Liberals hate themselves

Unhappy, same thing.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/liberals-likely-unhappy-people-yoga-edition/

Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

Trying to tear down the happy just makes you more miserable.

The guilt rots them from the inside, it’s great to watch, you can trace it on their features. First smug, then concerned, then doubtful, disillusioned, hopeless, angry, depressed, sullen.

So capitalists are smarter, happier, donate to charity more and are better-looking?

Shit, I’d want equality too!

Liberals v. Alt Left

I had considered using the term Alt Left when AR became more popular except there was this one guy who really wanted that to happen.jpg and I hated his guts. So.

One loves liberty, the other loves the slavery of others.

The Left always drives down to its authoritarian soul eventually. What we think of as fascism is instinctively leftist. Statists don’t have God, they play god.

From Marx to Mao they just keep swimming, just keep swimming.

Video: Facebook Sharia

They’re murdering atheists. They’re killing agnostics, scientists, anyone who thinks. Freedom of speech does exist for atheists, speaking as a religious person.

This is evil, joining forces with savagery.

When you defend Islam, remember they’d kill you for it.
Appeasement doesn’t work on backwards ‘cultures’, Facebook should be tried in an international court of human rights.

As I’ve heard, “The peaceful Muslims are DEAD Muslims.”

FYI This is why we had a Reformation and now have the internet.

Meanwhile, our current PM advocates for her own slavery.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/674489/Home-Secretary-Theresa-May-says-Britain-benefits-Sharia-Law

‘Mortality salience’ and political partisanship

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fear-death-and-politics/

It’s slowly trickling out to the public.

And the Terror Management Theory it’s based on, paper:

Click to access Burke_tmt_politics_PP_in_press.pdf

Conservative shift is highly significant.

The Right is the new Left

I fear this.

I suppose cuck is a way to outgroup bandwagon jumpers looking for shekels to shill.

credit to

Right Is The New Left

cited in http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/trump-wins-europeans-will-grow/?_ga=1.48667302.1834135972.1469672001

 

Women’s suffrage is a feminist frame, actually universal

Trigger warning: maths. Stat-heavy post.

As far as England and the wider UK are concerned, suffrage was universal. Women’s suffrage is a category error.

Women were not explicitly banned from voting in Great Britain until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

READ A HISTORY BOOK. Property (class) and location (class) were factors. …Class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/changes/revision/1/

They’re trying to make it about sex when it was really based on societal contribution aka merit.

The suffragettes protested that they had no decision-making ability over how their taxes were spent, yet they still had to pay taxes like a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tax_Resistance_League

Plenty of men couldn’t vote either. Including many of those who died in WW1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html

1918: The rotten repressive male Establishment voted 7-1 in favour of votes for some women (restricted at that point by age and property qualifications) and all men over the age of 21. In the 1928 Act, the franchise was extended to women on equal terms with men.

It really was a simple case of balancing out what was newly handed to men (no qualification).
Sometimes qualification was quite literal. “From 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification.”

Hence all the petty squabbles over land law and inheritance for centuries, including male assertions of the rights of youngest sons. Suck on that, MRAs.

Why am I going into this? Isn’t it obvious?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Sample comments I have seen;

It’s not as much fun to place the blame where it belongs..on those men who allowed women’s suffrage.

Actually we were on strike until we got it. That’s why we got it. Same as the men.

Suffrage doomed us. We’re just coasting now, on fire, crankshaft broken, heading over the cliff.

A lot of the new MGTOW are trying to conceal their misogyny very poorly by blaming all women the way neo-Nazis with nothing going for them blame all Jews. They’re saying unironically that women’s suffrage was the reason everything about the West is ruined, all the PC dogma and Marxism (invented by a man) was the fault of women, ignorant of knowledge of ancient societies (which allowed female political power and leaders, golden eras led by Queens) and basically most things beyond America. As if men aren’t at the top of this degenerate pyramid, from Soros to the founder of FEMEN. Men are in political power, men are the sex responsible for PC politics.

For lolz, let’s look at the voting statistics anyway, eh? Since women are so bad at maths according to these dimwits (unless you have the intellectual curiosity to look up the data and see boys perform worse).

Historically, the widely held view is that males outperform females in tests of mathematical ability (Halpern, 1986; Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). Early reviews of empirical research in this field concluded this was a “robust” finding (Halpern, 1986, p. 57) or, at least, it was one of several “fairly well-established” gender differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, p. 352). Although subsequent formal analyses of these data indicated that gender differences in mathematical ability were often small in size (Hyde et al., 1990), recent research continues to show some differences but they vary according to certain factors, including level of mathematical ability, type of mathematical ability and examination format.

Those are called extraneous variables as non-sex factors so no, they don’t count in support of the original, disproven finding.

There is little evidence of a male advantage in high school mathematics tests in either the US or the UK. In the US, “trivial differences” between boys’ and girls’ mathematics results have been found in all school years between Grade 2 (7–8 year olds) and Grade 11 (16–17 year olds) (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008).

But sure, women are bad at maths… BRING ON THE STATS.

Evidence exists of women voting when it was on the law books during that brief window of British history, which isn’t the basis for anything since it was more of a trial period that failed the test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html

But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise.

There are as many conservative women as men in the general population, I reject your specious argument that women must vote red.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

It’s Left vs. Right, that’s the only division and anyone claiming otherwise is an identity politics shill.

Where population demographics are concerned, race, age group (life phase) and class (including property ownership) are more predictive than sex. Shall we restrict suffrage based on those things? No? Oh, you wouldn’t like somebody questioning your right to vote based on something beyond your control? How about more stats?

In America alone, more women turn up to the polls than men. Whose fault is that?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html

63.7% Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2012 presidential election. By comparison, 59.7 percent of their male counterparts reported voting.

There is a famous Gender Gap in voting, true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

Recently in Europe it closed but prior to this (pre-1990s), women were more likely to vote conservative.

http://ips.sagepub.com/content/21/4/441.abstract

Suck on that.
Back to America:
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0028/twps0028.html

Leighley and Nagler (1992) tested whether demographic factors, like race and gender, are more important than socioeconomic factors like education in predicting voter turnout, and found that while it is important to include measures of demographic factors, education is a much stronger predictor of voter turnout. Likewise, Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) document the lower voter turnout among Blacks and Hispanics, but attribute this lower rate of voter turnout to lower educational levels and higher proportions of young and poor among minorities. Other results suggest that women are also more likely to register and vote (Jennings 1985, 1989, 1993).

Education = IQ.
I have covered previously why IQ testing to qualify voting ability would hurt men and help women (women have higher average intelligence that the test is normalized by, men have more retards). Sure, advocate for it, see if I’m wrong.

In the UK, voter turnout has dropped among both sexes, but especially women, either failing to register or turn up at the booths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11333915/British-women-general-election-voters-shun-the-polling-booths.html

Turnout has declined across both genders. But the drop is most significant in women. According to statistics compiled for the British Election Study – which were analysed by the Commons Library – the number of ‘missing’ female voters has risen by 79 per cent since 1992.

Aka you can’t blame the Labour Governments on women (1997-early 2010).

Between 1992 and 2010, the number of women voters in general elections fell by 18 per cent.

However, a Telegraph poll in October last year found that just 12 per cent of female voters think the Labour leader would make a good prime minister, compared with 31 per cent who backed Cameron.

2.6:1 in favour of the conservative. Hmm.
I’ve covered previously that political party identification is genetic, especially for liberalism. AKA clean your own house and muck out your own stables of Red Men before crying to us.

Look at how stable voting preferences are in light of demographics (in support of the genetic hypothesis). If sex for example were so important, you’d see a sharp divide, yet all differences are accountable by rounding error.


Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

OH LOOK SUCH A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?

 

Liberals sexually select the ingroup too

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910142339.htm

Liberals and conservatives are looking for the same thing when they join online dating websites, according to new research co-authored by University of Miami political scientist Casey Klofstad. The study, published in Political Behavior, shows that both liberals and conservatives are looking for a partner who is like themselves.

Most of the shit women do is for the benefit of other women

Klofstad says that the tendency to seek out partners that are like us could contribute to the increasing political divide between liberals and conservatives. “Parents pass their political preferences on to their children. So, if we are more easily able to find someone like ourselves by ‘shopping’ for a partner online, Internet dating could hasten this process of political polarization. Of course, this process would occur over generations, not overnight.”

So close to calling it genetic. Well if it’s inherited, by definition it becomes genetic.

I mean…

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

Researchers find a ‘liberal gene’

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915120805.htm

People are attracted to the body odor of others with similar political beliefs

The term you’re looking for is microbiome and it’s inherited.

May I suggest testing levels of Staphylococcus hominis?

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/body-odour-genetics/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091228152354.htm

“What are the best approaches and methodologies toward a scientific study of politics?” write guest editors Rose McDermott and Kristen Renwick Monroe. “We do not mean to reactivate a no longer productive debate about nature versus nurture, since it now seems clear that both forces operate in tandem. Rather by encompassing both facets — nature and nurture — into an integrated perspective, we believe it is possible to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of human political behavior.”

back to work

Political party identification (PID) is among the most studied concepts in modern political science. Scholars have long held that PID was the result of socialization factors, including parental socialization. The possibility that partisan identification could be transmitted genetically rather than socially was not considered and largely left untested.

The SCIENCE in Political Science!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827122410.htm

Politics and genetics have traditionally been considered non-overlapping fields, but over the past decade it has become clear that genes can influence political behavior, according to a review. This paradigm shift has led to novel insights into why people vary in their political preferences and could have important implications for public policy.

“We’re seeing an awakening in the social sciences, and the wall that divided politics and genetics is really starting to fall apart,” says review author Peter Hatemi of the University of Sydney. “This is a big advance, because the two fields could inform each other to answer some very complex questions about individual differences in political views.”

It even varies by sex: http://www.hngn.com/articles/116099/20150805/liberals-conservatives-political-party-drd4-genetics.htm

In a recent study, researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) have shown for the first time that not only do genes affect our social beliefs, but that Singaporean Chinese females who possess a particular variant of the Dopamine D4 receptor gene lean more to the right, according to a press release.

Contrary to popular belief, sorry appears to be the magic word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genopolitics is coming.