Nostr Web Client

women are very prone to accepting majority rule because that's how their minds work. they want to be in the middle of the flock, not standing out. i was even observing this last night with a woman here on nostr, venerating being "normal".

just one of the million things that mean that women are the last people we should be giving a vote to. they just act like a herd, they don't have any reason for it other than "it's what my friends all think"

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

seriously though, easiest way to destroy the function of democracy is to let women vote. when it's only men who vote, they at least hold their own position mostly because of how the results of the decision will impact their lives. the women are shielded from this. second step after giving them the vote is to convince them that they don't need men at all, and they can be the boss and make the decisions.

of course they don't make any decisions, they just agree with the majority of voices they listen to. so when you put them in charge in an organisation, you pretty much are really giving the power to the most vocal and fearful women in the organisation.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Yeah that is a dynamic that happens, roughly speaking. But this is just true of any fiat normies, moreso than women. But yeah, letting women vote made an already terrible system worse on net.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Would be way better if we let goth chicks and only goth chicks vote.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

No men would be required at that point.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

nah, like you say, fuck that shit.

we have laws that were ironed out with millennia of debate in courts and adjudication. we don't need more laws, and that's the whole point of democracy is making more laws.

there is only really 10 laws, and that's all you need to make any judgement. everything else is just going to be color of law.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Amen. I simplify it to one law for dealing between people with the proper use of force: the nonaggression principle; and a law for morality called the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Same thing that the Objectivists believe in even though they claim God doesn't exist, ironically. They've discovered the Life but contradict themselves. You'd think they'd at least be agnostic. So there's plenty of hope for atheists, don't worry.

Séimí Mac Síomón 4mo ago

In Ireland they are trying to lower the voting age to 16 so that children fresh out of the indoctrination camps (state education) will vote for their globalist bullshit.

Séimí Mac Síomón 4mo ago

How about restricting the vote to men with property? Wouldn't that filter out all the losers in moms basement? Surely you dont want them making decisions.

Then go ahead and make it so only those with a masters degree can vote, that way you know they are the rational, thinking type.

I'm being somewhat sarcastic here.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

i don't want any new stupid laws. there's perfectly good codes of laws that have existed for thousands of years that humans lived by.

as far as i'm concerned, every human capable of speaking their language (ie, anyone over 5 years of age) should be able to vote, if anyone is going to vote at all. if not, why not? then why not exclude others, etc etc etc.

it's a fraud. they just use democracy as a way to sell what they are going to eventually do anyway. the vote means nothing. they make sure enough people will eventually support it via various strategies. one way is to cause a problem and then offer a law to fix it. another is to offer an extreme form of a law, and then offer the diluted version that was always the plan. this is a common one in the last 30 years.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

not only is voting a statistical fraud, so is the question of needing new laws.

almost always, new laws are to patch on top of old laws, which going down the stack eventually broke one of the old laws that everyone used to live by. over, and over and over again they make laws that break old laws, and then make new laws to fix the problem that the new law made, and the new law made a problem because it broke an old law, that predated parliaments and democracy.

democracy is just a shield for tyrants. tyrants break the customary and archaic laws to benefit themselves and their families and co-conspirators.

one of the uses of the laws now is to stop bitcoin from becoming adopted. they concoct all kinds of rules about it that seem on the surface to be about stopping crime but actually their real underlying purpose was to stop competitors to their money. the simplest example is legal tender laws. force people to pay tax in your coin and then you can issue as many of them as you want. this scam is at least as old as Rome, where that coin you had to pay in was constantly diluted in precious metal content so they could mint more.

all of this depended on a parliament and democracy to pull off. it didn't matter how many of the people could vote, or not, they just ram it through and if it fails to pass they hide it in something new and ram that through, and if that fails they send out agent provocateurs to cause a problem and then they offer a law that has the "solution" and then they win the vote and voila. tyranny 101.