Slow slide into Communism

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/6635715/over-40s-tax-how-would-social-care-premium-work-retired-people-pay/
No, all adults should pay it.
All adults are aging.
Not fair. Not equal.

40 is the weirdest cut-off.
Young Communists should pay too!*

Most on meds are young people on psych meds!

(Who wants to tell Gen Y they won’t retire and it isn’t a legal right?)*

If only we had a glorious National Health system!

Right?

A National Insurance system?

Single insurance, much cheaper, like quality-topping France, would be such a burden compared to all these taxes, right?

And the admin cash, lost forever.

Why don’t they force you to pick a position on the wings in your census and that corresponds to how much tax you have to pay (and it’s public info).

The calculation is simple – do you believe you could invest in yourself better than the Government?

Morally flawless, easy to implement and no excess admin.

Tactical voting this election for non-cucks


Credit: Relatively Stable British Memes

And then there’s this one.

And the honest v.

I wonder if they’re going to get it.

Given the backfire effect, probably not.

It’s like the Remoaners after Brexit.

Denial of reality, classic r.

I’m busy running around for this GE which surprised me so, so much, like I did Brexit last year.

My prediction? The WWC want Brexit and they’re angry. They voted for it and the supposed conservatives (cucks) aren’t delivering. The working class won’t vote Labour after Rotherham, the traitors have lost two, three generations easily and the old 20th century WWC loyalty goes along with it.
Miliband’s out of touch comments about Islamophobia really sealed it, however socialist Corbyn tries to virtue signal, it’s obvious he doesn’t care about workers from this country and the London mayor isn’t even British. Meanwhile, Trump cuddles up to Merkel over May and nobody says anything. Surrounded by deceivers.

Third party protest votes will be the way to go, and post-Brexit, there’s one obvious candidate.

A coalition is a distinct possibility, but it eats into Labour so for now the Tories won’t care.

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?

 

Links: The Evolution of Politics (naturalistic fallacy abounds btw)

Cooperative politics = Left wing
Prehistory = the time we genocided a bunch of other intelligent primates and ate them.
Not a single mention of r/K or mating strategy. Think they’re starting to get scared? Of the truth. From that point of focus on, they’re doomed.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/civilized-death/201512/the-evolution-politics-part-i

Ideas don’t scale. A tribe may survive based on genetic similarity, there is an extraneous variable causing the observed correlation. A whole continent based on the same principles would fail. See the EU for how that’s going.

“cohesive, smoothly-functioning social groups were central to the success of our species”

during times of famine, war and natural disasters for humans like the Ice Age i.e. when times were hard and lives were short (resource restriction). That speaks nothing of the ease conditions we have today and conflates the State of Nature with 21st century civilization (no, just don’t). A common good requires genes in common.

““In our view, this “gene-centric” focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution.”

Genes are measurable, we can look at them you daft prick, until you can categorically measure the other stuff, it will remain the focus and I needn’t listen to anything else those people have to say. There aren’t ‘missing pieces’, what sophistry. One of the issues with evobio, we have too many explanations. They are lying. To put my money where my mouth is;

  • “Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias);” novel mutations, genetic
  • “how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity);” how do you develop muscles? the body heals after stressors and this varies by the organ in organism, duh, basic incremental improvements over generations
  • “how organisms modify environments (niche construction);” it’s called mastery and caused by adaptation/reaction
  • “and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance).” Loaded question, inheritance isn’t limited exclusively to the coding information packets we call genes. For example, cultural information is inherited.

This person tops it off with an outright lie covering for Kumbaya politics. “Whatever the multiplicity of mechanisms underlying evolution may be [DS: classic academic code for We Want More Grant Money], it’s clear that they often result in organisms whose behavior is decidedly cooperative and generous.” How is it clear? How often? Where? The Burden of Proof rests with you. Humans are still waging war. Other primates wage war. The diametric opposite of those things.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/civilized-death/201512/the-evolution-politics-part-ii
“Boehm argues that “egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy, a curious type that is based on anti-hierarchical feelings.” That isn’t an argument, that’s an opinion, but okay.
…”egalitarianism involves a very special type of hierarchy“, everyone

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

It isn’t as if words have agreed upon meanings, is it?
FYI voting was about societal contributions in the form of tax, expressly how those were spent. Up until very recently, if you didn’t pay tax, into the pot, you couldn’t vote. Men simply managed the estates, including taxes. Women and all discounted men got the vote when the economy allowed them to live independently (20s era wealth) and manage their own taxes.

Mistaken ideas of history on Patriarchy and Votes for X

Briefly.

Too many men online have woefully inaccurate views of history.

2 examples.

  1. Patriarchy.
  2. Votes NOT for women.

Patriarchy is formed at the head of a household. 
Bachelors are not patriarchs.
Often they are pitied. If not openly hated.
Patriarchy isn’t top-down control.
It’s closer to management. Largely hands-off.
It requires a lot of money, more than Child Support.
Control freaks are brought up on charges by the Government for abusing their position.
They are judged by their peers of other men and Patriarchs.
It does not mean ordering around your family.
That’s called slavery.
From a bachelor’s perspective, Patriarchy is bad.
It punishes their lifestyle. Harshly. Why?
The daughters of the Patriarchs are kept under lock and key.
Ever heard of chastity belts?
Hope you can pick locks.
Still, when you’re eventually discovered, whichever N count that may be, you might have the honour of fighting for Her Honour.
Unimportant to you as she is.
The nomad lifestyle is one of poverty.
Since you can only bring what you can carry on your back.
Sexy lordosis.
When you acquire a reputation, the Patriarchs will band together.
Run you out of town.
Throw you in debtor’s prison for the compensation to all the fathers.
Or simply hang you.

Yes, by all means, keep calling for Patriarchy, you dense bastards.
Of which you’d have many. Who would come after you years later too. Watch your back for the revenge of leaving dear Mother, customer … you forget the number.
What a magical life it seems, compared to the 21st C. of little to no responsibility and a State who blankets your biggest mistakes with taxpayer money.

ah yes toast drinking damon ian nodding

Briefer still;

Men rarely had The Vote either. Pick up a sodding history book.
Do you really think they’d vote to be cannon fodder so often?
To have the taxes on their farms and manual labour raised?

Any such downgrade of the voting system to the previous one of merit would be based on economic merit. On one’s earned or inherited stake in society. AKA
Do you own property?
No, of course you don’t.
That’s why you’re bitching on the internet and pining for a history where you’d be a serf, gutted in some distant field for a man you’ve never met. #maledisposability
So thank God the voting laws aren’t rolled back.

Or you’d be lumped in with most of the women too. Bitch.

deanwinchester supernatural wink flirty hey hello nice