The Death of an Ideal
Call me a fascist. Call me a totalitarian. Call me whatever smear label you wish.
I no longer believe in the effectiveness of electoral representative government, at least as is practiced in modern-day America. And the reason is simple:
It is impossible to make mass Third-world immigration, the welfare state, and universal suffrage work simultaneously.
The assumption, as we were taught in school when I was a boy, was that a constitutional republic was the best possible form of government, since it gave everyone a voice. The assumption was that with the people running the show, and elected officials directly accountable to voters, an efficient, clean, effective government would emerge. With various constitutional protections in place, there would be limits in place as to what the government could do to you.
All of these assumptions have been demonstrated to be false.
The Broken Promises of Representative Government
An objective analysis of the facts obliterates this fairy tale. Our government is manifestly corrupt, and is in no way efficient, clean, or effective. As the Donald Trump campaign has shown, genuine policy changes are simply not possible by playing by the rules. Republican Party elites are openly threatening to suppress Trump, even if he wins enough delegates to get on the national ticket. While the people might get to vote on who’s President, the entrenched elites get to decide who is on the ballot. And only approved people get on the ballot.
Voter feedback is generally ineffective today. Ideally, if an elected official does something that upsets voters, he is thrown out of office in the next election. This is actually not much of an impediment for high-level officials (e.g. congressmen), since they are frequently able to secure lucrative private-sector positions after leaving power. Furthermore, the mass media organs get to decide what screw-ups are brought to the attention of voters, and which are memory-holed. Also, most of the major and contentious changes in American society since WWII have not been enacted by popular vote, and instead have been handed down from above by the leaders of major corporations, tax-exempt foundations, and the Supreme Court. When did the American people vote to legalize abortion, cede the Southwest back to Mexico, import millions of Third-World degenerates, grant most-favored-nation status to China, balloon the national debt, and offshore their jobs to Asia and Latin America?
Lastly, the constitutional protections that Americans used to hold precious have more or less been abrogated in favor of limitless power for the security organs. As any reader here knows, a police officer can do practically anything he wants to you on the street, and is virtually impossible to fire or convict. The security theater at the airports is essentially a gigantic make-work program for otherwise-unemployable, low-IQ, power-tripping TSA goons. A terror attack (always perpetrated by foreigners our government has willingly allowed into the country) leads to a complete evisceration of the Constitution within the local geographic area, and non-compliance with police during a lockdown will likely get you unceremoniously shot. The right to freedom of religion has been abrogated in favor of homosexual sainthood. The right to freedom of speech has been equally abrogated, since the media organs, corporate America, book publishers, and university administrations are able to destroy the careers of anyone who deviates a hairsbreadth from orthodoxy. Some simple googling will thoroughly apprise the reader of the decline and fall of the American university system. I cannot even write under my own name on this blog, out of certain fear that I will be fired and blacklisted for my opinions on race, class, gender, religion, history, and national politics. I often have wondered why so many of my generation (“Millenials”) are rabid leftists. The answer is simple: they have never heard of any sort of contradictory view, other than to denigrate them.
The Reason for the Decline
Universal suffrage has more or less obliterated these assumptions over the past 200 years. At first in America, the only people eligible to vote were property-owning, Protestant, white men. Gradually property requirements were abolished. Eventually the right was extended to blacks, though the post-bellum South quickly enacted laws to deny blacks the vote. Women then won the right to vote. Eventually, blacks also won the right to vote, with all impediments removed.
“But unpropaganda, why shouldn’t everyone be able to vote? Isn’t that only fair and right? Why shouldn’t everyone who lives in a society be able to vote on its laws and officials?”
No. No they should not.
Such laws (for the time being) are already on the books. Convicted felons are not able to vote in many states (among other rights stripped from them). The thinking (which I completely agree with) is that people that break laws ought not have any say in making them. As an added bonus, criminals have disproportionately lower IQs than the general population, and are unlikely to cast votes on the basis of logic and reason. Such men only think with their stomachs and genitals.
Women having the right to vote has been an unqualified disaster, as women are overwhelmingly attracted to the siren’s song of leftism. Say what you want, my experiences in life are too crystallized: the overwhelming majority of women do not think logically or rationally, and instead respond impulsively via emotions. This behavior is magnified when children are brought into the argument. It is practically a guarantee that any society that permits women to vote will invariably gravitate towards redistributionism.
The greatest disaster though in the history of the American experiment with voting however, has been the marriage of the welfare state with mass Third-World immigration. For my foreign readers, I’ll explain how things work here in America:
- The Democratic Party imports Third-World Latin Americans, Muslims, and Africans.
- These people are granted welfare benefits, free education, affirmative action, and racial set-asides.
- These people reward the Democratic Party in subsequent elections by voting heavily Democratic.
- Repeat ad nauseam every year since 1965.
It is impossible to make limited government work when the government itself is importing low-IQ, low-skill, uneducated immigrants which lobby for the expansion of the government itself.
The diverse America of the future is likely to be increasingly un-free. Non-white races have exceptionally inflated and fragile egos, and are bruised easily by uncomfortable words. Free speech is unlikely to survive in a diverse America, which will green-light all of the speech-restrictions on “hate speech” the radical wings of the Democratic Party have been agitating for for decades. Also, the Second Amendment is unlikely to survive as well, despite being explicitly written into the Supreme Law of the Land. A diverse Supreme Court will only accelerate this process.
My Ideal Restrictions on Voter Eligibility
Let’s (for now) assume that other types of government, such as monarchy, theocracy, fascism, and communism are sub-optimal for now, and focus on constitutional republican capitalism (e.g. the original American experiment). There are numerous restriction that I think would be highly beneficial. Of course, these reforms are not attainable in the current political system, and could only be achieved through a revolution.
- Women would not be permitted to vote, for the aforementioned reasons above.
- An intelligence test would be required to be eligible to vote. We can argue over what the cutoff should be, but I propose a simple cutoff of an IQ of 100. This means the left-half of the bell curve cannot vote. This is a highly agreeable state of affairs, since only intelligent people should have a say in how a modern techno-state is governed.
- You must have graduated from high school. People without at least a high school education cannot be trusted to cast votes with any kind of logic behind them.
- You cannot have any felony convictions.
- The voting age would be raised to the age of 25. The only exception would be members of the US military. I particularly would like to see this reform, since several years out of school are necessary to get a better grip on one’s situation. I was certainly not the same person I was at age 25 as I was at age 18. Furthermore, the young man now has been exposed to the Real World and the work force, and can theoretically have accrued some property and savings for himself up to this point. People with knowledge of how to handle their own money and property are ideal candidates for wielding voting power.
- You cannot have significant credit or debt problems. People that cannot marshal their own resources effectively should not have any say in how the resources of an entire nation are spent. This would be a welcome change, as it would put a stop to politicians trying to shove their constituents’ debts onto the public coffers. This kind of platform is exemplified by the Bernie Sanders campaign, who is promising a grab-bag giveaway to drug-addled college students that majored in Marxist pig-slop at university, sunk $200,000 into the degree, could only find work as a barista or a pizza delivery man, and now cannot outrun their interest accrual.
- This one I am not so sure about, but I think a cutoff on wealth would do wonders for isolating the voting power only to the wise. At a minimum, you must have a positive net worth equal to three-times the poverty level income. This is not a difficult standard to meet.
- No one who has taken any sort of government welfare assistance in the last six years shall be able to vote. Ideally, under enlightened rulership, this requirement will eventually become moot because all social welfare programs will have been torpedoed and the bums forced to find honest labor.
- Recent immigrants that have become naturalized citizens cannot vote for the next three election cycles. This would thwart President Obama’s (and Mexico’s) plans of registering as many resident alien Mexican immigrants as possible as ringers to vote against Trump (a candidate who displeases them) in the Fall elections.
“One man, one vote” versus multiple votes
A very interesting idea is to reward people who meet certain requirements with a greater number of votes. It makes sense at least initially, that people who have demonstrated themselves as valuable citizens should have a greater say in the political process than other people. The actual numbers can be (and should be) argued, but the basis for granting extra votes is what is important:
- Any active-duty or honorably-discharged member of the U.S. military shall have three votes. If this person is a designated combat veteran, he shall have ten votes. People that have a chance of being sent “over there” ought to have a say in whether or not they do get sent “over there.”
- People with greater amounts of property and wealth should have a greater say in how their resources are taxed. I propose one additional vote for every $50,000 in net worth. A person with $100,000 in net worth would get two additional votes.
- A man who is married, raising a family, and holding down his job should have a greater say in the political process. Since his children attend the public school probably, he should also have a greater say in their operation. Married males shall have two votes. He shall receive one additional vote for each child he has with his wife. Only married males would receive this benefit. He shall keep these votes if his wife initiates a divorce. He shall lose these votes if he initiates the divorce.
- Higher-IQ individuals would receive a significantly higher number of votes. As a baseline, a person with an IQ of 100 would receive 1 vote. One additional vote would be granted for every 5 IQ points above 100.
- Older people are generally wiser, have more resources, more children, and a greater stake in the success of their society. One additional vote for each year of age beyond 25.
Just to show I am not rigging the rules to favor myself, I’ll give a breakdown of my total voting power under such a regime:
1. I never joined the military, so I would get zero votes here.
2. My net worth is currently not even $50,000, so according to my rules in the previous section, I should not even be able to vote yet, but we’ll roll with the punches. Zero extra votes.
3. I am not married and have no children. Zero additional votes.
4. My IQ is approximately 150 based on my GRE scores. Ten votes.
5. Thirty votes.
So in total, my total voting power would be exactly 40 votes. This is nice, but other people would have far more votes than me. Bill Gates has a net worth of $79.2 billion, which would give him a voting power of at least 1.584 million votes. Clearly, my system is not perfect, but hey, it sounds fun to argue about.
Another idea is to base the vote apportionment based upon probabilities. For example, combat veterans are a rare breed among the general population, and therefore might get floor(1/X) votes, where X is the probability of being a combat veteran within the entire American population. Likewise for the probability of being a member of the US military. The only problem with this method is that it will likely make the numbers extremely large. Using IQ as an example, let’s say we award extra votes based on IQ using the same function. My IQ is about 150, and therefore, since the probability of an IQ of 150 is about 1 in 2330, I would get 2330 extra votes. A similar function could be used for net worth for apportioning votes based on one’s wealth. Bill Gates would still get an enormous amount of votes using this method however.
Since marriage is in such complete disarray in America these days, it might be best to scrap awarding extra votes based on marriage and number of children.