Minority status and voter dilution

To wet your whistle.

Click to access dilution.pdf

Explains why they screech in excitement or sob with crocodile tears about everything demographic. It’s just vote-rigging. Bringing in fake voters (not actually with any birth right to decide the outgroup’s infrastructure and historical matters*) is comparable to a false military (terrorists, importing terrorists is also treason) since it’s the two ways to gain power – the status (political positions, MP, PM, POTUS, AG) and the might (enforcement with force -or else- and violence and little considered but critical intimidation i.e. common example, Western girls scared to wear more feminine AND Western clothing in multicultural areas, who has the balls to do that study?). [has to be both for clear signal value]

Political correctness is the tyranny of cultural intimidation.

*e.g. if they wouldn’t go to the draft, they have no opinion on the draft or the possibility of war. They’d be forced though. Playing victim doesn’t mean acting like an hysterical woman come draft time would work. I’d go to any version of the draft I’d be physically capable of so weak men have no excuse. I heard it described thusly: Do you wait for them to stab you warm in your bed hiding under a blanket or meet death like a man? ‘Like a man’ there referring to physical courage, what modern men sorely lack as they ‘work on’ abs and chest waxes and spray tans. The Hysterical Left can’t expect to always get rescued by the Honourable Loser Right. Actually, a smart general puts the weaker men on the front line knowing they’re A useless (I’d like to see a study on male health status markers for military purposes and IQ**) and B will get picked off anyway… this isn’t mean, and actually less sexist, since it’s good for the war effort*** and the overall fitness of Men as a category. If you spare the feeble men like prize inbred birds in a climate controlled room, as in WW1, you… should look up all the stupid socialist bullshit that got in shortly thereafter. Weak men make weak voting decisions. The best men died on the field, literally. Older and smaller wars, prior to the World ones, were highly eugenic for the male genome and the nomination system of medals for valour etc. reflect this incentive structure. They don’t hand out medals for a good pregnancy because surviving that condition is very random, no precise behaviours really change the outcome and it can have nothing to do with fitness e.g. sepsis****. Military medals handed out all the time make no sense, that’s the arrogance, and medals for mothers only make sense for a high number AND quality of children. We give children (pre-teen and under) medals when logically it should go to the family and strengthen that unit.

**This study is interesting and verging closer but I’ll add it separately.

***A statistic is quantitative whereas the genome is qualitative. If you had a binary choice between your country losing an inferior quality specimen (we are animals) and a far, far better one of its kind, who would you rather help with the rebuilding effort after the war? It’s like weeding a garden, this is so obvious.

****The future is bound to suck with antibiotic resistance AND escalating non-European population, there will be a pandemic. At some point. Mathematical inevitability.

The politicians don’t want the immigrants to know: A passport is a license to draft.

That’s literally what it is, legally, what it’s always been and why they became a big deal in WW2. In the event of a war while abroad, you could be identified with your country of military subscription. I’d love to see a Freedom of Information request on this, what a passport legally enshrines as a duty to the holder. It’s an international symbol of citizenship so burning it won’t make a bit of difference, you agreed and signed over XYZ. Why else would you sign your own passport? You must ensure the person crossing your border is signed on as a friend/ally and not a current enemy (military invasion). Why do passport inspectors ask why you’re there, for legal reasons?

Argh! I give up explaining this point.

The census is about food security, part of national security. Older ones were all about farms.

Back to voter dilution related “problems.”

It’s insane we have foreign nationals who think a passport is something they’ll never need to repay. It isn’t like a blank cheque, the hand-rubbing politicians see you as currency, you as a person. It’s a legal document binding you to the fate of a country, including its national debt, so to ruin that country or prefer your real “home” in policy decisions won’t actually work out for them? Just saying.

Sinking a ship you’re on and celebrating because you hated the captain.

If I’m a bitch, my name is foresight.

It’s a trifecta of stupidity. Citizenship is a noose, and you want dual?
[Actually, why don’t dual citizens pay twice the taxes? No, that would be fair, wouldn’t it? Can’t have that. ‘Fair’ is racist. nb Logically, they get twice the citizenry benefits and effectively pay half the tax for same. The politicians sell pig-shit thick celebrities on dual citizenships by appealing to their ego, which tells you everything you need to know.]

Pissing off the people who helped you (1) with a more advanced military (2) and higher native IQ (3)?

I foresee this ending well… how will we go after them for their share of the debts?

[inc. odious debt, hours of fun on that one]

Libertarians are stupid because they assume immigrants have common sense and act in their own and their home’s best interests. Haha no.

And the people who think being nice to the outgroup means that group will treat them any better or more stupidly, make them leader of the foreigners?! (See Labour leader contention for that last, no they won’t accept a foreign leader either. If Labour wants to be the ethnic party, it cannot have a white leader any more).

You know the show about dragons. That’s more plausible. This would never happen.

They’d rape her to death in about a day. This is medically possible.

No, your skin is your uniform whether you accept it or not, if you research their cultural psychology, even within the group itself they have caste systems. Multiple. And whitey is on the bottom of that scale too. History doesn’t change because you smiled at someone.

WW1 was the photo war, WW2 was the film. What’s the medium of WW3, memes?

The ultimate question

Who should politicians pander to? Point on the diagram.

What is the purpose of voting?

Why are taxes taken, what is the justification?

What amounts to participation in the system?

Who should decide how tax revenue (sum taxpayer income) is spent?

How about “no representation without taxation”?

Does the Government have any money?

Do Government workers work for the Government?

Why are their pensions different from those of the proles? Are they agents of control?

If you imagined slaves worked on a token system, how does this differ from fiat currency?

How can the Government justify taking large chunks of its citizens’ life times?

Is income tax an incentive or not?

Is a consumption tax fair? Flat tax?

Why did universal suffrage come in at the same time as huge tax impositions on the entire population?

Was funding a national police force necessary? How did the World Wars contribute to the rise of hospitals and the ambulance “service”? Can member of group A impartially rule over member of group B?

Asylum, prison. What’s the difference?

A nation divided cannot stand. y/n?

In a time of easy money, why is the military worse than ever?

Big Government is an outcome of Dying Empire, discuss.

Nanny State is a consequence of immorality culture?

An income tax system “works” for two generations and dies in four.

Culture makes your brain better

Switch off the Top 20, switch on some Classic FM.

However, this study is poorly designed.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-culture-brain.html

In the case of dyslexia in particular…

ah.

You can’t draw normative assumptions from a pathological population.
This reminds me of the billionaire’s breakfast articles.

It’s well-known nowadays that dyslexia was just the old PC term for low IQ.

The new one is ADD/ADHD.

I have covered this. People have studied this. It is no longer opinion.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/adhd-add-nurture-studies-to-piss-off-the-idiots/

back to this study

Comparing illiterate individuals and adult readers highlights repeatedly just how much learning to read changes our brains. 

No, it’s a personality of the highly intelligent, who are more likely to read than the normal population.

You’re comparing above and below average, cutting out the middle.

No wonder you had a significant result!

Sampling bias, children, look for it.

On the other hand, you can also test for those traits and they have biological bases too.
Different sides of the same phenomena.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-reading-lights-up-your-mind/

back to study

According to a study by French and Spanish researchers, people who are unable or barely able to read not only find analysing sequences of letters more difficult – they have similar difficulty processing sequences of images.

Literally like a monkey.

The difference between a human and non-human primate’s brain is its “difficulty processing.” Language is symbolic. Symbolism isn’t something they’ve really evolved for, their culture is crude to show for it.

I bet they couldn’t find funding for that study. It would actually help the illiterate though. Head Start didn’t work because it assumed too much about the brains’ equality to begin with. It’s amazing how upset people get when you frankly acknowledge evolution in the broadest sense and the personal genetic one. Regarding biology cases.

Oh but Christians are the bigots.

Atavism does exist in some cases, I have linked to language studies previously and language has a genetic basis too, and some of those genes which are halted in the individual organism will code for brain function.

Brain function or destruction (noise). We shouldn’t lie to brain damage patients about what is wrong with them. It’s like telling a person in a wheelchair that they aren’t praying hard enough.

A further study in Portugal found that illiterate persons also find it harder to distinguish how an object is oriented in space—for example, a hammer depicted diagonally, where the head and handle can point in various directions.

Compare them to a chimp.

No, I’m totally serious.

Watch this thing.

Animal models are the only answer.

According to my lawyers.

Working memory is a significant component of IQ, yes. The researchers above are intentionally hiding this from the public. PC culture is killing off scientific curiosity. Asking particular questions about abnormal performance groups is considered ‘hate speech’ although it needn’t be enforced more than socially. You can’t have censorship without censoring censure. Whatever happened to let’s agree, to disagree? AKA the non-bigoted response.

Only the wrong fear they can’t persuade an audience if their opponent is allowed to speak.

Cultures are defined by what they oppose (hatred). Diseases by what is damaged.

You cannot understand their work without salient facts on the subjects.

If you are uncomfortable with discussing those, work in something else?

Being nice will just doom them to more of the same or worse suffering. If a sufferer’s ego is more important than their condition, maybe they were misdiagnosed. The more rotting degrading aspect of political correctness is its perversion of medicine, where recently they’ve been forced to treat disease like a good thing.

You are not your illness. It isn’t personal. There is something wrong with you. Common sense? Diseases shouldn’t have PR campaigns. Technically, there is no such thing as mental illness, it’s just illness presenting with psychological symptoms. Stop distinguishing where there is NO objective difference.

Neither is a person with a condition an automatic Saint beyond reproach. It absolves you of sweet FA. Look up how many disabled people are physically violent to their carers. The PR groups cover it up. So much for caring.

The standards of reality don’t drop, they get higher. Society’s should reflect this. If they really are ill, they shouldn’t be happy about it! That sounds an awful lot like malingering. If their condition magically presents exceptions when they have a desirable motivation, they do not have that condition.

To de-stigmatize disease runs contrary to the entirety of medicine.
Stigma encourages people to seek help and last through treatments.
To glamorize disease is evil. At the least it induces helplessness. It promotes human suffering, it’s vicious and cruel and inhumane.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+model

His diabetes isn’t a disease, that’s mean! You should be locked up for saying this person is any different from another person!

No, because if there’s nothing wrong with them, they cannot be treated differently. They cannot be made allowances, treated specially socially and especially, given any money.

Being a victim (different from the norm) is something you’ll have to accept if you want the recognition of that status. You cannot be both normal and abnormal, bad and good, special and ordinary. It is impossible.

We shouldn’t be listening to the mentally ill’s opinion of their own conditions anyway. With mental disease, they cannot see it clearly, that’s the whole sodding point! Otherwise, there’d be no need for a whole profession, you could send them back home to toddle off and spend a little time on WebMD before ordering their junk off of ebay.

You have to be dominant in a power hierarchy over them, to HEAL them.

nb Programming is not a difficult skill, as you can see. It’s called a code monkey for a reason. Any idiot could learn it with enough time.

There is no shortage. Look at India’s population demographics for proof positive of that.

back to study, minor notes

Practised readers can only guess at the disadvantages faced by those who have never had the chance to learn to read and write.

Wait. Wait, you DID control for race, right?

If you’re comparing East Coast Jews in prep school to some rural Indian girl, that isn’t scientific.

You control by age, race, sex and education, maybe class (or some proxy like diet) This is basic medical methodology. You can’t do anything less and say it counts.

You don’t look for prostate cancer in middle-aged women and report zero findings.

Well, maybe these people do.

Have you seen their national IQs? Ninety-fucking-five.

Why don’t researchers study themselves?

Why not? EVER.

What are they afraid of?

One area to which little attention has been paid is the cognitive tests used by doctors to diagnose early stage dementia in the elderly.

brain damage, like I said

Greek researcher Mary H. Kosmidis points out that these tests are designed for people who are literate.

How high is that horse? Shaming people for reading, FFS…. now I’ve seen it all.

The abilities they test are often trained by reading and writing, and results from these tests are likely to be skewed accordingly when employed on individuals who are illiterate. In Europe, there are still numerous older people in particular who are unable to read and write.

Prove they are trained before you claim that. Sociologist’s fallacy.

You can’t just say it’s nurture automatically, you have to rule out nature first.

He argues that the effects of

~~no~~

literacy do not end when children have learnt to read, but that it has profound and lasting effects on their cognition and knowledge.

If you’re born into a society that lasted long enough to become prosperous and prosocial enough to teach you to read, your genetic load must be low. Test that and then get cocky about how we need a new Head Start for the world.

Start with the small fish, like reducing corruption in Asia. India has a billion people, many illiterate but the Government is useless. Genetic load leads to cultural problems including corruption. I can’t prove that but I have seen no study to refute it. The disease rate backs me up. There is a connection (also to cleanliness).

Cleaner societies are less corrupt.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/06/why-is-the-anglosphere-less-corrupt.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The hilarity of “perceptions” to one side, given the topic.

Notice anything about the Top 10?

One race is decidedly over-represented. Looking for genetic explanations (the hardest science here) would require scholarship, a set of balls and a mighty big calculator.

China is at the same ranking as Brazil. Go look. Keep scrolling….

Sure, I believe HK/China’s self-reported IQs. As they position below Greece on corruption…

Back to the study for the last of the lies.

The ability to read and write is essential to the ability to analyse complex problems

no

other way around

and you know it

The ability to process information is essential to learning many skills, including reading and writing. Pick up a biology textbook sometime. Babies can process in the WOMB.

No Cat on the Mat there, bitch.

Why do schools have sets, if we’re all the same in the brain? Why have year-based classes? Isn’t that oppressive?

and for the flow of ideas and critical thinking.

Since English is the most complex language, doesn’t that mean it’s racist?

Aren’t you basically saying that simpler languages are for idiots? Or certain language speakers (subraces) cannot think properly?

Or maybe, as in the studies of the genes, language is fucking genetic you potatoes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409215/the-genetics-of-language/

It facilitates informed public debate and sensible collective decision-making.

no, IQ

higher IQ people also vote more

http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/iq-and-voter-turnout.html

from

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/data-drive-iq-immigrants-and-economy-prosperity/

And education isn’t a proxy for IQ either
https://iea.org.uk/are-brexit-voters-really-less-intelligent-than-remainers/
found that exams had become progressively easier over the last ten years, with exam boards competing for business by making it easier for pupils to obtain higher grades.”

What’s the average IQ of each university (total/students) and their vote? Compared to subject requirement minimum? (not UCAS points)

What you want is a magical POP! where all the severely mutated genes die out. You want a higher proportion of genes in the country for higher IQ on average. It doesn’t work that way. It’s a process, a eugenic process.

We have had a few pandemics to get there in NW Europe, hanging to finish off the remainder (High Time Pref) and I don’t think you’d like them.

The more literate people are, the better they are able to exercise control over public affairs and contribute to genuinely democratic government.

Democracy isn’t bottom up. They only want literacy to continue the brainwash train.

The average man on the street doesn’t care how the streets are paved, just that they are. We should not all become mini despots, politicians on a micro scale. That’s what SJWs are and it makes them mad. Little control freak thought police drunk on the facade of power of a Little Emperor. No. Make the representatives transparent (no NGO bribes) to the nation and accountable (for outcomes) and legally responsible, personally. Everyone else is responsible for what happens on their watch at work. Actually represent the tax payers. Yes, the tax payers, and NOT the voters. It is the taxpayers’ money they spend, NOT the voters’.

They used to mean the same thing. No longer.

Aside from a citizenship model, anyone who pays tax in this country should be allowed to vote on what it’s spent on. If you don’t care enough to earn enough to pay in, you don’t care enough to take an interest in how it’s paid out (self-interest needs to be shamed but every vote is by nature, self-interest incarnate). Yet it’s self-interest backed by investment.

Back to the corruption index.

23 France (LOL)

24 UAE

28 Israel

31 Taiwan

50 Rwanda

60 Cuba

60 Italy

64 South Africa

69 Greece

75 Turkey

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915392/turkey-join-european-union-membership-tayyip-erdogan-jean-claude-juncker-donald-tusk-talks

79 Brazil

79 China

79 India

166 Venezuela

173 Syria (those lovely refugees)

How did UK women vote in 2017?

+5% conservative on the last election.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Conservative leaning. Again.
Fuck you. Do your research before insulting us.

This election was literally split down the middle, unlike the past one I covered.
Why does this matter?
Record number of women standing and a record number of women not voting (reported 2015).
If you look at the most well-known left-leaning in sum, Labour+Lib Dems+SNP = 51% of men voted for the far Lefties.
Men are not getting smarter.

Shall we revoke their suffrage?
On what grounds?
The right to vote includes the right to abstain or vote stupid.
In this case, suicidal.

Ah, but this wasn’t predicted, say the wrong people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/demographics-dividing-britain/

“However, these two things cancelled each other out meaning that ultimately the Conservatives polled about the same amongst both men and women. Going into the 2017 election women are, if anything, slightly more (three percentage points) likely overall to vote Tory.”

Quit blaming us. It’s the working class men and the signalling middle.
The margins are so wafer-thin if you got those in order, there’d be no problem.

As you can see in that article and the first one, the classes vote more reliably than the sexes, and the races even more than that (for more/less Gov).
Women were never really banned from voting, that’s another piece of American BS.
Choose a new meme, you look silly to anyone who looks this up.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/womens-suffrage-is-a-feminist-frame-actually-universal/

Asiana-America is the future

Demographics is destiny.

From https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21669595-asian-americans-are-united-states-most-successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever

The Hispanic measures will be smaller than predicted given Trump got in.
All current data shows the flood from China is the biggest factor.

“In 2013 the numbers of both Chinese and Indian migrants overtook Mexicans for the first time.”

Don’t import people who breed faster than you (r-selection) because at minimum it depresses wages from labour supply. The politicians prefer to because N bred exactly = voters available.

As it is, the immigration of civic nationalism is specious in reasoning. Why don’t their homeland want them and why don’t they want their homeland? Do we expect undying loyalty their homeland somehow didn’t command? It’s ludicrous.

We end up with a line of Good Time Charlies, instead of brains and soldiers.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Here’s hoping.

While I’m going pure NRx mood

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

And on the rotting fish head of degeneracy

Nothing is quite so wretchedly corrupt as an aristocracy which has lost its power but kept its wealth and which still has endless leisure to devote to nothing but banal enjoyments. All its great thoughts and passionate energy are things of the past, and nothing but a host of petty, gnawing vices now cling to it like worms to a corpse

More blame for Hillary

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2936-elite-white-feminism-gave-us-trump-it-needs-to-die

I guess it’s better to blame the figurehead?

I guess intersectionality is coming to the Left. As if they could be any less relevant.

Typical dense SJW tactics to double down on something that doesn’t work.
Pandering to increasingly niche groups of people to be edgy, doesn’t win you elections.

Conservative political savant Karl Rove said this week on Fox News that focus groups conducted with working-class women showed that they didn’t care that Clinton would be the first woman president. And compared to Obama in 2008, Clinton won fewer votes from women, whether they were black, Latina or white.

Oh now you listen to Fox.

Mentioning race obscures the classism.

Her tone-deaf campaign didn’t even pretend to transcend such class divisions. Once she had secured the nomination, Clinton offered few ideas about how to make ordinary women’s lives better.

Guess which one is actionable?

The campaign endlessly touted endorsements from the ranks of the celebrity one-percenters, especially women. In the end, Clinton enjoyed a gender advantage only among the college-educated.Among white women without college degrees, Clinton lost to Trump by 28 points. It was almost as if waitresses in Ohio didn’t care that Anna Wintour was #WithHer.

The elite feminism Clinton represents is also a white feminism.

Wait, do you really expect every Democrat candidate after Obama to be black? And what about the Hispanics? The Muslims? I thought the Democrats sold that they were capable of sympathy?

She was more interested in trying to attract white suburban, Republican women. In the end, African American turnout was lower than in 2012.

You felt taken for granted? Welcome to the world of white people.
This election cycle, across the world, the left lost the working class whites.
Blaming the blacks for exerting agency, what a shocker. Why do they expect Democrat support? They aren’t the blue version of Uncle Toms.

Feminist writer Jill Filipovic went much further in her disgust for the masses, tweeting about Clinton, “Sorry, America, you didn’t deserve her.”

They agreed.
They still don’t mention the scandals.

As well, if white male solidarity with a misogynist and racist – or, for that matter, any special feelings about Trump – was a huge factor, he should have invigorated the base. Yet there was no surge in Republican voters –Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012.

My God it can read.

It was dumb of America to elect him.

See I may be condescending, but I insult individuals, not entire countries.
Why did Democrats lose again?
I bet they don’t know voting is correlated as a civic duty to high IQ populations who feel responsible.
Awkward.

Feminism now has an opportunity to move beyond the go-girlism of the Sheryl Sandberg set.

The nice PR stuff. What’s left? More Dear White People?

But we can’t do it with leaders who would rather hobnob with billionaires than fight for ordinary women. A feminism that revels in its identification with people like Clinton – forming groups with names like Pantsuit Nation – is not a feminism that values the lives of most women.

Turn on the people with power?
These are not smart women.

 

All Hail Trump

The Hitler memes didn’t work, huh? Screaming racist bigot neither?

Meme magic is real.

The internet is hilarious today. All your whining did nothing.

Where’s the wrong side of history shit?

Here’s one of the funniest reactions I was flagged. From a non-American.

What has been learned from history? Nothing, apparently. A dark day. He won because of hatred. He used anger, desperation and vulnerability for his own gain and power. Nothing will ‘change’, just provide room for more hatred and exclusion as seen with #Brexit. I hope the #EU stands strong against such hate and continues to fight for the freedom, equality, and peace for all. I shall fight my own battle in my daily life standing up for the oppressed and providing a voice for those who have been silenced. #USelection2016#SadDay#IwillStandAgainstHateandOppression 

Meanwhile

Clinton would’ve got away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddlin’ white people.

news.vice.com/story/white-people-voted-to-elect-donald-trump

https://t.co/zfRb3aUgFZ

Why did they lose?

Salon: “We must shame dumb Trump fans: The white working class are not victims
It’s not smug liberalism to point out Trump backers are low-educated. What’s dangerous is to sympathize with them

Among the best media reactions was Time Out UK.

Oh, FUCK

http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/oh-fuck-110916

They’ve taken it down now.

Hey, if you’re feeling low, imagine all the millionaires crying in their mansions right about now?

At least Hollywood lost.

What about the inequality that famous votes only count for one?

OT: Didn’t they say Republicans would never win an election again? They were really smug about it for years after Obama 2. Something about too few white people?

They know how you vote

Votes can be traced by matching the numbered ballot paper to its similarly numbered counterfoil; the numbered counterfoil also bears the voter’s registration number from the electoral register which is hand-written by the Polling Clerk when the ballot paper is issued. As all the ballot papers for each candidate – including fringe candidates such as Sinn Fein, communists, fascists, nationalists, etc. – are bundled together, anyone having access to those documents can speedily trace the name and address of every voter for such candidates if they wish.

…claimed that the South African government knew the identity of everyone who voted for the Communist Party of Great Britain – thanks to British intelligence using this simple vote-tracing procedure. In any event, the notion that we have a secret vote is very misleading.

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1051,00.html

Instead of writing over with pen, they’d just reprint your slip and write in what they like.

You could do it with a home printer.

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?

 

The genetics of politics

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

…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.”…