Category: Uncategorized

Shild raises some reasonable, if predictable, objections:

1) “The right to vote and freedom are not the same thing.”

Of course they’re not. This can be said of MANY rights. The fact that totalitarian governments have elections too does not mean that the PRESENCE of the right to vote somehow takes away freedom.

To be sure. But first, note that there is no unalienable God-given or human “right” to vote. If there were, it could not be taken away from felons, resident aliens and so forth. But the main point is that while the presence of the privilege to vote does not inherently take away freedom, nor does it inherently create freedom as the purple-fingered suffrage fetishists insist.

2) “Women/Blacks/etc. are not part of Western Society Proper, and have inflicted such terrible things as feminism/affirmative action/etc. upon us poor WASPs.”

The idea that women (and most other groups) as individuals are not capable of making informed, intelligent decisions is absurd and false.

More seriously, the idea that an individual’s rights should be taken away becuase s/he MIGHT abuse those rights disagrees with the basic assumptions of individual liberty. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us the Patriot Act.

A better summary would be to say that women and blacks, (to use your terminology), have historically played almost no part in the creation and development of Western society – except the absolutely vital role of women in allowing it to sustain itself – and in the equalitarian era are enthusiastically participating in its ongoing destruction. This will ultimately turn out as badly for women and blacks as it does for the poor WASPs, in fact, if history is a reliable guide, it will turn out much worse for them.

The idea that women and ALL other groups are not capable of making informed, intelligent decisions is proven to be true every single day. Do you not know any women? Do you not interact with human beings? Watch Oprah for an afternoon, I’m sure you’ll see no shortage of examples. The vast majority of individuals of all races, sexes and genders are incapable of making informed, intelligent decisions; some groups are dependably worse than others.

3) “Voting can lead to the Tyranny of the Majority, so if a majority of voters were cannibals, we would all have to be cannibals.”

If citizens have no say in government, you can end up with Tyranny of the Minority, so if one or two big wigs in charge were cannibals, we would all have to chow down on long pork.

While I agree that most people (men AND women) are not smart enough/informed enough/do not care enough to vote rationally, I certainly do not see how turning the United States into an Aristocracy would help.

First, it’s a lot easier to replace one or two bigwigs than it is to replace an entire electorate of short-sighted idiots. Second, you already have an aristocracy, it’s merely cloaked in the illusory form of a popular democracy. I mean, you have noticed that Bush I, Clinton, Kerry, Bush II and Rodham-Clinton all attended the same small school of 5,300, right?

No one who favors the inherent limitations of “representative” democracy can reasonably argue against other forms of aristocracy or different limitations on to whom the privilege of voting is granted. You have already accepted the principle, you are merely quibbling about the particular way in which it is applied.

I argue that if there are to be limitations on the popular will, they should be applied in a way to maximize human liberty and freedom for the entire population instead of being applied in a way specifically designed to curtail both. But I’ll settle for direct democracy, why won’t you?

Why do you hate people and want to oppress them? Why do you deprive them of their right to vote on the laws under which they live? Why?

Some upstanding and articulate melanin-enhanced individuals take offense at being praised for their unusual elocution:

It is amazing that this still requires clarification, but here it is. Black people get a little testy when white people call them articulate….

A series of conversations about the word with a number of black public figures last week elicited the kind of frustrated responses often uttered between blacks, but seldom shared with whites.

“You hear it and you just think, ‘Damn, this again?’ ” said Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of humanities at the University of Pennsylvania.

Anna Perez, the former communications counselor for Ms. Rice when she was national security adviser, said, “You just stand and wonder, ‘When will this foolishness end?’ ”

Said Reginald Hudlin, president of entertainment for Black Entertainment Television: “It makes me weary, literally tired, like, ‘Do I really want to spend my time right now educating this person?’ ”

Maybe if every B-L-to-tha-izzack thugz heard dippin’ on televizzles did not bark like li’l gangsta dogz or like they wuz steppin’ wit a mouffull of collahd motha-fuckin greenz, white boy would not be surprised wizzle meet’n an indivijall of African descent who is capable of clockin’ normal American E-bizzle like a motha fucka. Damn!

I further note the use of the word “educating”, which Mr. Hudlin uses in the colloquial sense of “correcting an improper opinion”.

KH dares to cross ideological lines. Only an affection for deceased alien Elder Gods is capable of trumping the modern American left-right divide:

I always enjoy your WND columns, though I rarely agree with your positions. (I’m pretty much a traditional social democrat, though one who believes in living in the real world. I read WND partly for amusement and partly to see what the other side is thinking.) Though I rarely agree with you, I have come to respect your intellectual honesty and consistency. Actually, I rather regret that this country doesn’t have a real conservative movement. I have a lot of respect for conservatism in the old sense of the term, the Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli tradition of conservatism, but that is almost extinct in the U. S.

Current U. S. “conservatism” seems to be divided between sectarianism and right-wing anarchism. I did actually agree with you though about Giuliani, Obama, and Clinton, and about the peculiar process by which candidates are chosen. Besides, I have to like any political columnist who endorses Cthulhu!

In fairness to KH, reading my columns is not exactly the best way for the left to understand what the tattered vestiges of the other side are thinking, although now that I think about it, as one “conservative” commentator after another openly embraces left-wing policies, I may end up being the only member of the other side here shortly.

Ah well. As Prodigy puts it so perfectly, “Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned”.

But it’s quite interesting to see that a left-wing individual can clearly see that today’s “conservatives” have little relation to past conservatives, unlike the frauds who illegitimately flash the label on Fox News.

IA NH
Biden 2% 1%
Clark 2% 2%
Clinton 35% 39%
Dodd 1% 1%
Edwards 18% 13%
Gravel – –
Kucinich 2% 1%
Obama 14% 19%
Richardson 1% 2%
Vilsack 12% 1%
Undecided 13% 21%

Women give Hillary Clinton the edge in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, 39% of women (56% of likely caucus goers) say they would vote for Clinton and 30% of men say they would vote for Clinton. In New Hampshire, 43% of women (57% of likely primary voters) say they would vote for Clinton and 30% of men say they would vote for Clinton.

Thank your suffragette sisters for the Lizard Queen, women. I, for one, welcome our new lesbian feminist overlordesses.

Jefferson is still having trouble grasping the intrinsic difference between “freedom” and “the right to vote”:

What I’m looking for is any reason why these things on the whole would be good for either the country or humanity. There are none.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of examples to the contrary, wherein individuals voluntarily choose to give up their right to vote in favor of obtaining more freedom.

If you have the right to vote in country X, but have no rights to property, speech or your body, but then move to country Y wherein you have those rights, you are giving up your right to vote… at least for the time it takes to become a voting citizen.

Now, to draw an absurd example that may help Jefferson clarify his thinking, suppose there were a large group of cannibals who were vehement eaters of human flesh, large enough to force through mandatory cannibalism based on their numbers. Would one argue that their right to vote should be respected and everyone should be forced to eat human flesh, or would one agree that everyone, (including the cannibals who are all suffering from kuru), would be better off were their right to vote denied?

Once this question is answered, it is merely a question of demonstrating that certain groups’ political influence are reliably destructive and therefore must be denied for the benefit of those very groups, to say nothing of everyone else.

But I am curious as to Jefferson’s opinion on this matter. Which is right? Do we all eat flesh, or do we prevent the cannibals from voting?

UPDATE – Jefferson rightly, according to his previously stated views, opts for the long pig. Very good, now why don’t we all vote on who goes to the death camps, gays, blacks, Jews, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, smokers, fatties, or ugly people. As ye vote, so shall ye make right. Thus spake the suffrage fetishist.

And some still insist there’s no logical consequence to rational atheist morality….

We do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused The Duke:

Your search – Fa’thagn Cthulhu – did not match any documents.
Please define. On your blog. Thanks.

Technically, the correct term is “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wagn’nagl fhtagn”, which is often shortened to “Iä! Cthulhu F’htagn!” The phrase basically means “In his house in R’lyeh dead Cthulhu lies dreaming.”

However, I was writing from memory and so got it wrong, but I decided not to correct it after I realized that what I had written could be translated as “Make Cthulhu King” if you applied the correct languages. It made me laugh, so I left it as it was.

My humor is sadly underappreciated.

From the New York Times:

A little-noticed rider to the January 2006 renewal of the ‘Violence Against Women Act’ allows government agencies to collect DNA samples from any individual arrested by federal authorities, and from every illegal immigrant held for any length of time by US agents. The goal is to make DNA collection as routine a part of detainment as fingerprinting and photography.

The law has strong support from crime victims’ organizations and some women’s groups, who say it will help law enforcement identify sexual predators and also detect dangerous criminals among illegal immigrants.

“Obviously, the bigger the DNA database, the better,” said Lynn Parrish, the spokeswoman for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, based in Washington.

It’s okay, they’re only going to use it to catch bad people. Honest. If you’re not a rapist, then you’ve got nothing to hide, right?

Jefferson fails to grasp the point of universal suffrage:

I can’t think of any argument that would not make me laugh that says who is over 18 and not a convicted criminal should not be allowed to vote.

How about this: universal suffrage exists primarily in order to disguise the existence of unaccountable and unlimited totalitarian rule.

This is why voting is mandatory in totalitarian countries; whereas less than fifty percent of the voting population votes in the United States, elections in Hussein’s Iraq and the former Soviet Union habitually saw 99 percent participation. Voting is nothing more than a symbolic act of submission to the ruling powers, the fact that the USA’s ruling party has two factions, Blue and Red, does not change the fact that its elections are as meaningless as those that confirmed the USSR’s ruling party and its solitary Red faction.

If the will of the people was genuinely permitted to rule by voting, there would be no drastic limitation on democracy by these “representative” members of the bi-factional ruling party. I daresay that I am, despite being an avowed anti-suffragist, more amenable to democracy than even a champion of universal suffragism like Jefferson because I would vastly prefer direct democracy to the disastrous status quo.

The question boils down to which is more important, freedom or voting? Would Jefferson permit a democratic vote on whether we should jail everyone named “Bill” or kill everyone whose last name ends in “-stein”? If not, then even he doesn’t take his own position seriously, he merely believes that universal suffrage in a representative democracy cannot be a genuine threat to freedom.

Given the fact that Mussolini, Hitler and Lenin all championed women’s suffrage as a means of gaining power, this is not an intellectually credible stance. And for anyone who happens to be dubious about that claim, I recommend beginning your education in these matters by reading the very first plank in the Fascist platform.

I’ve got some work to do and limited Internet access today, so I’ll post this early and turn my attention towards the Super Bowl. As a Black-and-Blue division man, I’ll be cheering for the Bears; if they can keep from getting blown out early, I think they’ll outlast Manning and company.

Nate has the career women of Nashville hitting the donuts hard this weekend:

Career Girls don’t actually help the economy at all.

A Career Girl goes out and gets a job. Very rarely however does she actually produce something beyond a pretty presentation or pie chart. For all their bluster women don’t go out there and start businesses. Career girls don’t anyway. Plenty of women go out and become self employed in various ways… and they are indeed participating in the economy and they are indeed producing something. Good for them. But the vast majority of Career Girls don’t do that. They get hired, and go about the business of destroying things with BS paperwork… needless regulation… increased bureacracy… gossip… and general problem causing.

This is one of the two points that regularly escapes those who attempt to consider the effects of women in the workplace. Merely being in the workplace does not make one a positive factor for production, and it’s demonstrably true that women are massively overrepresented in the unproductive and negatively productive occupations.

Secondly, women in and out of the workforce are consumers, so putting them into the workforce is only helpful if they are increasing productivity. If they are replacing more productive men, there may actually be a net loss, moreover, their obvious failure to perform their only societally necessary productive role, the reproductive one, shows that the grand experiment is already a failure.

No doubt future societies will marvel at our obvious shortsightedness.