patrick.net

Yes. I have this thought often.

Reading the article and quoting the best parts:

“The people we just imported to vote for us have decided that you don’t get to have a country anymore.” ...

Politics is fundamentally about finding ways to channel violence away from socially corrosive ends, such as crime or blood feuds, and towards socially useful ends, such as defence of the realm or conquest of new territories; and it is about finding alternative means of resolving disputes which are less wasteful of tribal lives than violence. ...

Diplomacy without the credible threat of force on either side is a fantasy. If one side has an overwhelming advantage, it does not negotiate, but dictates terms. ... Democracy just means taking a head count instead of counting broken heads, with the understanding that, all else being equal, the larger faction is likely to prevail if it comes to blows...

The classical means of preventing a democratic system from descent into ochlocracy (mob rule) is to bind it within the structure of a limited republic, which places certain rights beyond the reach of mere voting. ...

The gradual extension of the franchise to all male citizens over the last few centuries corresponded to the invention and steady advancement of firearms. Before firearms were invented, the battlefield was dominated by armoured knights, each of whom required the resources of a village for his weapons and armour4, and a lifetime of training to use them properly. After the invention of firearms, any peasant who spent a week spent learning how to load and fire a cheap musket could one-shot an armoured knight at a distance5. Because of this, the ability of states to mobilize the common man for war became decisive; since the common man, in possession of the Great Equalizer, was now potentially quite lethal, he was over time given a greater political say. ...

We now find ourselves in the historically unprecedented situation that participation in politics requires only that one be a citizen, 18 years of age, and not (known to be) deceased. Even these minimal restrictions on the franchise are under attack: numerous municipalities now allow non-citizen residents to vote in municipal elections, and there is regular discussion of reducing the voting age to 16. Why there should be any voting age at all is left unaddressed. Surely, with all those stories liberals like to tell of how their three-year-old daughters6 scrunched up their faces at the site of Trump on the television and then broke into precocious political wisdom straight out of Marxist Indoctrination 101, even small children should be allowed to vote; to exclude them seems rank tyranny. Likewise, why should mere residency be a requirement to vote for the mayor of Winooski, Vermont? Does not a tourist also have a stake in the city being well run?

During the 60s, across the Western world, immigration law was reformed so as to make it much easier for people from outside Europe and its diaspora to naturalize, it being deemed racist to place quotas or outright bans on immigration from non-white countries.

Following this, various political parties noticed that the newcomers tended to be very loyal to the parties that championed them.

During the 90s, predominantly left-wing parties realized that by dramatically increasing the immigration rates from countries whose populations disproportionately supported them, they could dramatically increase the size of their electoral base.

California is a case in point, and may even have given them the idea in the first place. The state was a Republican stronghold for decades; it gave the US Ronald Reagan. Then Reagan stupidly gave Mexican illegals amnesty, immediately growing the Democratic voter base by millions. California has been a blue state ever since. ...

The loyalty of imported client groups does not come for free. To win it, left-wing parties shower them with resources, providing them, depending on the country in question, with free housing, welfare, tax breaks for their businesses, DEI carve-outs in higher education and professional employment, and subsidies to businesses that employ them. In each case wealth is transferred from the native population to the immigrant population. ...

At the same time, the massive influx of warm bodies depresses wages and inflates the cost of housing, goods, and services, further impoverishing the native population, while enriching the socioeconomic elite. The net effect is to depress fertility amongst the natives, which then becomes an excuse to import more replacements, because someone needs to pay for the pensions. ...

Left-wing parties have found a sure-fire way of staying in power indefinitely, and all it cost them was everything we have. ...

On the one side there is the left, whose base is composed of: single, childless women; government bureaucrats; their private-sector counterparts with affirmative-action email jobs in large corporations (most of them with cozy relationships with the government); academics, who at this point are effectively government bureaucrats; journalists, who are now mere government propagandists; and vast numbers of imported foreign client groups. This is the coalition of parasitism. They produce nothing, create nothing, build nothing, and prosper through interference and extraction.

On the other other side there is the right, whose base is composed of single and married white men; married white women with children; entrepreneurs and small business owners; blue-collar workers; and much of the military (in particular the combat arms; non-combat trades are essentially government bureaucrats, and so tend to vote left). They produce everything, create everything, and prosper through industry and investment.

The right is the party of cultural continuity, being composed overwhelmingly of the native population.

The left is the party of cultural death, being composed overwhelmingly of foreign invaders, and the traitors who service them.

Because it produces nothing, the left would be destitute without the right. Because it produces everything, the right stands only to gain from casting off the left ... and the right stands to gain quite a bit. Imagine how much wealthier you would be, if your taxes were reduced by 90%. Imagine how much happier you’d be, if there was no crime and filth on the streets, and you could afford a house.

In a democracy with universal suffrage, the right suffers from a critical weakness.

The right grows its electoral base in two ways: either by convincing members of the left coalition to defect, or through natural increase. ...

The left increases its numbers by the simple expedient of importing third world clients. They are quite happy to break the law to do so. ...

And do we then look even more closely at the enemy’s electoral coalition, and realize that it is composed almost entirely of women – who are unsuited to violence; weak men – who are unsuited to violence; and the dregs of the third world – who may be individually prone to random violence, but are not generally very good at organized violence?

To reiterate: the basic idea of democracy is that it is easier, and much less destructive, to tally the warm bodies standing on either side than it is to weigh up the cold corpses littering the field of battle.

But this logic only holds if both sides have an equal proportion of men who are competent with the use of violence.

Which is very, very far from the case in our society.

What if we just told them – no, we don’t care that you won an ‘election’. No, we aren’t letting you have our civilization. No, we aren’t leaving you in power anymore.

What would they do?

This coalition of women and weak men?

Look, I’m not saying to run out and do something stupid. Acting alone or in small groups is very, very stupid, and accomplishes nothing. Without a Leader to rally around, nothing can be accomplished. Such a Leader has not yet shown himself ... or perhaps he has, and has simply not been recognized, as the moment is not yet right.

But historically, political systems that exclude those parts of the population that are most capable of organized violence tend to destabilize. ...

When this experiment in universal suffrage has run its course – and it will, eventually, and probably sooner rather than later – when the migrants have been remigrated, and our countries are once more secure, we will need to consider what to do with politicians who attempted to sacrifice the nation itself merely for electoral advantage. Examples will need to be made; precedents set.

Patrick says

and quoting the best parts:

Yeah. There a lot of 'best parts' in that one. Damn thing is rather long.

Yeah, Universal Suffrage is stupid.

We have to get this SCOTUS to revisit rules about School Taxes/Local Bonds. Before a SCOTUS decision in the 70s, localities could restrict budget and obligation votes to property tax payers and others with long term interests in accumulating obligations for the locality.

Near/at State Median income or more should be a vote qualifer, with an exeption for those over 62, veterans, or property owners.

We could disqualify so many welfre recipients and women, including educated college women, with the property ownership rules.

AmericanKulak says

We have to get this SCOTUS to revisit rules about School Taxes/Local Bonds. Before a SCOTUS decision in the 70s, localities could restrict budget and obligation votes to property tax payers and others with long term interests in accumulating obligations for the locality.

Near/at State Median income or more should be a vote qualifer, with an exeption for those over 62, veterans, or property owners.

We could disqualify so many welfre recipients and women, including educated college women, with the property ownership rules.

Need to amend the 14th Amendment for that one.

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

Damn thing is rather long.

Yes, "John Carter" essays are always long, but worth reading as a rule. I never connected universal suffrage to guns before.

Overall, the essay gives me a lot of hope. Hope that men with guns will take back the US, kick out all the aliens imported by Democrats, limit voting to people whose parents were both born here, and limit female voting to women who have sons, because those women understand that invaders will kill their sons. Women without sons tend to prefer flooding the country with sexy foreign invaders.

BTW, I saw the whole series "Rome" that this guy is from:



It was worth watching. Not all that polished, but fun and pretty accurate historically.

Patrick says

BTW, I saw the whole series "Rome" that this guy is from:



It was worth watching. Not all that polished, but fun and pretty accurate historically.

You might want to watch Domina, then.

https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/the-theory-of-misinformation-argues

The Theory Of Misinformation Argues For Restoring Literacy Tests For Voting




As I have long said, the problem is not that rulers want to stifle what they label as Official Mis- and Disinformation, it is that rulers, elites, and Experts have picked known falsities as their Official Truths. Proscribing genuine falsities does little harm (with obvious allowances for discussions on why the false is false and that sort of thing). Allowing or insisting absurdities to pass as truths does great destruction. Lies passed off as truths become, as the academics we’ll meet below call, “malign influences”.

“Pregnant men” is necessarily false; if spoken in earnest, a lie. Logic students will recognize this as the “married bachelors” of our day. Such asininities ought to be addressed. But what to do about them? You cannot really expect any agency to crack down on lunatics espousing such enormities. For one, there are too many of them (both lunatics and falsities). True, most saying things like this are cowards, and would immediately recant should political winds shift. But that still leaves us with too many to handle.

Plus, policing speech in this way opens the door for tyranny, for all the obvious reasons, even though that particular proposition is one of the dumbest things one can hold. But we can police falsities in some contexts. Such as in voting. ...

Anybody who believes “pregnant men” ought not to be allowed to vote. There are two possible sets of believers. The first are the inherently intellectually unequipped, the sort of people who show up in the videos above. Or they are Credentialed (“educated”), strangling in the death grip of Theory. Either set of people, by voting, do great harm to to the body politic.

Restore competency testing for eligibility to vote.

Requiring a pass/fail on simple tests, which can vary in their context for the office or matter under consideration, would be no burden. Everything is already electronic. You wouldn’t even need to ask for ID! Which, academics tell us, spouting an obvious falsity, are “racist”. ...

Basic logic: “Do academic credentials guarantee correctness?” We do not want people voting who fall prey to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. Our academics agree: “The promotion of opinions that go against expert consensus is often done by individuals who present themselves as heroic rebels.” Indeed. Heroic they are, especially when the Expert consensus wanders into preposterosities (you heard me) like “pregnant men”.

One last one—you will suggest others in the comments: “Should women be allowed to vote?” Only one right, obvious answer to that.

The whole lawsuit with the firefighters test makes it clear we need Poll Tests.