Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 5th, 2016 #1
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,054
N.B. Forrest
Default

Look at the most popular entertainments for women: the perpetually, inexplicably fascinating (for females, anyway) Kardashian-Jenner mudshark whore/tranny circus and other "reality" filth; lousy sheebs like Lena Dunham & Amy Schumer; Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry & Beyonce on the "musical" front. Then consider their favorite popular art: Thomas Kincaid, P. Buckley Moss - cutesy, purely decorative stuff.

Yes. Giving them the vote was the greatest political blunder that ever benefited the kike in White history - and the worst thing that ever happened to the White race. I'd take it away from them if I could in a heartbeat - along with the right of Christers like the shitheads who gave "REAL Christian!" Cruz Iowa after he lied to them about Uncle Ben dropping out. Sadly, that katz is out of the bag for good, so we've got to do everything we can to work around it.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old February 5th, 2016 #2
NewsFeed
News Bot
 
Post Withdraw women's right to vote

Let me be clear here. When I refer to women's right to vote I mean voting on affairs of state, not on The X Factor or Big Brother, contests for which they're eminently suited. But my suggestion is probably futile anyway because that particular boat has long sailed and won't be returning to port any time soon. Our best hope is that it founders on the rocky shoals of reality with all aboard perishing in a watery grave.

Why the animus? Because it's clear that everything which besets and torments us today can be traced back to the entry of women to politics, with their strings expertly pulled by Cultural Marxist nation-wreckers such as those of the Frankfurt School. Their success can be judged by the pitiful state of the White male today. Discriminated against at every turn, the butt of every joke in the media, walking on eggshells lest an innocuous comment offends some protected group, edged out of jobs, college places and promotions, while the Government seizes at least half of his income which then ends up with the very groups who dispossess him.

Should he succeed, against the odds, in getting into a good university he'll discover to his horror that they're no longer elite intellectual forums. No, he'll find that they're virtual daycare centres for delicate snowflakes protected from upsetting contrarian opinion, Cultural Marxist brainwashing laboratories, with academic courses dumbed-down to accommodate minorities admitted under AA quotas. (Sociology degrees. Here, take one). Should he decide to start a business he'll find himself swamped with equal employment, health and safety, environmental and legal requirements and a government bureaucracy which works at every hands turn to frustrate him and drain away his earnings. And woe betide him should he marry, his house and children forfeit should his wife decide to up and leave.

And there are deeper economic and social implications. The bogus 'fairness' and 'equality' doctrines have created a huge and growing welfare class, one where the state replaces the traditional roles of fathers and husband roles by enthusiastically catering for baby mamas' bastard spawn. The replacement of merit by (bogus) fairness has had catastrophic impact on standards everywhere as women and other suffering minorities get shoehorned into positions beyond their capabilities. Say goodbye to bridges that don't collapse and the economic wonders that women and other minorities take for granted. And women succumb to the worst forms of xenophilia, leading the welcome for the swarthy hordes of invaders currently swarming across our borders. (Female support is massively under-represented - by orders of magnitude - for Europe's "far-right" (ha!) parties and similarly over-represented for kumbaya parties like the Greens).

It's no surprise that women vote disproportionately for such liberal, left-wing and kumbaya-style policies and the politicians that espouse them. (Obama would not have been elected had voting been confi

----- snip -----


read full article at source: http://irishsavant.blogspot.de/2016/...t-to-vote.html
 
Old February 5th, 2016 #3
JeffreyWaffenSS
Senior Member
 
JeffreyWaffenSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,513
JeffreyWaffenSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Look at the most popular entertainments for women: the perpetually, inexplicably fascinating (for females, anyway) Kardashian-Jenner mudshark whore/tranny circus and other "reality" filth; lousy sheebs like Lena Dunham & Amy Schumer; Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry & Beyonce on the "musical" front. Then consider their favorite popular art: Thomas Kincaid, P. Buckley Moss - cutesy, purely decorative stuff.

Yes. Giving them the vote was the greatest political blunder that ever benefited the kike in White history - and the worst thing that ever happened to the White race. I'd take it away from them if I could in a heartbeat - along with the right of Christers like the shitheads who gave "REAL Christian!" Cruz Iowa after he lied to them about Uncle Ben dropping out. Sadly, that katz is out of the bag for good, so we've got to do everything we can to work around it.
I agree. They're obsessed with the likes of sluts like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and American Idol, and they always vote liberal and Hillary will be elected if she gets the nomination because women will vote for her combined with the voting fraud as well. I say 80 percent of women will vote for Hillary maybe more.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #4
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Ironically several studies suggest that a lot of women don't take any interest in politics and simply vote for the same candidate as their husbands or parents.

Why don't we just ban voting altogether; it's not like it makes any difference and it would save A) a section of society from rigging it and B) another section of society from trying to pretend A) didn't happen.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #5
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Only white men who own property should vote.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #6
Darkvictory
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 190
Darkvictory
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Ironically several studies suggest that a lot of women don't take any interest in politics and simply vote for the same candidate as their husbands or parents.

Why don't we just ban voting altogether; it's not like it makes any difference and it would save A) a section of society from rigging it and B) another section of society from trying to pretend A) didn't happen.
You have a point.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #7
JeffreyWaffenSS
Senior Member
 
JeffreyWaffenSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,513
JeffreyWaffenSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Ironically several studies suggest that a lot of women don't take any interest in politics and simply vote for the same candidate as their husbands or parents.

Why don't we just ban voting altogether; it's not like it makes any difference and it would save A) a section of society from rigging it and B) another section of society from trying to pretend A) didn't happen.
Can't be that true because the polls show women voting a lot more democrat than men do.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #8
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Ironically several studies suggest that a lot of women don't take any interest in politics and simply vote for the same candidate as their husbands or parents.

Why don't we just ban voting altogether; it's not like it makes any difference and it would save A) a section of society from rigging it and B) another section of society from trying to pretend A) didn't happen.

Canadian women were given the vote in exchange for supporting the war against Germany.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #9
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyWaffenSS View Post
Can't be that true because the polls show women voting a lot more democrat than men do.
According to some woman named Terry O'Neill from the National Organisation for women, the discrepancy/lead of women who voted Obama in 2012 were unmarried (ie with no significant male in their lives) heads of families and reacting to Romney's comments on issues that affected them such as after school care, planned parenthood (especially when you have candidates in Indiana telling them that post rape pregnancy is the will of god) and so on.

I find the studies credible because the female lead in the comparison between male and female is not that great. It would be interesting to find out if the proportion of families with a woman at the head is similar to the discrepancy in male/female votes.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #10
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John from Canada View Post
Canadian women were given the vote in exchange for supporting the war against Germany.
Yes, women in the armed forces, nurses dealing with the fallout and women who had husbands/sons fighting were given the vote in 1916, if I remember correctly. All women without the influence of men in their lives, I believe - at least, that's if the rules were the same as ours meaning nurses had to be unmarried. So it doesn't rule out the thought that women vote the same as their significant male figure.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #11
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,054
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John from Canada View Post
Only white men who own property should vote.
Mere property ownership shouldn't be a factor; Bill Gates is both "white" and has a Mt. Everest of property. Ideally, I'd limit the franchise to White men with IQs of at least 95, between the ages of 25 & 75: weed out the retards, the know-it-all, know-nothing-at-all punks & the senile. Require a test on civics & general knowledge of world affairs. In short: create an electorate WORTHY to decide the nation's affairs.

Of course, that's just pie-in-the-sky. But if we can rip the god damned kike's hairy paws off the controls of the mass brainwashing machinery, we could herd the women & the shitheads back onto the path of racial survival quite easily.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #12
Vaughn
Junior Member
 
Vaughn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 122
Vaughn
Default

Women are herd animals totally incapable of exhibiting independent thought. They are also poor decision makers. Just look at all the single mothers lugging around their womb turds in public after Chad knocked them up and took off. Countless women in their thirties and forties wondering why men won't commit to them after spending their youth drinking booze, pursuing worthless pieces of paper, and jumping from cock to cock. "Feelz before reelz" is the female's standard operating procedure.

Never allow them to vote under any circumstances.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #13
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Mere property ownership shouldn't be a factor; Bill Gates is both "white" and has a Mt. Everest of property. Ideally, I'd limit the franchise to White men with IQs of at least 95, between the ages of 25 & 75: weed out the retards, the know-it-all, know-nothing-at-all punks & the senile. Require a test on civics & general knowledge of world affairs. In short: create an electorate WORTHY to decide the nation's affairs.

Of course, that's just pie-in-the-sky. But if we can rip the god damned kike's hairy paws off the controls of the mass brainwashing machinery, we could herd the women & the shitheads back onto the path of racial survival quite easily.

It doesn't matter how much money Bill Gates has he still only gets one vote. Same as me and every other white man who can manage his finances well enough to start a business or pay off a mortgage.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #14
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,279
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Mere property ownership shouldn't be a factor; Bill Gates is both "white" and has a Mt. Everest of property. Ideally, I'd limit the franchise to White men with IQs of at least 95, between the ages of 25 & 75: weed out the retards, the know-it-all, know-nothing-at-all punks & the senile. Require a test on civics & general knowledge of world affairs. In short: create an electorate WORTHY to decide the nation's affairs.

Of course, that's just pie-in-the-sky. But if we can rip the god damned kike's hairy paws off the controls of the mass brainwashing machinery, we could herd the women & the shitheads back onto the path of racial survival quite easily.
Who will come up with those questions?
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #15
JeffreyWaffenSS
Senior Member
 
JeffreyWaffenSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,513
JeffreyWaffenSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
Women are herd animals totally incapable of exhibiting independent thought. They are also poor decision makers. Just look at all the single mothers lugging around their womb turds in public after Chad knocked them up and took off. Countless women in their thirties and forties wondering why men won't commit to them after spending their youth drinking booze, pursuing worthless pieces of paper, and jumping from cock to cock. "Feelz before reelz" is the female's standard operating procedure.

Never allow them to vote under any circumstances.
Especially a lot of them you see them lugging around literally brown pieces of shit with the soulless look in their eyes. I see that on dating site a lot white women with their hellspawn in their photos. Fucking race traitors.

And now you have shows like Duck Dynasty that promoting having a niglit making it look all hip to have a nigger baby.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #16
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Yes, women in the armed forces, nurses dealing with the fallout and women who had husbands/sons fighting were given the vote in 1916, if I remember correctly. All women without the influence of men in their lives, I believe - at least, that's if the rules were the same as ours meaning nurses had to be unmarried. So it doesn't rule out the thought that women vote the same as their significant male figure.
During World War 1 not enough men were volunteering to get killed so the conservative government introduced "conscription" (the draft). It was very unpopular so they came up with the idea of allowing women whose husbands, fathers or sons were away fighting to vote, thinking they would support the government as a means of increasing their own husband's chances of returning home alive.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #17
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,054
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
Who will come up with those questions?
The same guy who came up with the test asking niggers how bubbles there are in a bar of soap.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #18
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Typical property requirement for voting in colonial America was 40 acres of land or 40 pounds, neither of which was a whole lot. 40 acres aka a "quarter section" was about the bare minimum to support a family and 40 pounds would be less than $10,000 today. So the only people disqualified by these measures were young men who had not yet settled down and drunks who could not remain sober long enough to stake a claim and make the necessary improvements.

It's often assumed that property requirements favor the "evil rich" but that is hardly the case. Property requirements favor the middle class by excluding the mass of voters who can be bought by the rich.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #19
White Brazilian Boy
Senior Member
 
White Brazilian Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 725
White Brazilian Boy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John from Canada View Post
Only white men who own property should vote.
And the person should have basic knowledge of Geography and History.
 
Old February 6th, 2016 #20
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,137
keifer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John from Canada View Post
Only white men who own property should vote.
When your property is faced with threat by invasion, are you gonna expect non property owners to help you defend your property and voting rights.
 
Reply

Tags
women tools

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 AM.
Page generated in 0.12952 seconds.