New York Times Admits All Would be Well If Only White Men Could Vote

A New York Times writer with a Jew-sounding name has admitted that America would still be doing fine if only white men could vote.

New York Times:

The term “gender gap” has a clinical sound to it, like it’s an intrinsic condition of our politics. But it did not always exist, and with each recent election cycle, it has become more extreme.

If we look more closely at it, the gender gap probably deserves another name: It’s the white male gap. Or the white male problem.

Think about what the political map would look like if just white men voted.

We’d have a Senator Roy Moore representing Alabama, where 72 percent of the state’s white male voters (and 63 percent of the white women) cast their ballot for a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl — and who faced sexual misconduct allegations from multiple other women related to incidents they said occurred when they were underage. (He has denied the accusations.)

We’d likely have a Senator David Duke from Louisiana. The entire U.S. Senate would look far different — with Democratic senators from just a handful of the bluest states. And there would never have been a President Barack Obama.

Polls in advance of Nov. 3 reveal a huge gender divide. The electorate as a whole seems ready to cast out President Trump by a big margin. But not men. The most recent poll by The New York Times and Siena College shows 48 percent of men backing the re-election of Mr. Trump, compared to 42 percent backing Joe Biden. For women, it’s 35 percent for Mr. Trump, and 58 percent for Mr. Biden.

Broken down by race, the latest poll from Pew Research has Mr. Trump leading Mr. Biden among white men by a 12-percentage-point margin — 53 percent to 41 percent.

Interestingly, women were once more conservative than men.

When Ronald Reagan defeated the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, in the 1980 presidential election, exit polls showed that women favored him by a slim 2-percentage-point margin but that he won the male vote 55 to 36 percent. The last time the gender gap was that big was the 1950s, but at that point — and traditionally — it was women who were the more conservative voters, which was largely attributed to their greater religiosity.

Religion kept women in line. This is, no doubt, one reason why the Jews attacked it so relentlessly. They knew a coalition of grievance-wielding minorities could not, on its own, be enough to defeat white people. Only by peeling off women and gays from the white voting bloc could the Jews ever hope to prevail. Contraception helped them do this. Studies have shown that women become more rational once they are married and have children. A childless woman, on the other hand, has no natural outlet for her nurturing instincts and instead often seeks to fulfill them by embracing foolish idealistic causes that bring ruin on the society she lives in.

The New York Times writer with the Jew-sounding name admits this but, naturally, frames it in a more positive light.

Some argued that the gender gap emerged because women were voting in their self-interest. But the sociologist Martin Gilens, now the chairman of the public policy department at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, took issue with that idea.

In a paper published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology late in Mr. Reagan’s first term, he wrote, “I do not believe that ‘women’s issues’ such as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) or abortion, nor economic conditions such as the growing number of impoverished women, are primarily responsible for the gender gap, though they may play a part.” Instead, he continued, “I think the gender gap reflects traditional differences in male and female values and personalities, differences such as men’s greater competitiveness and concerns with issues of power and control, and women’s greater compassion and nurturance, rejection of force and violence, and concern with interpersonal relations.”

In evolutionary terms, women have basically survived by sucking the dick of the invaders throughout history. If you analyze the genetic make-up of many nations, you see the same pattern: female DNA goes back to the initial settlement of the country after the last Ice Age, while male DNA only goes back to the last successful invasion. What does this mean? When the last group of invaders arrived, they killed the men and took the women as sex slaves/wives. Male DNA only survives by fighting invaders. Female DNA survives by accommodating them. This is evident today in attitudes towards immigration or what the New York Times writer with the Jew-sounding name calls women’s “rejection of force and violence, and concern with interpersonal relations.”

When the full tale of the decline and fall of our civilization is one day told, perhaps by a Chink Edward Gibbon writing centuries from now, our decision to grant women the right to vote may be seen as one of the fundamental errors that led to its demise.