Limiting the franchise

This is a response to the discussion currently taking place at Lawrence Auster's blog regarding his ideas for limiting suffrage in the United States, titled "Limiting the franchise."



Mr. Auster,

A few points on your discussion about your entry concerning “limiting the franchise” of our republic:

1. It is extremely important that we look at this rationally, realistically, and pragmatically, basically meaning that government should not be organized around idealistic or theocratic concepts. What government you, or anybody else thinks, is most in line with religious principles, is absolutely irrelevant. It is not the role of government to socially engineer society along secular or, especially, religious lines. The single most important function of government is to defend the nation and protect the natural rights of individuals and their families. The second most important function of government is to protect private property and enforce contracts. These are both key to the proper functioning of any kind of society or market economy.

2. I see no reason why women should not be allowed to vote. Should they not be allowed to work, either? If women are purged from the workforce, our economic capabilities decline automatically by at least 50%. Anybody who says that women should be eliminated from the workforce is basically calling for the destruction of the United States. People who think this way should be ignored and relegated to the fringes, where they belong. Albert Speer understood this when he took control of German war production in 1942 and allowed women to take a more active part in the workforce, much to the dismay of many highly ideological party leaders. Because he did so, along with many other reforms, he managed to quadruple production by 1944, prolonging the war. Imagine where Germany would have been had they done this a decade earlier? Terrifying thought, is it not?

3. As inferred in the previous statement about women, the organization of the world outside a nation’s borders is just as important as the organization of the society inside them. Any form of governmental organization that will weaken our ability to project power in our defense or economically compete with other countries should be immediately rejected. Alexander Hamilton was right when he said, “It had been said that respectability in the eyes of foreign nations was not the object at which we aimed; that the proper object of republican Government was domestic tranquility and happiness. This was an ideal distinction. No Government could give us tranquility and happiness at home, which did not possess sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad.” Let’s face it: all of your cherished religious beliefs and views about women will not matter after your brains have been splattered across your living room floor as you rushed to protect your wife from being raped by foreign invaders who are occupying your country because your policies rendered it too weak to compete with others.

4. While limiting the franchise to those who own property is certainly preferable to the system that we have today, there are serious problems with this. What is to prevent large property owners from utilizing the government’s coercive power to maximize their property holdings via eminent domain laws, thereby slowly, but surely, eliminating large portions of the electorate and turning the country into an oligarchy?

5. As for the “taxation without representation” argument, I do not understand why it is wrong for a person to pay taxes if they being protected by the government or utilizing any other kind of governmental services. A better quote would be “no service without representation,” ie, the government cannot call upon you to serve if you are not represented in government. I believe that the best system of government is one where the members of the government and the electorate are those who have served their nation and everybody else who has not are excluded. Of course, this would cut the electorate down significantly (those who have served make up about 3% of the United States) and would include both men and women.

6. How could one possibly enforce a system of democratic rule where the only ones who are enfranchised are married men? If women want to vote, they could easily shut down society. Think about it: all they have to do is quit getting married. If you want to dissolve marriage as a viable social institution, then this is the way to go. Too many people get married for all the wrong reasons nowadays, and the purpose of marriage continues to erode by the day. Do we want to accelerate this fact by creating a system where marriage is linked to political power?

7. Another net result of linking political power to being male and married is the effects it could have upon birthrates. Families will want to maximize their political power relative to other families, and how better to do so than to develop means by which to have more male children? Imagine the effects this will have upon society as a whole. Since families will want to have more male children, the ratio between men and women will slip from 50/50 to a male majority, with a significant percentage of males therefore being unable to marry. Not only will some families have much more political power than other families, but you will create a huge segment of society riddled with social dysfunction due to the fact that they, the men, will be unable to marry due to a lack of single women and will direct their social energies elsewhere. Imagine the crime wave and the alienation that will result from this.

8. On top of all of this, Laura mentions how in this form of representation families will become a “corporate body” recognized by the state. This gets into previous arguments that I have made regarding families seeking to maximize the number of male children that they have and utilizing the coercive power of the state to extend familial power. Basically, the results of this type of society, where families are dominant, is that it will become something like what exists now in Iraq, ie, clan and tribal loyalties will dominate society (for a more Western example, look at the past 700 years of Italian history). This is not a pretty thought, and if one thinks nepotism is bad now, just wait until family becomes the primary element of society recognized by the state.

9. Back to my statement regarding limiting the electorate and makeup of government to those who have served the nation, I still think that this is the most ideal system, with a few nuances. The fact of the matter is that government should be as meritocratic as possible, and the only functioning government bureaucracy with a true sense of meritocratic mobility is the military. I believe that other government functions, like medicine, education, the judiciary, the civil service, and emergency services, could be similarly meritocratic if they were organized nationally along military organizational lines, providing more upward mobility to what are now local and state functions while helping areas that have personnel or material shortages. And while true positions of power in government, like the legislature and upper echelons of the executive branch and judiciary, should still only be made up of those who have served, positions in specialized government agencies requiring certain expertise should not be so limited.

10. I do not believe that the military is any more meritocratic than any kind of society organized around a market economy. But whereas those who join the military generally do so for somewhat nationalistic reasons, those who stay outside the military and work within the marketplace do so for economic reasons. This leads towards different attitudes regarding the self and the nation, and lends support to my argument that those who have experience in the federal service will work more towards the interests of the nation.

I hate to say it, but many of my beliefs flow from my readings of Robert Heinlein. He was a very smart man. But more than anything else we need to be realistic here. For those who want a Christian theocracy, I suggest they go join the Reconstructionist la-la-land centered on R.J. Rushdoony and his Institutes of Biblical Law.

Sick in America

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.

by Rudyard Kipling

Zaporozhian Cossacks' reply to Sultan Mehmed IV

If this isn’t politically incorrect, I don’t know what is.

In 1675, the Zaporozhian Cossacks (a military order located in modern day Ukraine) defeated an army dispatched by Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire (modern Turkey) to conquer them. Despite annihilating the Ottoman army, the Sultan sent a letter to the Cossacks demanding their immediate surrender, stating:

“As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the Sun and Moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians—I command you, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.”

Koshovyi Otaman Ivan Sirko, on behalf of the Cossacks, replied with the following:

“O sultan, turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can't slay a hedgehog with his naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we've no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother.

You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, Armenian pig, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding Christian pigs. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!”

And that was that. Below is a painting by Ilya Repin from the early 1800s depicting the Cossacks as the letter was written. It is now located in the Russian State Museum in St. Petersburg.

Kudos to Gates of Vienna.

The never-ending cycle

The national security of a hegemonic power inevitably leads to the creation of a deadly cycle that will repeatedly result in much bloodshed. The more secure a nation, the more insecure its rivals. Rival states, in the legitimate pursuit of their own national security interests, will time and again move towards developing a foreign policy that seeks to reshape the global order into one that is more conducive to their own national interests. Before long, the rival power will either attempt to topple the hegemonic power or the hegemonic power will attempt to crush the rival. If the rival is successful in its attempt, it will become the de facto hegemon and will be forced to deal with its own rivals who, like itself before it became hegemonic, seek to reshape the global order and the cycle will repeat. If the hegemon is successful in its attempt to crush the rival, it will simply result in the expansion of its own power and responsibility and will be forced to deal with rivals again and again until it either collapses from overstretch or defeat, or conquers the world, thus successfully eliminating every rival and asserting complete and total control over the socioeconomic structure of the earth. This cycle cannot be stopped either through balances of power or international agreements, for neither can guarantee the security of the hegemon or its rivals. The cycle will always result in either constantly changing global order or the conquest of the earth. Even then, it is questionable whether the cycle will cease.

Why don't public schools teach this?

"But it typically is personal failure and social dysfunction that create poverty. To stay out of poverty in America, it's necessary to do three simple things, social scientists have found: finish high school, don't have kids until you marry, and wait until you are at least 20 to marry. Do those three things, and the odds against your becoming impoverished are less than one in ten. Nearly 80 percent of everyone who fails to do those three things winds up poor." - Steven Malanga

The anti-Jewish "Terrorist Next Door" is, most likely, non-white

Daniel Levitas, on the website of his book, The Terrorist Next Door, has posted a copy of a book review of Gods of the Blood, an outstanding book about radical right-wing religious organizations and their beliefs. In his somewhat negative review, which makes no note of the fact that this book is perhaps the most comprehensive one yet written about the subject, he condemns the author, Mattias Gardell, in his concluding paragraph for "characteriz[ing] anti-Semitism as a 'marginal' phenomenon" and then proceeds to state the fact that a "recent survey" by the Anti-Defamation League [in 2002] found that "35 million Americans (fully 17% of adults)" held "strongly antisemitic beliefs." He then proceeds to chastize the author for "believing that the activities of white supremacists and neo-Nazis do not constitute a bona fide social movement because their efforts lack solidarity, common purpose, and collective action." [1]

The problem with all this, is that, according to the ADL survey, only a fraction of those "35 million Americans" belong to the race that is eligible for membership in white supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations: Whites.

A copy of the survey can be found on the ADL website. Here are its "findings in brief" (highlights my own):

The findings in brief … Strongly anti-Semitic:
17% of Americans
35% of Hispanics
35% of African-Americans
3% of U.S. college and university students [2]

After doing some quick math utilizing statistical data accessed from Wikipedia [3], the totals of Americans by racial group that hold "strong antisemitic beliefs" are as follows:

African-Americans - 12.2 million
Hispanics - 14.5 million

Which leaves us with a total of 26.7 million, which means that of that "35 million Americans" that Levitas cites who hold "strong antisemitic beliefs," a little more than 8 million Americans from a combined group of "Non-Hispanic Whites" (ie, Whites), Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders, hold such beliefs. Being that around 92% of this 8 million are White, this brings us to a grand total of 7.4 million Whites who hold "strong antisemitic beliefs," or less than 4% of the total White population.

To summarize, the greatest threat to Jews, according to the ADL survey, are the two largest minority groups in the United States, Hispanics and African-Americans. So why does Levitas ignore this fact and act as if all 35 million of those Americans are Whites? I'll leave that to you to decide.

1. http://www.terroristnextdoor.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=39
2. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4109_12.htm
3. As of this blog entry, Wikipedia found that there were 34.9 million African-Americans, 41.3 million Hispanics, 12.5 million Asian-Americans, 2.4 million Native Americans, .4 million Pacific Islanders, and 192.6 million Non-Hispanic Whites living in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm back! I arrived via C-17 on 2 Mar... I've been taking compensatory time off and I'll begin blogging again soon. Until then, here's an excellent documentary debunking the latest religious craze: "global warming."

Deploying...

Hey folks... I've been terribly busy as of late and have had no time whatsoever to work on my blog. Unfortunately, for about 4 more months I will be unable to do much more work, as I will be deployed overseas. I'll see you then!



Djibouti

My votes in the '06 Florida general election

Being that I am located on the other side of country from my home in Florida, I voted via an absentee ballot this year. Here's a sample ballot for my county and here are the votes that I recorded:

(1) United States Senator: Belinda Noah (NPA)
(2) Representative in Congress, District 7: John L. Mica (REP)
(3) Governor and Lieutenant Governor: Charlie Crist; John Kottkamp (REP)
(4) Attorney General: Bill McCollum (REP)
(5) Chief Financial Officer: Tom Lee (REP)
(6) Commissioner of Agriculture: Charles H. Bronson (REP)
(7) County Commissioner, District 2: Mark L. Belas (REP)
County Commissioner, District 4: Ed Taylor (DEM)
(8) Retain Justice of the Supreme Court, R. Fred Lewis?: NO
Retain Justice of the Supreme Court, Barbara Joan Pariente?: NO
Retain Justice of the Supreme Court, Peggy A. Quince?: NO
Retain District Court of Appeal, Justice Emerson R. Thompson?: NO
(9) Circuit Judge, 7th Judicial Circuit, Group 27: Luis Bustamante
(10) No. 1 Constitutional Amendment: YES
(11) No. 3 Constitutional Amendment: YES
(12) No. 4 Constitutional Amendment: NO
(13) No. 6 Constitutional Amendment: YES
(14) No. 7 Constitutional Amendment: YES
(15) No. 8 Constitutional Amendment: YES
(16) Superintendent of Public Schools: NO

Methodology:
(1) I dislike the incumbent, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, and I dislike the Republican candidate, Katherine Harris. Therefore, I voted for an independent conservative candidate: Belinda Noah. Harris has no chance in beating Nelson, anyways, so why should I vote for my party's candidate, of whom I dislike? By voting for Noah, I am thus registering my disgust at the Republican Party for their lack of sense in nominating a candidate.
(2) John Mica has been a good conservative in Congress and has been responsive to the concerns of his constituents. His opponent, Democrat John Chagnon, is too left-wing for my taste.
(3) I dislike Republican Charlie Crist, who is too liberal on immigration, and I strongly dislike his opponent, Democrat Jim Davis, who is basically a socialist supported by every minority and special interest group possible. I wanted to vote for the conservative Reform Party candidate, Max Linn, to register my opposition to the Republican's choice of candidate, but out of fear that a socialist may be able to slip in behind our backs, I reluctantly registered my vote for Crist.
(4) I voted for Bill McCollum, whom I have supported in every election since I first began voting. The Republican Party never gives this man enough support, and it's about time this good, strong conservative, got a chance.
(5) Tom Lee is Jeb Bush's choice of candidates, and since Jeb has done such a good job as a governor in regards to the budget, I trust him on this. What was Jeb thinking when he chose Crist!?
(6) Charles Bronson is the obvious choice for this position.
(7) These are local elections that I'm sure none of you care about.
(8) I voted against retainment of any of these judges because they are all left-liberals and oppose many issues that I hold dear, such as school vouchers. In particular, all three of those Supreme Court justices joined to shoot down Florida's voucher program.
(9) Again, local stuff.
(10) This amendment would bring greater efficiency and eliminate waste and fraud in many state programs. For that reason I support it.
(11) This amendment would make it harder to amend the state constitution, a measure I greatly support. Too often special interests with agendas that should be dealt with at the legislative level skip the process altogether, especially when they know it will never muster, and trick voters into voting for amendments that support them, like regulating types of pig farming (from the 2002 election). I voted YES for that reason.
(12) This is a perfect example of the kind of special interest amendment that I just described. NO!
(13) I voted YES for this. It modifies an existing constitutional provision and is effectively a tax cut.
(14) Again, I voted YES because this modifies an existing constitutional provision and cuts taxes (this time just for those who have lived in Florida their entire lives, not just everybody; an overall plus in a state that is rapidly becoming overpopulated).
(15) YES! This makes it impossible for government to use eminent domain laws to enrich private persons or public entities for tax collection purposes.
(16) NO! This is just what we don't need: unions with more power.

Through a Glass, Darkly

Through the travail of the ages,
Midst the pomp and toil of war,
Have I fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon this star.

In the form of many people
In all panoplies of time
Have I seen the luring vision
Of the Victory Maid, sublime.

I have battled for fresh mammoth,
I have warred for pastures new,
I have listed to the whispers
When the race trek instinct grew.

I have known the call to battle
In each changeless changing shape
From the high souled voice of conscience
To the beastly lust for rape.

I have sinned and I have suffered,
Played the hero and the knave;
Fought for belly, shame, or country,
And for each have found a grave.

I cannot name my battles
For the visions are not clear,
Yet, I see the twisted faces
And I feel the rending spear.

Perhaps I stabbed our Savior
In His sacred helpless side.
Yet, I've called His name in blessing
When after times I died.

In the dimness of the shadows
Where we hairy heathens warred,
I can taste in thought the lifeblood;
We used teeth before the sword.

While in later clearer vision
I can sense the coppery sweat,
Feel the pikes grow wet and slippery
When our Phalanx, Cyrus met.

Hear the rattle of the harness
Where the Persian darts bounced clear,
See their chariots wheel in panic
From the Hoplite's leveled spear.

See the goal grow monthly longer,
Reaching for the walls of Tyre.
Hear the crash of tons of granite,
Smell the quenchless eastern fire.

Still more clearly as a Roman,
Can I see the Legion close,
As our third rank moved in forward
And the short sword found our foes.

Once again I feel the anguish
Of that blistering treeless plain
When the Parthian showered death bolts,
And our discipline was in vain.

I remember all the suffering
Of those arrows in my neck.
Yet, I stabbed a grinning savage
As I died upon my back.

Once again I smell the heat sparks
When my Flemish plate gave way
And the lance ripped through my entrails
As on Crecy's field I lay.

In the windless, blinding stillness
Of the glittering tropic sea
I can see the bubbles rising
Where we set the captives free.

Midst the spume of half a tempest
I have heard the bulwarks go
When the crashing, point blank round shot
Sent destruction to our foe.

I have fought with gun and cutlass
On the red and slippery deck
With all Hell aflame within me
And a rope around my neck.

And still later as a General
Have I galloped with Murat
When we laughed at death and numbers
Trusting in the Emperor's Star.

Till at last our star faded,
And we shouted to our doom
Where the sunken road of Ohein
Closed us in its quivering gloom.

So but now with tanks a'clatter
Have I waddled on the foe
Belching death at twenty paces,
By the star shell's ghastly glow.

So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

And I see not in my blindness
What the objects were I wrought,
But as God rules o'er our bickerings
It was through His will I fought.

So forever in the future,
Shall I battle as of yore,
Dying to be born a fighter,
But to die again, once more.

by General George S. Patton

Weird? Yes. Patton believed that he had lived through many ages and had been resurrected time and again. This is one of my most favorite poems.

And He Said Fight On (Tennyson)

Time and its ally, Dark Disarmament,
Have compassed me about,
Have massed their armies, and on battle bent
My forces put to rout;
But though I fight alone, and fall, and die,
Talk terms of Peace? Not I.

They war upon my fortress, aim their guns
Are shattering its walls;
My army plays the cowards' part, and runs,
Pierced by a thousand balls;
They call for my surrender. I reply,
"Give quarter now? Not I."

They've shot my flag to ribbons, but in rents
It floats above the height;
Their ensign shall not crown my battlements
While I can stand and fight.
I fling defiance at them as I cry,
"Capitulate? Not I."

by Emily Pauline Johnson (Tekahionwake)