![The Thrifty Consumer [828x982 - 152KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qe4hgO.jpg){kind=link}
Weighted voting is just asking for corrupt fuckery in the vote counts.
Here's how I'd do it: bicameral legislature, with the "house" being voted on by all citizens, and the "senate" vote being restricted to white non-jewish males who own real estate, a business, or have at least two children in an intact home.
But a white ethnostate can work well for its people no matter the format of governance. In the late middle ages it was said a woman could walk the length of Britain and never fear for her safety. (The penalty for rapists was horrifying.) It's just not true that white men become despotic towards their women, we all have too much empathy for such things. We won't deny your rights even when we deny your political participation.
Obviously there are exceptions, and those exceptions were almost universally raised by single moms.
Voting should solely be based on qualifications, people whos livelihood depends on the success and stability of the country. Business owners, land owners, military/ex-military, etc.
Having a family doesn't make you qualified to govern the country. There are a lot of stupid fucking people who have families and would happily vote against the countries interest.
It's not a mother's job to think and govern. It's her job to care for children. This maternal instinct is disastrous when placed in a voting booth. Welfare, redistribution of wealth, no fault divorce, alimony, all of this is the maternal instinct weaponized against society.
Welfare is great for a child. Redistribution is great in a family, the man brings the resources and the woman distributes it equally to ensure everyone is taken care of. Now just replace "the man" with the government and it's a disaster.
All socialist policies appeal to women's base instincts of safety, stability, equality, caring for everyone, over liberty, individualism and justice. Women don't think of children as autonomous individuals with free will, and they apply this logic to the entire country. That's why we have countries full of emotionally stunted man-children for example.
All socialist policies appeal to women's base instincts of safety, stability, equality, caring for everyone, over liberty, individualism and justice.
You can not give women a bunch of money that doesnt belong to them. They treat everyone as a baby bird thats fallen from a nest, AND they don’t understand economics.
I speak generally, on average, compared to men. Men are the true wealth generators and most womens jobs are just wealth redistribution within the bloated bureacracy.
Women don't think of children as autonomous individuals with free will, and they apply this logic to the entire country
Well said. We live in the Karenocracy. Everyone is being mommed to death. It’s ludicrous.
“No rape” is nice. We still have to decide what is rape/sexual assault. Our legal system is totally fucked and will have to be reformed. Do we let women or non-whites be lawyers?
real estate, businesses.
Elites can hoard these positions. In fact elites in Britain did, and the resultant aristocracy became immoral and did alot of fucked up shit we’re still dealing with. I see opportunity for fuckery.
Wealthy land owners imported all these blacks. Most early colonists did not have slaves. But their decendents still have to deal with the mess.
It would great if we could make a rule like all non-criminal white men over 30 who hold wealth producing jobs, but wealth is a bit subjective, so again, opportunity for fuckery.
It would be great if someone started a sub where we could kick around theoretical refroms. We have to get on the same page about how to remedy these problems. We all just rant “muh white people” but we need to get specific. Who can stay? Who can go? Where do they go? Who votes? How big is the government allowed to become? Constitutional reform? Throw out the constitution? What to do with traitors? How to structure banking, industry, international trade, all that shit.
(post is archived)