What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

Salient portion of your link:
"As soon as American women were allowed to vote, alcohol was banned in the United States. The temperance movement had been a female dominated nuisance for decades, but now hopelessly misguided female busybodies had electoral power. It was a farce that turned a nation into lawbreakers and birthed organised crime on a massive scale.

Slowly but inexorably, the United Kingdom and the United States, and other societies that allowed women to vote, began to tilt leftward. Welfare states were created, largely because women feel that it’s not “fair” to allow people to succeed or fail on their own merits. And it’s not “fair” that a woman should have to rely on the father of her children to support her, when she can make men in general pay for her upkeep through the tax and welfare systems.

Government, which had once been small and limited, began to spread its tentacles like a rape-beast from the sickest Japanese anime porn until it penetrated the lives of every citizen. Taxes started to rise in order to pay for all these new entitlements and programmes, and an entire caste of useless bureaucrats emerged to run them. Family and divorce law gradually warped into the anti-male Kafkaesque nightmare it is today because of politicians chasing female votes."

GUNSnROTORS said:

I believe I recall from a previous post that GG176 suffers from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

Saw his rant real-time, thought about addressing - but decided to give it a pass, figuring it was the product of strong medication or a bleak prognosis. Plus I figured it was bad enough to get "handled" by the professionals.

Click to expand...

I believe you are right about his illness and it's a true shame, GG is above all a Patriot but patriotism and bigotry are not mutually exclusive.

It wasn't me that reported his post, like you I figured that it would be handled appropriately by those tasked with the obligation.

I've started to write a reply several times.

I'll just stick with saying "I'm with StoveMan."

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Agreed.

http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote

Click to expand...

I'd love to see statistics on the votes from women versus men on these laws. I do agree that it's likely that votes from women pushed at least some of the legislation we speak of over the edge. But they most certainly couldn't have done it all themselves.

Don't for one second begin to believe that women are the cause (even if they are significant contributors) of intrusive restrictions, else you'll be left having to explain how women were responsible for the rise of the Soviet Union and the imposition of Communism in China and other areas of the world, not to mention how they caused East Germany to become the most efficient oppressor of liberty ever seen, or how they caused Rome to become a bureaucratic empire. Hint: you can't, because they weren't.


The founders of this country knew tyranny in a time when women didn't have any kind of vote. Bureaucratic tyranny and nanny states have existed for far longer than women have had that kind of political power, and it is a massive mistake to forget that.

Women may have accelerated our trajectory towards tyranny. But I guarantee we were headed there anyway, because the government system we live under is oriented around the passage of laws (i.e., restrictions upon liberty), not the minimization of them. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how quickly laws are repealed in comparison with how quickly they are passed. The latter vastly dominates the equation, and always has.

kcbrown said:

I'd love to see statistics on the votes from women versus men on the issue. I do agree that it's likely that votes from women pushed at least some of the legislation we speak of over the edge. But they most certainly couldn't have done it all themselves.

Don't for one second begin to believe that women are the cause (even if they are significant contributors) of intrusive restrictions, else you'll be left having to explain how women were responsible for the rise of the Soviet Union and the imposition of Communism in China and other areas of the world, not to mention how they caused East Germany to become the most efficient oppressor of liberty ever seen, or how they caused Rome became a bureaucratic empire. Hint: you can't, because they weren't.


The founders of this country knew tyranny in a time when women didn't have any kind of vote. Bureaucratic tyranny and nanny states have existed for far longer than women have had that kind of political power, and it is a massive mistake to forget that.

Women may have accelerated our trajectory towards tyranny. But I guarantee we were headed there anyway, because the government system we live under is oriented around the passage of laws (i.e., restrictions upon liberty), not the minimization of them. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how quickly laws are repealed in comparison with how quickly they are passed. The latter vastly dominates the equation, and always has.

Click to expand...

I don't have the statistics on hand, but I recall reading that in Virginia a few weeks ago, that while married women had a 6% swing versus married men for the Democrat, there was a 27% swing for unmarried men versus unmarried women, which makes sense. Women naturally like to be taken care of. If they don't have a husband, they vote to have the state stand in as a surrogate.

You are correct that women didn't do it alone, and that tyranny can take place without women in power, but the fact remains, men, as a group, haven't voted for the Democrat since Carter, and white men, as a group, haven't voted for the Democrat since LBJ. Democrats win elections with the votes of single women and non-whites.

fred333 said:

Most of the irrational, illogical and kooky laws/politicians that adversely affect our lives today were instigated by women (e.g., prohibition, gun "it's for the kids" control, the Clintons, Carter, PAA (Barack Hussein Obama), the mainstreaming of progressivism, et al).

Click to expand...

Going back to Propertied Male Suffrage would do much good for the nation. Never happen, of course.

Bob A said:

Going back to Propertied Male Suffrage would do much good for the nation. Never happen, of course.

Click to expand...

I'd rather limit to to men with an IQ above 100 and who pay federal income taxes.

GlocksAndPatriots said:

I'd rather limit to to men with an IQ above 100 and who pay federal income taxes.

Click to expand...

I'm good with that. If you have no skin in the game, you're just a leech on the body politic. Actually, I don't even care if you're a drooling mouth-breather; if you're supporting the system, you should get a say in the operations.

kcbrown said:

I'd love to see statistics on the votes from women versus men on these laws.

Click to expand...

Statistics, shamistics. Feh.
"Women's suffrage has had a profound impact on the USA....The constitutional amendment for women getting the vote followed along with a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. The prohibition movement has been called "the first mass women's movement in US history" and prohibition was spurred by women getting the vote in many states before the national amendment took effect in 1920. And women backed prohibition more strongly than men."*
How has women's suffrage impacted the USA?

* It's likely that a goodly percentage of those men who vote for womens' nonsense, do so for reasons akin to this:


"One especially remarkable aspect of progressivism was the full participation of American women....Acting through such organizations as the Young Women's Christian Association, the National Consumers' League, professional associations, and trade unions, female reformers were at the forefront of the movement against child labor as well as the women's suffrage campaign. They won minimum wage and maximum hours laws for women workers, public health programs for pregnant women and babies, improved educational opportunities for both children and adults, and an array of social welfare measures at the local, state, and federal levels. They even succeeded in creating the Children's Bureau (1912) and the Women's Bureau (1920) in the federal Department of Labor. All in all, women's activism created a more intimate relationship between citizens and their government and laid part of the foundation for the welfare state that would take definitive shape during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency in the 1930s."
Women in the Progressive Era

Death, where be thy sting...

fred333 said:

Statistics, shamistics. Feh.

Click to expand...

Heh.

"Women's suffrage has had a profound impact on the USA....The constitutional amendment for women getting the vote followed along with a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. The prohibition movement has been called "the first mass women's movement in US history" and prohibition was spurred by women getting the vote in many states before the national amendment took effect in 1920. And women backed prohibition more strongly than men."*
How has women's suffrage impacted the USA?

* It's likely that a goodly percentage of those men who vote for womens' nonsense, do so for reasons akin to this:

"One especially remarkable aspect of progressivism was the full participation of American women....Acting through such organizations as the Young Women's Christian Association, the National Consumers' League, professional associations, and trade unions, female reformers were at the forefront of the movement against child labor as well as the women's suffrage campaign. They won minimum wage and maximum hours laws for women workers, public health programs for pregnant women and babies, improved educational opportunities for both children and adults, and an array of social welfare measures at the local, state, and federal levels. They even succeeded in creating the Children's Bureau (1912) and the Women's Bureau (1920) in the federal Department of Labor. All in all, women's activism created a more intimate relationship between citizens and their government and laid part of the foundation for the welfare state that would take definitive shape during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency in the 1930s."
Women in the Progressive Era

Death, where be thy sting...

Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly agree that women almost certainly accelerated the process. But we'd still be heading in the same direction even without their political participation. The USSR is proof. China is proof. The Roman Empire is proof. Even the United States is proof, seeing how the body of laws was already continuously growing long before women got the power to vote.

Whether by the hand of man or woman, tyranny is tyranny. I don't give a $#@#!! which gender it comes from. I'm opposed to it all the same.

If it's liberty you want, then you'll need to turn the nature of the vote itself into something that protects liberty. This is why I believe a potential solution to be a minority (e.g., 10% of the participants) veto vote against laws and/or court decisions which uphold laws. Since laws are restrictions upon liberty, the only way you're getting liberty back is by getting rid of the laws that destroy it, and the only way you're keeping it is by keeping the body of laws from growing. And since the nature of liberty itself is that very nearly any given liberty is something that only a minority of the population has an active interest in, you have to give those minorities an overriding voice with respect to whether or not a restriction upon their liberty stands. Because in the end, their liberty is your liberty.


Oh, one more thing: it was the vote of men, the very type of men that some here seem to believe would never vote in favor of tyranny, that gave women the power to vote in the first place.

I would submit that all laws should include a sunset provision 3yr, 5yr, whatever. Since laws restrict liberty, make the populace revisit those restrictions - takes care of unintended consequences also.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

There's a bit of confusion about causal links going on here.

True, not all leftist tyrannies were driven by women's suffrage. It is certainly possible to have a leftist tyranny without women's suffrage. However, it is not possible to have women's suffrage without leftist tyranny.

Unmarried women push for leftism with wild asymmetry. So do many other demographics. Just look at all the policies that the left consistently champions - sexuality without marriage, sex without procreation (abortion, etc), no-fault divorce laws, "overpopulation" myths to shame people into not reproducing.... not to mention preferential treatment of non-whites in every institution they can get their hands in - most importantly immigration.

Married women with children are the only demographic of women that don't vote overwhelmingly left. This is why the left is constantly working to disenfranchise, discourage, and disparage married women with kids. They know that these demographics will consistently give them unlimited power.

kcbrown said:

it was the vote of men, the very type of men that some here seem to believe would never vote in favor of tyranny, that gave women the power to vote in the first place.

Click to expand...

Lips that touch <insert whatever makes women hysterical this week here> shall not touch ours.

Ethan83 said:

There's a bit of confusion about causal links going on here.

True, not all leftist tyrannies were driven by women's suffrage. It is certainly possible to have a leftist tyranny without women's suffrage. However, it is not possible to have women's suffrage without leftist tyranny.

Unmarried women push for leftism with wild asymmetry. So do many other demographics. Just look at all the policies that the left consistently champions - sexuality without marriage, sex without procreation (abortion, etc), no-fault divorce laws, "overpopulation" myths to shame people into not reproducing.... not to mention preferential treatment of non-whites in every institution they can get their hands in - most importantly immigration.

Married women with children are the only demographic of women that don't vote overwhelmingly left. This is why the left is constantly working to disenfranchise, discourage, and disparage married women with kids. They know that these demographics will consistently give them unlimited power.

Click to expand...

Yes. Which accelerates the fall towards tyranny.

So far, you guys aren't disagreeing with me here. The march towards tyranny would have continued, women's suffrage or not, but the participation of women in political discourse has likely hastened the arrival of tyranny.

fred333 said:

Lips that touch <insert whatever makes women hysterical this week here> shall not touch ours.

Click to expand...

That's certainly what the women who were pushing for that said. You think that those women who were pushing in that regard were mostly married with children (the very women you guys are saying do not vote for all this socialist garbage)? They'd have to be in order to have the kind of influence over legislators necessary to cause a Constitutional Amendment to be passed, because the influence in question would have to extend not just to the national Congress, but to the legislatures of every state.

That's possible. But I'm not convinced, especially if the attitudes of married women with children are decidedly non-socialistic in nature as you guys seem to claim.


Either women have political control directly via the ballot box, or they have indirect control via massive influence (enough to cause a Constitutional Amendment to be enacted!) over men with power, or the men with power (white, married men, i.e. the very men you guys seem to think wouldn't vote for socialist garbage) decided to vote for things like women's suffrage all on their own. I'm not seeing much of a difference in outcome here, because no matter what, the plain fact is that the men in power end up voting for socialistic things like women's suffrage. But that fact blows your thesis (that we wouldn't have these problems if women couldn't vote) straight out of the water.

kcbrown said:

That's certainly what the women who were pushing for that said. You think that those women who were pushing in that regard were mostly married with children (the very women you guys are saying do not vote for all this socialist garbage)?

Click to expand...

I tend to think of women as being more politically homogeneous regardless of their marital status. But certainly married women have more power over their husbands than do lesbians.

kcbrown said:

Yes. Which accelerates the fall towards tyranny.

So far, you guys aren't disagreeing with me here. The march towards tyranny would have continued, women's suffrage or not, but the participation of women in political discourse has likely hastened the arrival of tyranny.

Click to expand...

Well, you haven't really disproven my point either. A government not controlled by women may become tyrannical. A government that is controlled by women, will become tyrannical.

Though to be fair, given enough time, all governments become tyrannical, so I guess your perspective - that it merely hastens the process - is pretty valid.

I think the phenomenon is closely related to Conquest's 2nd Law. There are only certain demographics that are right-wing by nature as a general rule. Women aren't one of them, unless they're married with children. Again, this is why leftists persistently conspire against traditional institutions like marriage, traditional gender roles, stay-at-home motherhood, etc, and promote things like abortion, divorce, feminism, etc. Same reason why they tell white people lies about overpopulation, and propagandize them with entertainment that denigrates child rearing, motherhood, marriage, etc - meanwhile they import as many people from the third-world as they can, and subsidize their procreation. Because they know that certain populations will without a doubt be overwhelmingly leftist, and other certain populations will be overwhelmingly right-wing.

Quick side note - I'm reminded of a bit I saw a stand-up comic do a little while back (I can't seem to find it again) - one of the punchlines was something along the lines of "only men got to vote on women's suffrage, and we still lost!"

Ethan83 said:

Well, you haven't really disproven my point either. A government not controlled by women may become tyrannical. A government that is controlled by women, will become tyrannical.

Click to expand...

The very nature of government is to exert control over people (indeed, that description is even embedded in the term "government"). Because of that, people who crave power over others tend to have more interest in becoming part of the government than other organizations, and thus become disproportionately represented therein. And because their interest is exercise of control over others, they impose restrictions because that is how governments exercise control. A representative form may slow the pace at which this happens, but it most certainly doesn't stop it. And because greater power to impose further restrictions tends to come about as a consequence of the restrictions that are already in place, this means that restrictions tend to accelerate over time, which means liberty is lost at an ever increasing pace, until you have tyranny.

This is independent of whether it is men or women who drive the political process. Women may hasten it a bit, but a system that does not inherently have a sufficiently strong feedback mechanism to stop the imposition of restrictions is guaranteed to end in tyranny. Tyranny is guaranteed because it is the inevitable logical consequence of the operation of a system wherein restrictions build over time.


As such, any government of any traditional form, whether or not it is controlled by women, will become tyrannical as well, because it is inherent in the nature of government and of human beings that this is so. The reasons may be different (one controlled by women might become that way because women are instinctively protective and tend to be more emotional, and thus are inclined to impose restrictions for the purpose of said protection, while one controlled by men will become that way because men wish to control that which is around them, including people -- and women as a rule might fall into this category as well), but the result is the same. Like I said, I don't care at all where tyranny comes from -- I'm opposed to it all the same.


Tyranny through government can only be prevented if the system of government is architected with a sufficiently strong feedback loop that nullifies restrictions that are put into place. The "minority veto" mechanism I favor is one that accounts for the nature of liberty. No system of government the world has seen does this.

Though to be fair, given enough time, all governments become tyrannical, so I guess your perspective - that it merely hastens the process - is pretty valid.

Click to expand...

I can't think of a more accurate way of describing it, given what we know of the history of governments, the nature of man, and especially the nature of liberty (most especially, that any given liberty will almost always be one that only a minority of the population is interested in exercising, and thus that only a minority will have a real interest in protecting).

Quick side note - I'm reminded of a bit I saw a stand-up comic do a little while back (I can't seem to find it again) - one of the punchlines was something along the lines of "only men got to vote on women's suffrage, and we still lost!"

Click to expand...

That is very funny because it's oh so true ...