Universal Suffrage Was A Mistake

Part one of a two part series questioning universal suffrage.

The concept and application of universal suffrage, one person one vote, is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. In this post I will be explaining why I believe universal suffrage has been a factor in the decline of “Western” civilization. I will be referring specifically to the experience of the UK, but I believe the trends are in fact common to most “Western” countries, which have followed a similar course.


With the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918’ all men over 21 in the UK gained the vote (previously voting had been restricted by property ownership constraints). This was followed by the ‘Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928’ when all women over 21 also gained the vote. This paved the way for socialism to gain the upper hand in UK politics. After the Second World War, politics swung heavily to the left with the election of a very socialist Labour government under Clement Attlee.

This government introduced the National Health Service and the Welfare State. A large scheme of council housing began, over a million new homes were built by the government. A huge program of nationalization of industries took place including the railways, telephony, coal mining and steel production to name just a few. There’s no question that in the beginning the living and working conditions of large numbers of people had been improved rapidly. Quite how quickly the free market would have produced the same improvements we’ll never know.

By the 1970s however things were not going so well. High inflation led the government to cap public sector pay increases and trade unions reacted by going on strike. Coal production fell and electricity consumption had to be rationed, leading to a 3 day working week for a time. A Labour government was elected and wages were increased again to placate the unions. However soon even the Labour government could not keep the trade unions happy and there were widespread strikes during the “Winter of Discontent” (1978-1979). Finally the Conservatives were elected under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, and politics swung heavily to the right, and a large program of denationalization began. Even the Labour government elected later in 1997 was quite right wing in comparison with the Attlee era.


Since the 1950s, the UK has experienced fairly high levels of immigration. However, this greatly increased from the “New Labour” period onward (1997 – present). At least in part this was due to a deliberate policy by that left wing government. A secret memo later came to light that that government was deliberately “rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity” by allowing in huge numbers of people from poor countries. Of course, these poor immigrants were expected to become Labour voters, as they would be on low wages and benefit from the more generous state handouts promised by Labour, as well as free education and health care. Thus this immigration policy can be seen as a hugely irresponsible form of gerrymandering by the left – altering the population to increase the left’s vote in the future. Quite how much these immigrants have contributed to the economy is disputed. Of course many are hard working but there is a tendency of the children of immigrants to not be so hard working and many end up on benefits.

A Conservative government was elected in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, partly thanks to their promise to vastly reduce the rate of immigration, which was causing disquiet among the general population. They have completely failed to deliver this, net migration has continued at very high levels. This situation is in part due to the UK’s membership of the EU, which is heavily dominated by left wing ideals and is also committed to free movement of people.


In the present day many UK voters were born and lived in an era of prosperity and they have no recollection of the most problematic days of socialist governments. Many new arrivals from foreign countries near and far are also quite ignorant of this history. Extreme left-wing ideas are once more on the rise and the Labour party have a new leader called Jeremy Corbyn who is ready to promise the earth to gullible voters who believe that money grows on trees. He has quite literally suggested that a government under his leadership would print money and give it to poor people.

Despite the fact that relatively right wing politicians have been in power since 1979, many of the left wing changes brought about by Attlee’s government remain. The welfare state and the free health care service are still intact.  Most children receive free education.  Students in higher education receive generous loans which often are never repaid. Some welfare reform has been achieved, but very large numbers of people are still dependent on handouts from the state. In addition, increasing life spans have increased the numbers of people living on state pensions. The state is struggling under a huge national debt burden, something like £1.5 trillion. A lot of taxpayers’ money is simply servicing this debt.

All these burdens are being carried by the less than half of the population who are taxpayers. There are only 29.3 million taxpayers out of an official population of 63 million (2011 census). The actual population of the UK may be considerably higher due to illegal immigration. Furthermore, of those taxpayers quite a substantial number are public sector workers. Of course these people provide some value in services, but their wages are paid for by the state through the taxes of those working in the private sector, so in a sense the taxes they pay are merely token. Thus, substantially less than 29.3 million people, maybe as little as 30% of the population, are supporting all the rest to varying degrees (19% of the workforce are employed by the public sector but not all of these will be taxpayers).

The left are also now pushing for another form of gerrymandering, through the further lowering of the voting age to 16 years. Of course, younger people are more likely to be left wing, as they have less experience of the realities of life.


Allowing those who only take from the state to vote is a little bit akin to parents giving their children an equal say in how their household finances should be run, clearly a recipe for disaster.  The introduction of universal suffrage has led to the election of left wing governments in the UK whose policies have been based on promises of unrealistic state largess. Even the current “Conservative” government is in fact quite left wing in many ways, in part because they know that they simply could not get elected on a more right wing manifesto.

Furthermore, the left’s hold on politics has deliberately been strengthened by mass immigration and they are trying to strengthen it further by lowering the voting age. It has also been strengthened, crucially, by the sheer numbers of people now dependent on the state financially. Large numbers of immigrants arriving in the country have also increased the vote for the left because the left favours more immigration, and immigrants want to be able to bring more of their relatives and people from their culture here to join them.

Reducing any of these unrealistic expectations is extremely difficult politically because all those dependents of the state have a vote. A return to property ownership based voting rights would not be a fair option, because many hard working people who pay taxes also rent their homes and own no property. In the next post I will examine other possible alternatives.






21 thoughts on “Universal Suffrage Was A Mistake

    • suffrage: the enfranchisement of the stupid to elect the smart – isn’t there some sort of inescapable paradox at work here?


      • Well since it seems certain that average intelligence is falling, then the problems are only going to get worse from here. (See category “Dysgenics” for my posts on that subject).

        Do you favour any of the alternatives I talked about in the next post?

        The idea of a questionnaire has grown on me somewhat. For example, there could be a question “What is the size of the national debt?”. Even if the voters were schooled in the correct answers by unscrupulous third parties, they would at least have learned what the size of the national debt is in the process.


        • a questionaire would do jack shit limiting the vote to draftable net tax payers is the only way. If you have nothing invested you have nothing to loose when state goes bankrupt and you do not care. Is just human nature


          • A questionnaire would certainly have very little value. I had a deeper think about the arguments for various alternatives in the follow up post:

            “Universal Suffrage – Alternatives”

            So many people now work for the state that this influences voting in a pro-government and therefore left-wing direction. That was just one consideration I looked at. I think excluding pensioners might be a mistake, they often have the most experience, but there is definitely a strong argument for having a cut off when people stop paying taxes. I certainly came to the conclusion that everyone not actually working who is a net dependent on the state should not have the vote.


  1. “A democracy can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

    — Alexander Fraser Tytler

    (Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (October 15, 1747 – January 5, 1813) was a Scottish-born British lawyer and writer.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for the feedback and your link – that’s an interesting website will be following that one. He certainly is making some pertinent points about the financial mess we’re in.

      I have to tell you I have my doubts about the idea of a looming energy crisis though. The huge technological advances made by the human race in the last century have opened up a lot of new possibilities and most probably more have yet to emerge. Possibly the most significant but least commented on by either side of the global warming debate is energy conservation. Passivhaus type technology has shown that its possible to reduce energy heating consumption in a house to nearly zero. Even if we have reached peak oil there are alternatives available now which were not available before such as nuclear. I don’t like nuclear but the point is there is an alternative there if all else fails. There is a lot of antipathy towards renewable among the “right”, but I think this is more driven by hostility towards the government programmes that have distorted the market. The advances appearing in energy storage may make renewable sources more viable as well in the longer run.

      Energy is not a subject I was planning to blog about however, there are a lot of people commenting more knowledgebly on it than I ever could. I have my mind on other areas, particularly demographics. Personally the biggest factor I see in Western decline is the use of birth control and the failure of Western society to question the implications of its use disproportionately affecting the middle classes. I explained my ideas in a series of posts starting with:

      “Dysgenics and Birth Control”


      A sustainable future is possible, we have the technology.

      Please feel free to link to any of my posts if you find them useful in arguments.


  2. Hello, I came here (first time ever) to read another article.
    The title to this article caught my eye, though, as I wrote a post on this subject earlier today.
    When I spotted “Dysgenics and Birth Control” at the foot of the article, I though I’d cut ‘n paste the exchange with ‘TerryJ2’.

    About time I read something.

    No point wasting the Summer Hols.


    ‘A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.’



    Bruce Harvey • 5 hours ago
    I think Cicero was describing Hillary and Obutthole perfectly.
    1 • Reply•Share ›

    J.R. TerryJ2 • 4 hours ago

    Cicero was not talking about democratically elected representatives. Especially those who talk openly of their agenda (free stuff, sexual perversion, adoration of national enemies).

    So, who is the real threat here?
    • Edit• Reply•Share ›


    TerryJ2 J.R. • 3 hours ago
    You make a good point, in truth he was speaking of those behind the scenes, that empower politicians for their own ends, and those of the media, not the faces we see on the networks but those who give them their talking points, and above all the electorate that fail to see what should be in front of our faces despite what we are told, the real threat is us, our failure to take back our consent to be governed when it clear we are not being governed in our best interest…….in other words COMPLACENCY got us where we are today.

    ‘…he was speaking of those behind the scenes,……those who give them their talking points, …’


    ‘….and above all the electorate…..’

    Oh, thank goodness!

    ‘….that fail to see what should be in front of our faces…’

    That’s a relief. You geddit.
    The famous (and now overused, online) speech is strange, in that it almost perfectly describes the moral and spiritual sabotage of Western Civilisation by the failure of the intellectual elite to recognise the mortal danger of mass democracy.
    We intellectuals always knew a Welfare State could devour itself financially and ‘disgenically’.
    When we saw it all slowly manifest in front of our eyes; we committed sabotage by pretending we couldn’t see it.
    Funny thing was, the consequences of mass free-stuff voting, turned out to be violent, rapid foreign enslavement, not financial implosion. By inferiors!
    You gotta laugh!
    Be honest, if contemporary western males roused (created?) their fighting (K Selected?) qualities and won, how long would it last?
    We’d lined up ‘Green Energy’ to slit our own throats with ages ago….

    ‘….despite what we are told, the real threat is us, our failure to take back our consent to be governed when it [is] clear we are not being governed in our best interest.’

    Thank you.
    …demonstrating, for TPTB, that they have ‘My [the] Duty & The Right’* to exterminate & replace us.

    Or just exterminate us and then exterminate our replacements after they are of no use.

    As you’d also figured out.

    Years ago.

    Regs TerryJ2


  3. ‘With the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918’ all men over 21 in the UK gained the vote (previously voting had been restricted by property ownership constraints). This was followed by the ‘Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928’ when all women over 21 also gained the vote. This paved the way for socialism to gain the upper hand in UK politics. After the Second World War, politics swung heavily to the left….’

    I would somewhat dispute that politics did actually ‘swing to the left’ after ’45.
    After the ‘war economy’ central planning of 1939-45, along with all the Government propaganda on Radio & at the cinema, it was remarkable just how little of a leftward swing there really was.
    Despite the fact that Labor Ministers shamelessly used the war years to effectively campaign for the ‘coming election’.
    Despite the nationwide assumption that ‘Government planning’ had won the war.
    Despite the ‘free health care’.
    Despite the ‘New Towns’ propaganda all based on socialist principles, the people kicked Labor out in 1951 with a massive swing against the left


    Goodness know what Labor would have had to have done to loose the popular vote from the pinnacles of ’45.

    It’s not that even mass democracy itself is the problem, dangerous though that is.
    It’s women.
    It’s the fairer sex.
    It’s women voting for a Welfare State ‘father/husband/protector’.
    It’s psych-sexual and has nothing to do with how ugly the products of Big Government are in reality.
    We’ve had enough time to identify the consequences of female voting patterns and it’s pretty scary stuff.

    Here’s a bright and breezy presentation that sets out the basic contours of the male/female, as opposed to the more established left wing/right wing, framework.

    If we look at society from an ‘allocation of resources/tax revenue created by men’ perspective, there is no disputing the logic in women voting for bigger government.
    Logical for women, obviously.

    Post war, all governments in the West became giant wealth transference mechanisms.
    Not from ‘the middle classes’ to ‘the working classes’ into ‘from the mc to the welfare class’.
    Instead, the reality is that every single government in every single western country has transferred men’s money to women.
    Thatcher was the same.
    Some notes, few figures…


    Some lefty admissions…

    ‘Despite the rhetoric of “rolling back the state”, Margaret Thatcher was less successful in cutting public spending than many of her supporters (and opponents) like to believe. As the IFS graph below shows, real-terms spending rose in every year of her premiership apart from two. Only in 1985-86 and 1989-90 did spending fall, by 1.1 per cent in the former and 2.3 per cent in the latter. On average, it increased by 1.1 per cent a year. ‘


    Later the article claims the % spend was to fall as the net spend ‘kept pace with inflation’.

    So, from an economic perspective, the Welfare State was VASTLY expanded under Thatcher (1.1% on average over ten years).
    Even as we sorted out parasitic unions (1979-85) and privatised utilities and stopped subsidising dying industries; we spent more and more on welfare every year. Year after year.

    The money was not going to ex-Miners.

    It was going to the young girls, now pregnant; their sons would have married.
    Women vote for government. Any government as long as it is BIG and will ‘take care of them’.
    It’s that simple and the rest is noise.

    The recent results in Austria’s General election (the one being re-run because of massive immigrant voter fraud) confirm the real conditions of women’s existence are utterly irrelevant to them (as a voting block).
    The level of material comfort makes zero difference, they will ALWAYS vote for more.
    Even if it kills us and rapes them.

    Tough, I know, but true.

    Check out the stats.

    ‘It is clear to see that women swung it for the Leftists in the Austrian election.

    The case has been made that women are playing a disproportionate role in the immigration catastrophe engulfing Europe; that they are more xenophilic than men; more emotional and indulgent; overrepresented in the ranks of “migrant” charities and help-groups and the like.’


    The women I know who vote left (every single one without exception, as it happens) have no real interest in politics.

    However, they are acutely aware of resource distribution from government.
    The only time some of these females EVER become animated, is when demanding more money from others (males) to avoid rearing their own children (ie ‘free’ child care).

    Here’s a great breakdown of some lesser spotted ‘facts and figures’ about just who gets what from our ‘government’.

    I’ll read your article on dysgenics tomorrow.



    • Thanks for the feedback! I am no historian I was thinking about the bigger picture in broad brush strokes, doubtless you have better knowledge on the historical detail. No doubt you’re right that the swing to the left came rather earlier. I may come back to this article and amend it in light of your comments and links when I find time, so thanks for that, it was all useful.

      I take your point about the Conservatives winning in 1951 but Churchill’s government did not really change the overall direction of policy as I understand it, for example council house building actually increased. Therefore I think you could well argue that this “Conservative” government was in fact very left wing economically speaking. That could answer your question about why they won in 1951. Its strange to think of Churchill in this way, but that does seem to be the reality.


      I actually saw that Black Pigeon video before, its certainly thought provoking. I am not convinced that women’s right to vote should take the blame alone for the swing to the left as much as this suggests however. Stefan Molyneux argued that married women in working households have an incentive to vote right, just as working men do, because they are affected just as much by the reduction in income by left wing policies, I think that is true. I don’t think there were many single mothers in the 50s, could it be the cause and effect is the wrong way round – the welfare state has encouraged women to vote left more? I have come across plenty of men who say things like “I vote Labour because my family always voted Labour”. Altogether I think the picture may be a bit more complicated. Rather than questioning women’s right to vote, in the next post I wrote about the possibility of taking the vote away from everybody (men and women) that are dependent on the state:

      “Universal Suffrage – Alternatives”


      There is also the question of the old aged, although as Stefan pointed out there women tend to live longer so are on the pension longer as well. State pensions and the NHS are actually much bigger drains on the state purse than welfare. I think also many students vote with issues like tuition fees uppermost in their minds.

      I do think women are generally less likely to worry about immigration though, as your link on that confirms. This is really bizarre given the goings on in Cologne and the rape statistics emerging from Sweden. I really do find that difficult to understand although the theories presented in your links are interesting. Maybe we will see a shift in attitudes on this though as the realities become more widely publicized.


      • Hello again.

        The following is not really about British domestic political developments but attempts an international context.
        Regarding the growth of the State/Welfare State.

        As we all know, war is the health of the state.
        The writers and thinkers who identify a NWO emerging over the last 100 years or so say this…

        (bear with me if this seems a bit mad……)

        Elites control society…..they want bigger and more powerful government to control democracy…they fund, initiate and perpetuate wars to achieve this…..thus, at this level; the second world war was a mechanism to expand state power so that eventually, under supra national auspices (UN EU APEC) a truly global One World authority could emerge.

        Under this model, it didn’t matter if Hitler prevailed or the Western democracies, Stalin, Mao or Chiang kai -shek.
        All that mattered was the large scale organisation of human society along ‘socialist’ principles (health care, education, wealth ‘redistribution’).

        Challenging concept for many, but it does explain some great contradictions in the ‘official political story’ of the last 100 years.

        Explains why Imperial Britain got embroiled in 1914-18 for no clear reason whatsoever.

        Explains why the ‘right wing’ America saved/funded/supplied the ‘Communist’ USSR 1943-45.
        This explains why so many ‘Communist spies’ were at the very height of western society ; such as the Cambridge spies, the State Department spies in America. People like Aldrich Aimes knew by the 1940 that Communism ‘didn’t work’. They were not ‘left wing idealists’. They were creating an eventual global order by sustaining the regime in Russia.
        This is why American army Generals were supplying Moscow with information, according to McCarthy.
        This explains the huge funding of the 1917 revolution by Wall Street bankers (lot’s of documentary evidence).

        This is why so many thinkers look at ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and look at contemporary America and say, Oh noooooooo…..



        This explains why the most elite and advanced US Corporations are all in Communist CHINA!!!!
        This is what Nixon was really there to arrange.
        This is why Ford spends billions (including ‘bailout money’) moving to Mexico or wherever…


        I’m suggesting that British policies such as the National Health Service, the ‘cradle to grave Welfare State’ the creation of ‘single parent households’ (that are really ‘fatherless, state-families’), the remorseless promotion of ‘multi culturalism’ (to erode national identity) despite it’s manifest ‘failure’, the mass immigration agenda, the lowering of educational standards etc etc ….

        ……are not national or domestic policies at all.
        They are the same program throughout the west.

        (This answers your question as to why so many different countries are all making ‘the same mistake at the same time’. They KNOW immigration is economically damaging. It’s NOT that they cannot appreciate the economic consequences.The social & political consequences ARE the whole point.)

        Single parent ‘households’ in the USA?

        ‘Today, one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother.’

        That’s about 44% by my maths.
        That’s not a social phenomena; it’s a government program, an agenda.

        Thus, these ‘policies’ are thus immune to domestic democratic ‘approval’ or ‘rejection’ (can you identify even ONE welfare provision, once provided by government; that has ever been withdrawn as economic & social conditions dictate, in the last 100 years? I cannot).


        For the benign elites, they simply see human society developing beyond the nation state.
        They see very large numbers of human beings needing to be socialised to ensure ‘stability’.

        As you wrote on another thread; we had the tech to power our cities cleanly and efficiently. We’ve had that tech for years. Still, they make electricity expensive….

        The elites simply empowered ‘catalysts’ such as Nazism, terrorism, global warming, even ‘racism and every other ‘ism’….as avenues to expand state power and control over the individual.

        The ‘control of everyday life’ that their mass immigration agenda already demands in Europe is incredible.
        To ‘keep us safe’ they already need more real power than Hitler had over Germans (until late ’44 at any rate).
        That’s the whole point. Control.
        If it wasn’t ‘Islam’ it would sure be something else……….

        The elites have made their move. It’s a downward revolution, they call it ‘the last revolution’ as the advanced tech is on the side of the tiny elites.
        This is what Trump is, an elite breaking ranks. He refuses to go along with the enslavement of Americans and the dissolution of the Republic through ‘no borders’ policy.

        If he fails to rouse the citizens of their Republic this November, it’s over and the NWO is unstoppable.

        That’s how I see it.



        • I agree with you about Trump, and I think there are signs of hope in Europe as well. The AfD impress me so far at least (I don’t buy the “far-right” smear, they seem to be real conservatives as opposed to our lot), and Geert Wilders looks like he’s in with a real chance as well now (news on that today, he is also economically liberal apparently).

          As for your “conspiracy” theory well that is one humdinger of a conspiracy theory :-).

          The key thing is in my mind, whatever the truth of the motivations behind the NWO, the EFFECTS are clearly damaging to the majority and must be opposed. As the Terry you were discussing with above put it, our own complacency in allowing this situation to develop is as much to blame as the “elites” are. There will always be a tendency for power to corrupt, we must ALWAYS keep our leaders in check. Some ideas about that also in my post:

          “Representative” “Democracy”


          Even Trump should not be above criticism, although probably best to wait until he is elected given what is at stake. I suppose if you are right it does not augur well for any attempt to change direction, and Trump’s life must be in huge danger (it probably is in any case).

          I don’t want to get too bogged down with the history, its a distraction in all this really, but I would have to disagree that there was no clear reason for Britain’s involvement in WWI, terrible though the war was. What really matters though is where we are heading, and how to change direction.

          I intend to explain my views more fully in future posts on the state. I disagree with Mr. Molyneux on the stateless society idea, I think states are a sort of necessary evil, or at least that they will be for the foreseeable future. I do agree with a lot of his criticisms of state policies however. What has been missing in my view is our own oversight and activism to keep the state in check (see my very latest post “Its NO LONGER A Free Country” for an idea on that).

          Thanks for the links I will have to look at those later as I’m out of time today. If your conspiracy theory is correct then the implications are quite terrifying.


      • Hello again.

        How’s things.

        I view of the ‘analysis’ of women in society who have the pill, no Christianity, and a dedication to voting for mass immigration political parties…I though this was interesting.
        Utterly distasteful, but unfortunately, easily predictable…………


        ‘ It was claimed that female volunteers were more likely to have sex with male migrants than any other combination. ‘

        Huum, ya don’t say……



  4. Hi.

    Sorry, forgot to make this point in respect of female voting patterns and the mass colonisation of Europe……

    Let’s say that the men of Syria, were staying in Syria to fight ISIL.
    Lit’s say that the colonists/refugees comprised 93% women and girls between the ages of 17 and 29 years.
    Do you think the European fairer sex would be quite so enthusiastic about their arrival?



    Political fightback.

    Erm… ‘people I’ve heard about’ in the E*l were very cool on the AfD.
    They suggested to me they ‘knew’ it had the sort of extremist elements that the e*L had worked hard to keep out. Perhaps they were annoyed that ‘Tommy Robinson’ had defected?
    The English version had a march a while back, not heard much since.
    We’ll see.


    NWO (?)

    ‘The key thing is in my mind, whatever the truth of the motivations behind the NWO,….’

    It’s perfectly possible the global elites decided to create a ‘control infrastructure’ before deciding exactly what ‘social control mechanism’ would be best.
    Islam? High tech ‘Brave New World’ with micro-chipped population? Christian revivalist? Anti faith atheist extremism? ‘Green’ post industrial neo-primitavism ? Balkanised versions of all these?
    They could regard the human race as ‘free range’ and want to ferment various cultural social artifacts.

    ‘…… the EFFECTS are clearly damaging to the majority and must be opposed.’

    The majority in the once free west, yes of course.

    ‘As the Terry you were discussing with above put it, our own complacency in allowing this situation to develop is as much to blame as the “elites” are. ‘

    That, it would seem ,is their moral justification for what they do.
    They are open about their activities, no-one can pretend they are unaware of The Agenda….
    It’s like putting ‘Ingredients’ onto the packaging of a product…if we choose to buy and eat it, it’s our fault.



    Yes, that was a very curt statement about 1914-18.
    It may or may not stand up to vigorous investigation.

    General point is that even IF there was no national Imperial ‘vital interest’ in Britain’s participation, if the elite ‘internationalist’ idea holds any water, they would have wanted The British Empire embroiled anyway.


    Mr Molyneux stateless world.

    Yes, very hard to really take seriously as a practical idea for real life happiness in human affairs.

    He’s an atheist moral philosopher.
    (with an interesting current tradjectory in this regard

    I’m a religious Christian so, there will always be some limit to our agreement.
    However, his analysis is sincere and usually laden with supporting evidence.

    ‘…I think states are a sort of necessary evil, or at least that they will be for the foreseeable future.’


    ‘…What has been missing in my view is our own oversight and activism to keep the state in check..’

    There’s an American analysis that mirrors your views here…
    it says something like their republic NEEDS active informed citizens or it will rapidly descend into tyranny.
    The jury system being the best example of this.


    The elites turning against their host populations?

    Oh, anyone who isn’t a bit scared by that prospect, simply fails to understand it, even as a theoretical idea.
    I’d like to be wrong but…..

    Put it this way, any substantive political effort to reduce the Welfare State or even impede it’s inexorable growth, would mitigate against the theory.

    I’ll link to some reading on the subject when you have time.

    Anyway, good site!
    Glad I found it.


    • re. the female voting patterns on immigration, yes that is a very good point, and we would scarcely be objecting so much if they were all women would we indeed, eh, nudge nudge, wink wink…

      It is something of a battle of the sexes in fact. The counter arguments we can use in this battle are:

      1. The men in question are generally of lower intelligence on average (so non politically correct of me to suggest that eh).


      2. They have been conditioned by their culture to see women as inferior. The liberties western women currently enjoy will be eroded – and of course we have already seen THAT trend in action in the Cologne incident, burkini battle incident and many more smaller incidents.

      3. These men are not in general high skilled (I’m not just thinking of the Syrians here but the Africans who have at times been a very large percentage of the immigrants – that seems to fluctuate depending on what time of year it is). If our society collapses under the weight of the welfare burden, these young men will turn to crime and many of them already have. Western women will not be well treated during violent home invasions. Such a collapse may seem a way off today, but we have to get it through to people just how many more immigrants there are potentially waiting in the wings as it were. With our ageing population as well, defence will be really difficult if enough get to our shores.

      4. These men are just the first wave. Soon the demands for the women and children to be allowed to join them under the ECHR “right to a family life” and all that are going to start. Then not only will the gender differences shift, but the sheer numbers will become multiplied even as much as 4-8 times possibly. Even if the borders are shut tomorrow there are already huge problems looming for Germany now.

      I suspect that if/when these realities sink in Western women will not be nearly as keen either. Those stats on the Austrian election were very interesting and it will be interesting to see if there has been any shift during the re-run.

      Interesting re. EDL/AdF. I plan to write quite a bit about TR’s experiences (already did one post on it). The fact he is still alive though should give us hope the “elites” are not going to kill every dissenter.

      As far as women’s influence on voting patterns goes, its interesting as well that our democracies are now so feminized even where the men are the politicians in charge (Juncker, Hollande, Cameron for example). Its not just women’s voting but the feminisation of male voting patterns as well (even though there is still that gap that your link shows many men are still voting with a feminine mindset I suspect). I’m not entirely sure how you explain that, but I think we’re about to see a swing back to a more patriarchal society and we may get closer to the sort of optimum this time, we can only hope so anyway. I don’t want to see all women chained to the kitchen sink again, I just think the balance is out of kilter with reality. There are ALWAYS going to be more men in work, with higher average salaries, that is just the nature of life.

      “There’s an American analysis that mirrors your views here”

      You forgot the link?

      Overall, its the quality of the arguments that counts, not so much whether we agree on everything. Keep ’em coming…

      Don’t miss on the sunshine in these summer months though, Rome wasn’t reformed in a day :-)…


      • Hi.

        Just running through your points.

        Undoubtedly. See 3

        Yes, trouble is, you’re thinking like a man……

        It’s as though the OBVIOUS LOGICAL conclusion will be drawn
        If the fairer sex voted in a male orientated ‘rational logical’ way, we simply wouldn’t be where we are.

        The evolutionary theory goes something like this, Men want to please women to gain sex. Women do not actually create the resources of society, men do. So, to please women & gain sex, (Western) men have grown the habit (evolved) of saying that which pleases women and women have developed the habit of demanding more & further efforts from men (such that she gains more resources for childbirth rearing).

        [The evolutionists usually refuse to recognise Christianity in this. Christianity gave women choice. Without Christianity, no female choice, without this choice, no ‘positive energy dynamic’ generating greater & greater male efforts to gain the most valued female…]

        Wester women just do not conceive of a radically different man.
        They have not been ‘possessions’ for 2000.
        They have however retained the ‘demand’ function vis a vis men.

        Put simply……..
        Modern women are voting for this already. Austria is post Cologne & post Rotherham.
        The will NEVER see the danger, they are simply not designed to see the danger……MEN see the danger and FIGHT it and destroy it…..for women who never realised what was really happening….
        The Welfare State has totally fractured this dynamic.

        Women have discarded men and are moaning/nagging/whining at their real husband/protector/father/master….the State.

        They want the State to DOOOO SOMETHING and for them that means shut you, and me, up!
        Silence us (what is said is much more powerful for women than for men see above) and they honestly will feel better.
        No ‘bad words’ or ‘harsh words’ and…..welll ask any 11 year old white English (not Latvian!) in Rotherham what white, English, Welfare mums will have their daughters put up with……
        Sorry, but it needs to be said.

        So…..that leads to…..

        Not only low IQ.
        They have an active ‘destroy mode’ in respect of civil order and society itself, in the West.

        I know about the 4-6 million in transit NOW towards Northern African jump off points (aided by HMS ‘Bulwalk’ of the most treacherous Navy on the oceans! ).

        I know.
        It’s terminal.
        It’s the ‘right to family life’ ‘n all……
        Can you get one woman/girl you know to THINK about this? It’s very hard.

        For women you see, WE do the thinking and return to the cave to report back…..
        Trouble is we’re competing with their One true Love, the every reliable Government/State/Father.
        We can’t win.
        That’s why we’ve lost…

        ‘Even if the borders are shut tomorrow there are already huge problems looming for Germany now.’

        Further, there is simply zero chance of the gates ever closing.
        Too many already.
        To attempt to ‘stop’ the mass migrations now is functionally impossible. Simply too many people in transit. The camps would be too big. We do not have the soldiers. We cannot suspend normal economic activity to raise the necessary army of 3-5 million to….to do what?
        TheAfricans won’t ‘turn back’ as back is nothing.
        They could wait in camps for years.

        All options are terrifying.

        ‘I suspect that if/when these realities sink in Western women will not be nearly as keen either.’

        Too male reality and facts focused….

        Consider the force of ‘guilt’.
        When some realise what they have done, the last thing they will do is recant. It’s simply not ‘female’ to declare ‘We were totally wrong. You were right. We are sorry!’
        Women think it means ‘weakness’ to men.
        Different logic to men as they have zero ‘evolutionary’ memory of rigorous interigation of ideas through debate and shared facts.
        No, they don’t.
        They come to conclusions totally differently and have a totally different understanding about even the very word ‘opinion’.Just try telling a woman you have a different ‘opinion’ about something they actually really care about…see my point?
        Women always choose security over freedom and that’s intellectual as well as financial, spiritual…………….and this is the point….that’s DESPITE the consequences…..

        Look at the whole ‘single parent’ issue.
        Facts and reality make ZERO difference to the debate, women do what suits them and everyone pretends not to notice the catastrophic consequences for yet another generation of children.

        There will be dead bodies in the streets and women will still vote for a Big Government to save them from the consequences of their politically destructive voting patterns.

        ‘Those stats on the Austrian election were very interesting and it will be interesting to see if there has been any shift during the re-run.’


        Here’s my forecast.

        The women will vote in even GREATER numbers for cultural/physical destruction of the society Austrian men created.

        This German female green is simply not a single freaky voice on her own….unfortunately….

        There are really deep waters surrounding this topic & it’s somewhat hard for me to type out the nuances of the subject to my own satisfaction.

        Hope that does translate some of my thoughts.

        If we’re waiting for a germination of female self interest and that women will join us to defend free speech and western civilisation….we’d better start praying.
        Praying hard.



        • I think its difficult to describe general patterns because of course the truth is much more varied. I understand these theories about women and I think there’s an element of truth but its nothing like an absolute truth. There are many women out there who are virulently right wing – I’ve met a few, and many more in all the shades of grey of opinion through to this green lady. The tide of opinion is turning – Geert Wilders has emerged now as a front runner when not so long ago he was practically regarded as a pariah (I think he’s still defending himself in a court case in fact). Attitudes are changing, the Austrian polling is putting the right wing candidate ahead there as well.

          I just think its too early to succumb to pessimism, Western thought had fallen asleep for a while, but its waking up, Stefan is getting huge interest it seems. You said that Trump is the last chance, and perhaps you’re right. If he and others like Wilders in Europe do get elected then I believe strongly that we should push against the universal suffrage concept then (not now) and that way we might be able to stop yet another swing to the left after Trump. Take away the vote from single mothers and all others who just take from the state, while we have a chance, and we might just get the ship to change course enough to avoid the iceberg. Strangely enough, this was exactly how Beveridge originally envisaged the welfare state, as I discussed in:

          “Dysgenics and Welfare”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s