No where in the history of mankind have you won by putting an X with a pencil on a piece of paper.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
8
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 month ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)3 children
Votes used to mean something.
The reason why only property owners were allowed to vote was because they were the only people that could afford to obtain arms and spend the time it takes to learn how to use them properly. They were also wealthy enough that they could hire a small army.
People who don't own land were so busy trying to feed themselves that their opinions don't matter.
1 month ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)1 child
You hit the nail in the head though. Voted used to matter.... When the people voting could hire an army. You've spoken the truth but you just need a few derivatives on extrapolating exactly what you said. The only thing that matters is violence. Voting matters when everyone tallying the vote understands that the voters will use violence if the correct result isn't tabulated.
1 month ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
Owning land in an area was also proof you lived there, had a long-term committment to the civilization, and were competent enough to manage at least some of the country yourself.
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
Jewmocracy was always fake and gay. The only two acceptable ideologies are monoethnic White Christianity set up by God Himself for us (and only us), or National Socialism. Everything else is jewish and intolerable.
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
The Founding Fathers detested democracy, which is why they gave 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government to a democratic element, and even then it was representative democracy.
I think people think that we area democracy. Even in our bastardized form which is very much NOT what the FF intended, we are not a democracy at all, and that's by design!
Specifically...
The senate was not originally elected by the people. The state legislatures would appoint them. They were meant to represent the states themselves, not the people.
The president wasn't an elected position (and technically still isn't.) The state legislatures were to appoint electors without knowing who they might vote for. These electors would all meet on the same day in their respective capitols and choose the best person they could think of to serve as president and vice-president.
In short, the way it was supposed to work looked like this:
* Only white landowners who were descended from the original stock or naturalized (by the government, there is no other way) are allowed to vote.
* These landowners elect their state legislators and a state representative to congress. This ends their participation in the "democratic" part.
* 51% is all it takes to get 100% of the seats in a state or in the House of Representatives. Thus, there was never meant to be a 50/50 split in these bodies. It was always meant to heavily favor one side.
* The state legislators choose their governor, their judges, federal senators and the federal president (by proxy).
* The Senate and the House determine the laws and budget and taxes of the federal government, with strict limitations on what they can do.
* The president (originally) could only veto and only when he felt it was contrary to the national interest or unconstitutional. He was never really meant to use the veto power. It was just a check to keep congress from going crazy. The president was expected to avoid internal affairs. The Speaker of the House would take leadership on domestic affairs.
* The president appoints judges and the senate confirms. The judges rule on cases not on whether or not a law is constitutional. (Congress and the president decide that, not the courts.)
* The military consists of the militia and that's it. If there's a war congress can raise an army to temporarily fight that war, but the bulk of the recruits will come from the militia.
* There is no police. Any police powers belong to the president, the governors, and the people themselves.
* When the whole thing goes tits up (which is inevitable with any government) the white landowners are meant to overthrow their government and start over from scratch. Any obstacles to that effect were to be removed, such as depriving people of the right to denounce the government or the right to bear arms to fight the government.
Regarding God, if you believe anything Locke wrote, the correct form of theocracy looks like this:
* God gives responsibilities and rights to the people, NOT government.
* The people are meant to delegate SOME of those responsibilities and rights to the government on a TEMPORARY basis, and for a SPECIFIC purpose.
* When the government goes off the rails (which is inevitable) then the people were supposed to REVOKE that privilege and create a new government.
* The specific form of government is irrelevant. Whether it's kings or congress or whatever, it doesn't matter as long as it respects the rights that God gave man and doesn't get in the way of the people to exercise those rights.
1 month ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
The problem with jewmacracy is that people are too stupid to know what they want or need, including White land owners. They need a king to make authoritative decisions. If you aren't a king, then you're a fucking retard who should shut the fuck up and bow to one. Or a fuhrer. No other options. The reason I say this is because we as White men always fall for the classic jewish cycle of expulsion; after about so long from their last expulsion, jews prey on our natural compassion to take pity of them and let them back in. If we have a king, the chances of that happening are much lower, and he can respond to it much quicker and better than after jews control the "White land owners." I didn't start Noticing the jew until about 22 years old, so as a "White land owner voter" I would've fucked the country over until it was too late to save it. A king would've fixed all that.
1 month ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
> people are too stupid to know what they want or need, including White land owners. They need a king
What, is the king not a "white land owner"?
Do you not understand what makes a king a king? Hint: It's not genetics.
There is, and always will be, a separation between the noble and the villain. One person is not only capable of securing their wants and needs, but free thinking enough that they can figure out how to help others get theirs. The other would sell their firstborn for a few lines of coke.
1 month ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
>What, is the king not a "white land owner"?
Do you not understand what makes a king a king? Hint: It's not genetics.
Yes, it is genetics, set up by God Himself for us in Judges and Kings. It is the Natural Order God made when we asked Him to create a government system for us. It's passed down through genetics. Sometimes it gets usurped outside the gene line, but they're still kings from that point. The difference between a king and a land owner is the same as a king and a knight. Knights, land owners, serve the king and do what he says as the only authority above him is God. Which means when the king says kill the fucking jews, you kill them no matter how much interest debt you owe them. Or you're a rebel and get killed by the king. That's the point. The only "ones" that are capable of securing their wants and needs are those that know the jew, and those that know the jew know that monoethnic White Christian monarchy is the superior system, with only National Socialism being right behind it. 99% of the time it takes for you and your descendants to learn and know the jew, it's too late to do anything about it. A king prevents all that. It was kings who expelled the jew 95% of the 110+ different countries over a 1000 times since at least 1200 BC, not "White land owner voters." All your "White land owner voters" right now are boomers who hate you, themselves and the White race while giving full support to Israel. That's the problem. They shouldn't have power. A king should.
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Eh, I prefer the first reich. Traditional White Christian monarchy with a strong aristocracy to provide checks and balances, and it lasted a thousand years.
The problem is, here in the US, we are too rebellious. Our knee-jerk reaction has always been insurrection and disobedience.
The president is the closest we will ever get to a king, and it took Donald Trump to show Americans what the presidency was meant to be.
I sincerely propose that we make the following two changes:
* Remove term limits on the president.
* Remove ANY democratic element in choosing the president.
We should have presidents who serve for 10, 20, 30 years and who all but name their successors, the way Julius Caesar did.
The people should be focused on propping up appropriate aristocrats and throwing down the bad ones. The president should represent the aristocrats at large and hold all executive authority.
The reason why only property owners were allowed to vote was because they were the only people that could afford to obtain arms and spend the time it takes to learn how to use them properly. They were also wealthy enough that they could hire a small army.
People who don't own land were so busy trying to feed themselves that their opinions don't matter.
A vote used to be a promise of violence.
No one else's opinion matters because they are not invested in it and are not willing to fight.
I think people think that we area democracy. Even in our bastardized form which is very much NOT what the FF intended, we are not a democracy at all, and that's by design!
Specifically...
The senate was not originally elected by the people. The state legislatures would appoint them. They were meant to represent the states themselves, not the people.
The president wasn't an elected position (and technically still isn't.) The state legislatures were to appoint electors without knowing who they might vote for. These electors would all meet on the same day in their respective capitols and choose the best person they could think of to serve as president and vice-president.
In short, the way it was supposed to work looked like this:
* Only white landowners who were descended from the original stock or naturalized (by the government, there is no other way) are allowed to vote.
* These landowners elect their state legislators and a state representative to congress. This ends their participation in the "democratic" part.
* 51% is all it takes to get 100% of the seats in a state or in the House of Representatives. Thus, there was never meant to be a 50/50 split in these bodies. It was always meant to heavily favor one side.
* The state legislators choose their governor, their judges, federal senators and the federal president (by proxy).
* The Senate and the House determine the laws and budget and taxes of the federal government, with strict limitations on what they can do.
* The president (originally) could only veto and only when he felt it was contrary to the national interest or unconstitutional. He was never really meant to use the veto power. It was just a check to keep congress from going crazy. The president was expected to avoid internal affairs. The Speaker of the House would take leadership on domestic affairs.
* The president appoints judges and the senate confirms. The judges rule on cases not on whether or not a law is constitutional. (Congress and the president decide that, not the courts.)
* The military consists of the militia and that's it. If there's a war congress can raise an army to temporarily fight that war, but the bulk of the recruits will come from the militia.
* There is no police. Any police powers belong to the president, the governors, and the people themselves.
* When the whole thing goes tits up (which is inevitable with any government) the white landowners are meant to overthrow their government and start over from scratch. Any obstacles to that effect were to be removed, such as depriving people of the right to denounce the government or the right to bear arms to fight the government.
Regarding God, if you believe anything Locke wrote, the correct form of theocracy looks like this:
* God gives responsibilities and rights to the people, NOT government.
* The people are meant to delegate SOME of those responsibilities and rights to the government on a TEMPORARY basis, and for a SPECIFIC purpose.
* When the government goes off the rails (which is inevitable) then the people were supposed to REVOKE that privilege and create a new government.
* The specific form of government is irrelevant. Whether it's kings or congress or whatever, it doesn't matter as long as it respects the rights that God gave man and doesn't get in the way of the people to exercise those rights.
What, is the king not a "white land owner"?
Do you not understand what makes a king a king? Hint: It's not genetics.
There is, and always will be, a separation between the noble and the villain. One person is not only capable of securing their wants and needs, but free thinking enough that they can figure out how to help others get theirs. The other would sell their firstborn for a few lines of coke.
Do you not understand what makes a king a king? Hint: It's not genetics.
Yes, it is genetics, set up by God Himself for us in Judges and Kings. It is the Natural Order God made when we asked Him to create a government system for us. It's passed down through genetics. Sometimes it gets usurped outside the gene line, but they're still kings from that point. The difference between a king and a land owner is the same as a king and a knight. Knights, land owners, serve the king and do what he says as the only authority above him is God. Which means when the king says kill the fucking jews, you kill them no matter how much interest debt you owe them. Or you're a rebel and get killed by the king. That's the point. The only "ones" that are capable of securing their wants and needs are those that know the jew, and those that know the jew know that monoethnic White Christian monarchy is the superior system, with only National Socialism being right behind it. 99% of the time it takes for you and your descendants to learn and know the jew, it's too late to do anything about it. A king prevents all that. It was kings who expelled the jew 95% of the 110+ different countries over a 1000 times since at least 1200 BC, not "White land owner voters." All your "White land owner voters" right now are boomers who hate you, themselves and the White race while giving full support to Israel. That's the problem. They shouldn't have power. A king should.
The problem is, here in the US, we are too rebellious. Our knee-jerk reaction has always been insurrection and disobedience.
The president is the closest we will ever get to a king, and it took Donald Trump to show Americans what the presidency was meant to be.
I sincerely propose that we make the following two changes:
* Remove term limits on the president.
* Remove ANY democratic element in choosing the president.
We should have presidents who serve for 10, 20, 30 years and who all but name their successors, the way Julius Caesar did.
The people should be focused on propping up appropriate aristocrats and throwing down the bad ones. The president should represent the aristocrats at large and hold all executive authority.