracy, unrestrained by the Enumerated Powers and other limitations of the Constitution, unmodified by the Monarchial Presidency and the Aristocratic Senate (before the Seventeenth Amendment of 1913), has always been considered a certain failure since the days of Aristotle.

The property requirement for voting, for example, could be considered a mild push toward Aristocracy within the context of the democratic element of the House.

The Senate used to be called the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” It was a collection of the Best and the Brightest. Why? Because it consisted of Senators appointed by the States, not elected in a popular election. Appointees tend to be of the Best and Brightest category. Just look at Federal appointees today, such as the Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justices, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve. They are all extremely bright and extremely capable people.

Here is the US Senate itself, explaining its purpose in the scheme of Mixed Government.

The US Senate on Balanced Government

Of course we all know what happens when we are ruled by Elites alone. They are lost in their own little world of self-interested delusion. This is why the Elite Senate had to be tempered by the Democratic House.

The point is, Democracy among men alone is already considered a certain failure. So, a Democracy that also includes women might be even worse. Let’s take a look.

Here we have a look at what the 2012 Presidential election would have looked like if only Men voted.

First, the actual election:

Democrat Socialist Barack Obama won, of course.

If only men (including Blacks and others) voted:

And if only White Men voted:

Basically, if only White Men voted (even with no property or income requirements), we would have … the government envisioned by the Founders. Small, Limited government. This is even after a century of Socialist Marxist brainwashing in media, education and elsewhere. White Men are still voting for the original Constitution.

All the Socialist crap that we have today has basically come about from Women Voting, within the context of Too Much Democracy and the effective eradication of all the Constitutional restrictions beginning with the Enumerated Powers.

But, Too Much Democracy itself comes from women voting. If only White Men voted, they would vote for … Constitutional restrictions and the Enumerated Powers. Just as they did in 1789.

Just as RooshV described some years ago, if women didn’t vote, the Democratic Party would evaporate. Today’s Republican Party would be the Leftist Party, and a new Party would emerge to the Right, which would basically be Ron Paul.

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirely of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary reality. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

Women: You aren’t any damn good at this stuff. Even men, when allowed unfettered Democracy, always destroy themselves. You are just blowing things up faster, and blocking Men, like the brilliant Founders, from fixing things.

Just look at the brilliant analysis of Aristotle, then improved by other thinkers such as Montesqieu and leading to the Founders. Men do that. They do that naturally, all the time, because they are interested. Women never do that. Yes, a woman can recite Aristotle, by rote, if she is trained to do so, and pass a test. But, women do not have the analytic ability, or tendency or desire, to do so naturally. Today, we have had a similar direction of analytic ability, insight and discovery into the questions of gender, known as the Manosphere or Red Pill. It has been a tremendous effort, and has paid rich rewards. Look at the brilliant work of Dalrock, Sigma Frame or many others. Just look at it. Is there any woman doing this, anywhere? There are a few women — very few — who do read and understand the analysis that has taken place over the last 15 years. These women include Helen Smith and Pearl Davis. But, they are mostly repeating things they learned elsewhere, from men. Even they — rare as they are — are not really offering much new insight.

Yes, there are a few brilliant women, like Margaret Thatcher. But these are so rare as to be basically unique. As soon as you have two, three, four or more women, the Law of Averages comes into play.