I'm in favor of eliminating universal suffrage. There's a certain value in being able to vote only if you own property.

Ann Coulter has said if we took away women's right to vote, the Democrats would never win again. Would be interesting to see if she can walk the walk as well and vote for the end of women's suffrage.

The best way to end women's suffrage would be to do it by default rather than directly.

Heinlein was somewhat prescient in this regard IMO. Tie the vote to military service and women would have to STFU about it. If they complained that it was sexist then you tell them "women are equal to men and equally capable of earning their vote in the military".

You wouldn't eliminate the left wing vote entirely but you'd relegate it to irrelevance. Military adventurism would be crippled ironically, as most people would have a dog in the fight so to speak or be acutely aware of what it meant to send men into the line of fire.

The only people that had a vote would be people who'd spent 4 years getting up early, getting their shit together and saluting the flag. And if the shit-eating cucks didn't like it then they would be welcome to revolt. It wouldn't work out well for them, though.

(06-02-2017 02:58 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I'm in favor of eliminating universal suffrage. There's a certain value in being able to vote only if you own property.

Or just explicitly allow only value-add members of society to vote, which can change on a rolling basis:

(05-09-2017 01:04 PM)Kabal Wrote:  markwahlbergwhatno.gif

We need fewer fringe members of civilization to be voting, not more.

Something more like: If every four years aggregate federal government spending was G in the trailing four years, that's divided by the end of period population size to give the per capita break-even figure (with some adjustments, whatever whatever), let's say K.

If you contributed more than K in federal taxes in the trailing four years, you get to vote for the next four years. If not, tough cookies. Military-based exceptions will be made, and already-paid social security amounts can be grandfathered-in.

You don't get a seat at the grown-ups table if you're sucking from the government teat.

This also gives a natural incentive for any egalitarians to need to trade-off government size and enfranchisement for their pet groups. The lesser government spending, the more people that get to vote.

We can also cap/floor it so that at least the top 20% of federal contributors get to vote. This is to very conservatively (in the numerical meaning, not politically) safeguard against the ultra-rich potentially cornering an increased spending/greater vote-share spiral. We can call it the One-Fifths Compromise.

(03-14-2017 07:58 PM)Fightersword Wrote:  MGTOWs are also unlikely to really want to get involved in politics.

The #1 thing I see MGTOWs do is hand out daily doses of red-pills on Youtube. I'd consider that activism, albeit focused on changing hearts and minds rather than elections and legislation. I really think the one thing that replaces the void left by not getting any pussy is broadcasting these red-pill rants. Also, there is a perception right now that Youtube is trying to crush MGTOW channels as hate-speech which gives them another reason to see themselves as crusaders for a just cause.

The idea of one gender "holding out" to influence the behavior of another is an old one. It's Lysistrata, maybe the first ever SJW story. Unfortunately, due to the 80/20 rule and the unquenchability of male-thirst I don't think we can ever see any sort of successful MGTOW boycott.

I think unchecked hypergamy eventually leads to a very small number of men maintaining very large harems of casual fuckbuddies and all other guys resign themselves to porn and hobbies. Men like to see this situation as a victory for women but even though they can get all the sex they want, they are denied anything deeper. They, like MGTOW, are also giving up. It's just a different kind of giving up. They then shield themselves by reframing sluttery a form of female empowerment. It's a very sick delusion but it's firmly entrenched now thanks to pop culture.

It's a race to the bottom.

(06-02-2017 11:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The best way to end women's suffrage would be to do it by default rather than directly.

Heinlein was somewhat prescient in this regard IMO. Tie the vote to military service and women would have to STFU about it. If they complained that it was sexist then you tell them "women are equal to men and equally capable of earning their vote in the military".

You wouldn't eliminate the left wing vote entirely but you'd relegate it to irrelevance. Military adventurism would be crippled ironically, as most people would have a dog in the fight so to speak or be acutely aware of what it meant to send men into the line of fire.

The only people that had a vote would be people who'd spent 4 years getting up early, getting their shit together and saluting the flag. And if the shit-eating cucks didn't like it then they would be welcome to revolt. It wouldn't work out well for them, though.

Good to see another Starship Troopers fan here.

I actually think a government like this is worth trying. People should have to serve in the military or some form of peace corps before gaining the right to vote. Hell, maybe even significant land ownership as well. The right to vote should be earned.

To the OP, this would not work as all men's related movements have been undermined.

I think if any restrictions are placed on the universal right to vote, restrictions should be based upon a basic civics exam. Be able to describe what the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches do (and perhaps how checks and balances works, at least on a broad basis). Be able to name the US Rep and Senator from your district. Something like that. Arbitrarily taking the right to vote away from a group doesn't solve anything--what makes some white hayseed landowner in West Virginia more qualified to vote than a professional woman in a large city (or a wealthy middle-aged landowner who inherited a family business and has no concept of government better than a young college student living in an apartment)?

Many of the enlightened men that post on this forum decry the fact that society/the government/whatever else has resulted in shitty jobs, low wages, and worthless degrees that makes it impossible for them to own land. Should they not have the right to vote either?

(02-27-2017 11:20 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  From my understanding, MGTOW, MRA, alt-right and neomasculinists have one overlap - they are all a result of unchecked female hypergamy and rights that used to be regulated prior to the 1900's.

Neomasculinists improve themselves through game/money/fitness/circumstances to elevate themselves to men in the top 20% of desired female sexual selection, get laid (and tend to have offspring). MGTOW's that are in the bottom 80% so they simply check out of society that does not give them a stake (progeny) to work towards. Alt-right resulted from cucked political decision that came from women voting in socialist and pro-immigration laws. MRA's want laws to be fair toward men but it just falls of deaf ears.

There is no way any of these groups will see eye to eye on anything or so I thought. What if these groups can commit themselves to end female suffrage?

Surely this is something actionable all groups can agree with. This idea is not as fringe as I used to believe. Samseau mentioned in another thread that 80% of alt-right already agree to it and with the internet I think the political landscape can change very quickly despite how unrealistic many may believe it to be. This is an issue that ought to brought up and discussed.

Do I see red pill type groups fighting the excesses of female/homo/immigrant centric power blocs today?
To a small extent. Plenty of people see the reality. BUT they would need to fight powerful groups. So even if the pendulum swings a little way back it won't go THAT far. Unless there are changes.

Do I see all these groups joining together? Absolutely not. Why? Because they are very disparate.
Red pill has all different types. Traditionalists, Christians, mainstreamers who simpy think the homo-immirgant-fat dyke career woman shit has gone too far. Then you have authoritarians, those who promote an Islamic system. There's anti-Establishment red pillers re the economy. Then there's those of the far right economically - proposing the end of voting for those without property. There's those that want polygyny for the top x percentage and don't really care if society breaks down. There are many European red pill socialists. Whereas in America "Socialist" is often a term of abuse. And there's no agreement on what left and right actually mean. I mean someone accused me of being a "possible leftist" even tho I despise fags, career dykes like Clinton and mass immigration more than pretty much anyone!

The hatred between some of these factions is as much as any straight v fag, or men v short haired career dyke.

As for the end of female suffragette, there's NO CHANCE in a Western society.
They say that "divide and conquer" is the way to suppress protests. Well the red pillers have already divided themselves. If the movement is to succeed it has to be mainstream and realistic in its goals. If its hijacked by the "traditional far right Establishment" it won't work.

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)Teflon1 Wrote:  I think if any restrictions are placed on the universal right to vote, restrictions should be based upon a basic civics exam. Be able to describe what the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches do (and perhaps how checks and balances works, at least on a broad basis). Be able to name the US Rep and Senator from your district. Something like that. Arbitrarily taking the right to vote away from a group doesn't solve anything--what makes some white hayseed landowner in West Virginia more qualified to vote than a professional woman in a large city (or a wealthy middle-aged landowner who inherited a family business and has no concept of government better than a young college student living in an apartment)?

Many of the enlightened men that post on this forum decry the fact that society/the government/whatever else has resulted in shitty jobs, low wages, and worthless degrees that makes it impossible for them to own land. Should they not have the right to vote either?

Yeah, the land-owners thing is a bit bizarre in my opinion. Some guy owns a carboard box sized plot in suburban New York and another guy owns a million acres in Texas. Same?

What's to stop a regional government subdividing 10,000 acres into 100,000 plots and selling each one to a government crony for a dollar per title?

Conversely, buying land as an investment would also be perversely tied to denying opposing voters a vote by jacking up real estate markets and forcing people in Red states to rent.

It made sense back when the Constitution was penned. Now? Not so much.

Yes it will be necessary to get anywhere.

Until these groups can stop being internet pals and actually meet up, discuss, organize, and work together and carry out operations it's largely going to be useless.

Of course it's good to spread red pill and other information about the internet but that should be a sub set rather than the entire system.

Red pill has no unity and no teeth.

If they changed rape laws tomorrow, what would the red pill do? Write a few dumb articles about it?

Nothing, that's what.

Additionally this work is a big responsibility and you'd need a collection of men with both the talent and the accountability to take it on.

I really can't believe that no one does it already and frankly it'd be nice for someone else to, but it seems like everyone thinks like that so nothing ever gets done.

We'd need actual organization and effort and operations, not just random internet comments and discussion. Until then expect things to be business as usual.

It's quite ironic that a movement that prides itself on the inferiority of women, is getting absolutely steam rolled by them.

(03-01-2017 02:08 PM)Valentine Wrote:  It's possible - we already did so with everyone for Trump. Though thinking about it as a "single cause" is not entirely correct.

Encompassed within voting for Trump was many issues - pro-nationalism, anti-(low skilled, mass and illegal) immigration, anti-political correctness, etc.

Now we just have to decide on more of these unified front causes that everyone can believe in and decide on what's the most plausible.

Focusing on big Trump policies:
- Minimising foreign hiring
- Eliminating gun control laws across all of USA (pushing it in Europe like Czech Republic too)
- Auditing the Fed
- Destroying the Old Media
- Eliminating Islamic radicalisation

And championing some possible new ones:
- Anti-Affirmative Action
- Promoting Christianity
- Fair divorce and child support laws
- Eliminating suffrage
etc

This would entail media strategies, meme campaigns, new web properties, alliances etc all focused on promoting these causes. Specifically seeking out help from these other factions in order to promote these causes.

After achieving all items on the list of what everyone can agree on the unified front will naturally split again, but hopefully enough people from within this huge mix of alt-right/men's movements will have joined the more reasonable factions like ours during the unified process.

I think this is the best approach. You're never going to get these disparate groups to see eye to on everything, but you can get them to coordinate on certain common denominator goals. Just look what happened with Trump's election. Each of these groups saw something in him that they liked and worked together to help get him elected.

In any case, the left is really no different. It's composed of barely compatible groups but they've still managed to implement their agenda over the past 50 years.

I think what's needed on our side is a list of concrete policy shifts to advocate that over time will change the culture. Simply calling for a less anti-male zeitgeist and writing blogs about it is not going to change anything in itself.

In addition to the policies mentioned by Valentine, I can think of a few others. Some are readily achievable while others are more long-term pie-in-the-sky:

In family law:
- End alimony (as being based on an antiquated patriarchal premise)
- No child support without paternity test
- End no-fault divorce

In education:
- End federal loans for universities
- Repeal Title IX
- Force schools to discontinue using textbooks that promote leftist agendas (multiculturalism, feminism)

In culture:
- Find ways to broaden our reach beyond just Twitter and a network of blogs. Creating a red-pill movie studio would be a great step toward embedding our message in the culture's default narratives. Likewise launching an actual red-pill news channel (and not the watered-down pablum that is Fox).

(06-02-2017 08:27 AM)Repo Wrote:  Do you really expect to get right wing women to vote to take away their right to vote?

As long as men think like this, nothing will improve.

The social order cannot be reshaped by votes, only by swords.

Women only got the vote because men allowed it. Muslim immigration is only a threat to the west because our leaders allow it. Sexual degeneracy is only a problem because we have allowed it.

Men need to change the way they think about modern problems. The solutions are there, if we're willing to reach out and take them.