202 thoughts on “Is It Time To Rethink Universal Suffrage?”

1. I’m perfectly fine with not letting those on welfare vote. But I don’t think it will have a big impact because less than half of people in those circumstances vote anyway. It’s usually libs with more money than sense that vote for those things.

   1. Generally the “poor” don’t vote much, except during Presidential elections, where they still aren’t interested however the Democrats (in the States anyway) go through homeless areas and snag them and put them on countless busses then ship them to the polls. I’ve watched this happen several times first hand. They even feed them and tell them who to vote for (which seems a bit like electioneering if you ask me). The poor mindless schlumps trudge into the polls, do what they’re told with no real understanding of what they’re doing, and badda bing, Obama and other Dems are elected. Like clockwork.
      In off elections the poor do *not* vote and right wing types generally dominate the results, since we’re much more politically active as a bloc (the Left is more ardent and active as very loud, annoying splinter groups).

      1. That’s why Republicans have more Governors and state legislatures than the Democrats, but can’t get much done in the Federal Government.

         1. Stupid feds, right.
            If only they had rejected the constitution.

         2. Actually, I’ve read a pretty good essay as to how ‘we the people’ got screwed on that one as well. The founders were supposed to update the Articles of Confederation but somehow pulled off a coup with what became a tool for centralizing power.

         3. I was not being sarcastic. Reading a book about freedom of speech right now and how it came into power. In the beginning, the constitution was not much more than a piece of paper. It got meaning simply because people chose to want it to have meaning. Because it suited them. For instance, freedom of speech was great for those who wanted to smear on the other party without repercussions.

      2. “however the Democrats (in the States anyway) go through homeless areas and snag them and put them on countless busses then ship them to the polls. I’ve watched this happen several times first hand. They even feed them and tell them who to vote for (which seems a bit like electioneering if you ask me).”
         ========================
         Isn’t this a form of bribery?

         1. Yes, yes it is. They are not limited to bribery, however. They are also adept in coercion and scare tactics.

         2. Definitely. And the election boards smile in your face and tell you that your complaints don’t matter, usually because election boards are made up of leftists.

      3. What about voting fraud?

         1. One and the same, to me.

         2. Right, but I mean at the vote counting level. Not just manipulating welfare queens but actually gaming the system once the vote has been cast. There’s a lot of people who think that’s how Michelle’s wife won a second term.

2. Just need a Democrat politician that promises to give more shit to the lazy fucks and then after he’s elected, turn his back against them and govern the country in the right path. This, of course, is political suicide which is why political office positions were really not meant to be a career.

3. No disagreement with the thesis here. However, the warfare state and crony capitalism also consumes a significant amount of tax resources with little in return for the rest of us.
   Also, there are many people who have good incomes who voted for this baboon and his ugly shemale cunt that makes everything a race issue.
   Even though I was a renter, I can see why voting should be limited to male property owners. Not enough people have a pro-liberty mindset when it comes to voting or even question why the state whether city, county, state, or federal should have the authority it does in some areas.

   1. There are people who vote that has no idea what the candidates support or know what the name of the idea the candidates favor means and how it affects them and the entire nation. Most women vote because so and so is popular and heard the name several times. Or, was best dressed.
      Shocking!

      1. I had an older female relative say she voted for Bill Clinton because he is good looking. Damn, I wanted to slap her in the head!

         1. I have a theory why Bill Clinton is so popular amongst female voters: he’s a cad. It’s as simple as that. He’s slept with multiple women, and women love that. Herd mentality at its finest. Has nothing to do with politics, because women are not capable of understanding such things. They just know that he’s decently good looking and he’s slept around, and they believe that they have a chance with him.

   2. “Also, there are many people who have good incomes who voted for this
      baboon and his ugly shemale cunt that makes everything a race issue.”
      Here’s the thing. We will NEVER have again a straight white male for president. Mark my words. I hope I’ll lose this bet but I think it’s unlikely.

   3. They give the government too much power and rely too much on the government. Not enough people have the mindset that these people are supposed to work for us. They see the government as “they” and not “we”. If enough people adopted this mindset then we would have all of the power (to kick them out). But, our government has purchased their loyalty through all of these freebies and government programs (hence, they are loyal and vote in more shit without figuring out how – or who – will pay for it). The illegal immigration move (here and in Europe) is an attempt to keep the gravy train rolling (versus downsizing government…as needed).
      The fed has too much power and needs to be downsized. They haven’t ‘represented’ me in a very long time (or even at all). They all continue to serve the very few interests and spend like crazy (both parties).

4. Personally I’ve been thinking a system where votes are weighted in proportion to taxes paid might be the best solution. Perhaps this or another meritocratic system could be implemented with another house (ie either as a senate or in a tricameral legislature)
   However I think all such systems have flaws and politicians will of course attempt to widen the franchise to win votes (that’s what originally happened after all). Also there are plenty of parasites and libtards among the financial elite so I’m not sure this would solve anything.
   I’m coming round to the idea that an enlightened aristocracy of merit might be the best solution – genius leaders bred and raised for leadership.

   1. Your idea would result in a real and thriving oligarchy within a generation, and we’d be back at square one as some blue blooded slack jaw “superior” type forcing Leftism on us at gunpoint.

      1. Hmm. It’s a possibility but if you consider European history the true golden age of European culture occurred under the oversight of enlightened monarchs. These monarchs managed to balance the interests of the different classes quite successfully and upheld order and freedom. The difficulty comes in finding a mechanism to actually get such leaders.

         1. Right, but socialism hadn’t been invented yet. For your thought to have any chance of success we’d need to have a world where socialism wasn’t even recalled in history books. The “enlightened” leaders of today would quickly figure out that they could keep the masses happy with “free money” and resources.

         2. But if you are honest enough, you have to acknowledge and react to the emotional need that socialism promises to satisfy. The need for a tribe.
            My idea is: Tribal capitalism.
            The whole nation is subdivided into tribes with a limited amount of people. Let us say 150. There is some science about how many real relationships people can have without being superficial.
            Thus, you have real brotherhoods where people actually care for each other – which is the thing that defeats socialism: You do not really care for anyone, because the brotherhood is merely symbolical, as it is impossible to be friends with and know millions of people intimately.
            Thus, within those tribes, you have a self-regulating community. But all the tribes are in competition with each other in capitalistic tradition.
            Have not thought much about the details yet, though.

         3. That was the original intent behind local government in the US Constitution, I believe. It’s why now days you can hear a lot of people complain about infringement onto State’s Rights, especially with the gay marriage ruling.
            Of course, the first step had to be to erode the 10th Amendment (along with a few other things) and we did that under a very “good” cause with Lincoln, we ended slavery, but what has it really cost us? (Personally I don’t care for slavery, but find it ironic how so many modern folks will willfully enter into it if they are played properly and also I believe that certain people will only be able to raise themselves up to a limited level or station no matter the circumstances and breaks they are gifted, they are simply incapable of anything greater).
            I think you might be onto something to be sure, but the collectivists who seek totalitarian control have already enacted successful plans to undo similar concepts that would likely be easily tailored to do the same to a “new order.”

         4. Yeah, slavery is an interesting topic for sure.
            But even a state is much too large. My point is: To feel real brotherhood – and not its mere symbol – you need to actually know the people who are your brothers individually and intimately. For that, the number of brothers has to be limited.
            I was partly inspired by reading the introduction of the Hagakure. Seems that the Samurai lived in clans with strong familiar bonds. Which in my imagination is like the thing I would like. When it is your family, you simply do not need all those regulations and rules – these things manage themselves through intuition.

         5. Yeah, the immediate problem with the structure in Feudal Japan (and elsewhere) would be the constant infighting and war.
            Of course, if one doesn’t mind open warfare to claim and keep what you may as opposed to the modern idea of subjugation to the larger power with the default recourse being to beg that power for gratuities and mercies without much more than minimal physical resistance, then it might be viable. It almost might present as something akin to natural selection (or Law of the Jungle) which I much prefer to the slow soul-decay of current society.
            One thing that happens in the US is that those of us who get labeled “conservative” are told we want to go back in time, in this context it would be preferable as coupled with local and state governments having powers the Federal was not supposed to assume or usurp, we also had neighbors, not just people who lived nearby, but people we got to know and spend time with (sort of like what you are talking about), a sense of community with nothing to do with communism.
            People, even in the rural areas, used to come together to enjoy group activities and would help one another without coercion or shame. Jeb’s barn got blown down in a high wind, have a barn raising. Go bowling in your town’s local league, go to a dance with other young folks (a Saturday social was a great way to meet half-decent girls), have a cookout and grill in one another’s backyard.
            Go hunting and fishing with the boys from work or the kids from the local school.
            This stuff was real and really happened (hell, it was most of my childhood and adolescence, until around the time the internet became a practical thing to have even in my area, about 1995-96), it was primarily centered around people practicing their faith and taking time out for one another and men and women raising families up with similar values. We have lost that along with many of the safeguards in our own law in order to get free stuff and have momentary pleasures fulfilled.
            We look outside ourselves for affirmation because we believe in nothing. We celebrate hollow deeds rather than true triumphs (we have people who are Proud of having done literally nothing, and then have parades about it). And when we place our faith in other humans or things we created, we are ultimately failed. All that has been lost or taken and so we have today.

         6. Very nicely said, my friend.
            I would also prefer the open war and conflict to the decay and collapse due to passive aggression. Better a constant stream of open violence than a collective rage that builds up and eventually comes out through devices like nuclear bombs, mass surveillance and general misery. I think that the psychology of an individual can metaphorically be applied to nations as well. Vent the steam or it directs at itself.

         7. I don’t see it as satisfying that need at all, actually. Socialists that I see, or rather those under a socialist system, are so entirely atomized and jealous of their neighbor that this seems exactly the opposite of tribal. Visit an inner city and you’ll find people who are overwhelmingly slavishly devoted to socialism (whether they call it that or not) while also not knowing their next door neighbor’s name or even if they have a next door neighbor.

         8. Exactly my point. Socialism promises something great without delivering just the thing that makes it appealing. You end up with all the responsibilities of a brotherhood with none of its love and understanding. A pretense of comraderie,

5. “Since the installment of universal suffrage welfare state entitlements have grown immensely.”
   Correct, when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

6. “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
   ― H.L. Mencken
   That’s the basic flaw with Democracy. People can vote for more shit until the state is broke and the country impoverished. Despite what gets taught in our crappy public schools, the early Greek democracies were failures that broke down in orgies of stupidity.
   That is why our Founding Fathers built a Republic with strictly limited government powers and guaranteed rights. The idiots have been trying to expand those government powers and destroy our rights ever since.

   1. And it’s not even about money. Let’s say the majority of the people, 51%, or better yet, a majority of the VOTERS, which could be as little as 10% of the population, institutes a state religion, or makes you give a year of service to the society (ie slavery) or makes you wear a certain uniform, or makes you all attend lectures on trannyism. Democracy is simply a bad system. No where else in society do we let the most popular idea be the one we go with. If that were true then child pornography would probably be legalized.
      I don’t care for the war on drugs, and think prohibition should probably be ended, but we’re seeing states decide NOT on the basis of health, but on the basis of POPULARITY whether pot should be legal. And then we have this mish mash of its fine in some states and you go to prison in others. A decision should be made based on health, safety, freedom, productivity, and not simply the whims of the people that day.

      1. I’m at the point I want to return to Monarchy…my only reservation is that we’d wind up with King JEB

         1. What’s wrong with Jeb? He is the most majestic and holy of all Kerbin’s creatures.

      2. In your studies of governmental organization, which do you think is the most beneficial to a population the size of the United States?

         1. The US is an interesting case, and I would say I only have hypotheses, mainly due to its size, but I like the idea of a combination monarch / voting body (kind of like how the UK has the house of lords and the elected house of commons).
            I think the large size of the US is one of its weaknesses. If the US had stayed roughly the size of the 13 original colonies, maybe the kind of constitutional republic envisioned could have worked (remember, voting was limited to certain classes and there was NO direct election of federal representatives). It was similar to the idea of the town elders choosing a leader.
            Jefferson, one of my heroes, started the expansion trend with the Louisiana Purchase. I suppose they saw America as a great and good thing, and therefore the more it spread the greater and better it would be, but in hindsight it seems opposed to all the principles of the revolution to attempt to further impose their governmental will on others, mere years after fighting and dying for their own freedom.
            Setting aside the US, which is somewhat unique and has only existed a couple of centuries, we see that almost every major civilization in the world prospered under a strong king or emperor. The caesars of Rome, the Emperors of China and Japan, the caliphates of the Mideast, the Russian Tsars, strong kings of almost every European nation, Emperor Palpatine (heh), these all represented the height of the nation. Is the UK stronger today under an elected ruler than it was under almighty Queen Victoria?
            So the question is would monarchy work in the USA? Typically monarchs ruled over smaller nations. If you step back, the EU is essentially what the USA is, with each European country being equivalent to a US state. Traditionally, each nation had its own king, and even with their small size, those nations were incredibly powerful. I’d say, pound for pound, much more powerful than the US is today, in almost every meaningful factor. So what about a larger monarchy?
            Consider the case of Charlemagne, first Holy Roman Emperor in 800, and ruled over most of western Europe during the early Middle Ages. Ruling only 13 years, he spurred the early Carolingian Renaissance, one of three medieval renaissance periods, and oversaw education and religious reforms. There was considerable war and conflict, although a 13 year reign is a rather brief period to judge on this factor alone. Considering that the Empire lasted until 1806, when it was destroyed by another emperor, Napoleon, it would appear to be successful.
            The case of Napoleon is also not a cut and dry good/bad decision, but Bonaparte brought many ideas and reforms that are still in use today (including the metric system, something the US still can’t get behind), and that he is still a popular figure, forever changing the world, I am inclined to view him as a good ruler, if one can set aside the death and destruction the Napoleonic Wars caused. Bonaparte was an idealist, and enjoyed reforming and improving society as much as destroying armies in battle–the wars were seen by him as a means to an end.
            This is all a long way of saying that benevolent monarchy throughout history is the strongest and most prosperous and efficient form of government, and that there are only limited cases of it working on a large scale. I would say that any large government, regardless of type, has its own challenges and struggles–indeed the failure of the USSR in my book is mainly due to it becoming too large and unwieldy to administrate. China seems to be operating a large nation well, although there are considerable issues with urban vs rural life.
            Ideally, I’d like to see a monarch ruling the Confederate States, another ruling the America of the 13 colonies, and perhaps another for flyover country. They could all operate peaceably the way the EU does, with free trade and travel.
            Consider that democracy gave us Adolf Hitler, when democracy was brought to the Mideast it resulted in is-is, and the US has started countless wars and even committed assassinations because it disagreed with the popular vote electing a foreign leader. More than anything, I don’t understand the appeal of democracy.

         2. Some good stuff here.
            I believe that Americans have lost their power (checks and balances) over time to place government “in check” when it got out of hand – too big or started to spend taxpayer dollars carelessly (and both parties are guilty of spending it, unwisely). Part of it had to do with when we actually paid taxes (prior to WW2) versus the government taking taxes. If we still had that system in place (today), then we wouldn’t be 18 trillion (and counting) in debt. The people would pull back on the reigns (spending, holding back tax dollars).
            It all comes down to money and how the fed has wrangled it’s way into citizens paying taxes regardless of your voice (true taxation without representation.
            When was the last time anyone here was truly “represented” in our government?
            It’s a good idea that the poor (receiving government money and not paying taxes) should not be able to vote. It’s similar to Congress voting in their raise each year – anyone receiving welfare benefits is going to vote for more benefits and more money (why work at all).

         3. “Part of it had to do with when we actually paid taxes (prior to WW2) versus the government taking taxes”
            This wasn’t better because you assume the tax structure of say, 1938, was a good thing when it was not.
            The Sixteenth Amendment among many other things provides for two key concepts of the 20th Century:
            1. A national state of perpetual foreign wars
            2. A welfare state
            You can’t have either without an income tax because gov’t wouldn’t be able to issue the bonds to pay the bankster criminals usury on the money created from thin air to finance the wars or welfare. Oh and in case you haven’t noticed welfare is in fact a zionist weapon of societal destruction, but this is an another topic. The tax system of the 1913-1941 period is the worst in our nation’s history as it lays the foundation for the eventual collapse and dissolution of the United States of America.

         4. One of the biggest problems with government, though, is money management. There was a lot going on “back when” but the people lost their power when these welfare (social) programs were put into place and they were forced to pay taxes (taxes taken versus taxes paid).
            A government can exist with a taxes paid system it just won’t be as big (and wasteful) with tax dollars. They’ll actually have to be held accountable for each dollar spent versus wasting the money and then printing new bills out of thin air.
            Like you said, in the end it’s what many in power wanted….this gravy train, that will lead to our collapse. Too many crooks in power who have access to taxpayer dollars.

         5. I agree money management is a big part of the problem, but also the ability to spend at will without keeping a balanced budget. The problem with a government who is tied to a central bank issuing fiat currency, is it is in the bank’s interest to always keep the government impoverished. Since the bank owns the money system, it has a certain amount of behind the scenes sway and gets what it wants.
            The people lost whatever power they thought they had in 1913 but I think you’re speaking more to the Depression period with “way back when”. If you refer to some of the shenanigans Gen Smedly Butler testified about in 1934, this was the tip of the iceberg:
            ” Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans’ organization and use it in a coup d’état to overthrow President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified before the United States House of Representatives Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the “McCormack-Dickstein Committee”) on these claims.[1] ”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
            I realize this is off topic but in general regard to welfare, I do know many programs were created in the 1930-35 period as a result of the Great Depression. However it was the existence of the FED which caused the Depression in the first place:
            “The Great Depression created a widespread misconception that market economies are inherently unstable and must be managed by the government to avoid large macreconomic fluctuations, that is, business cycles. This view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression. In 2002 Ben Bernanke (then a Federal Reserve governor, today the chairman of the Board of Governors) made this startling admission in a speech given in honor of Friedman’s 90th birthday: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry.””
            http://fee.org/freeman/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/
            I also know it was von Bismarck who first came up with the concept of a welfare state, ironically to curb *emigration*:
            “Otto von Bismarck , the first Chancellor of Germany, created the modern welfare state by building on a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as in the 1840s, and by winning the support of business. Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance and medical care that formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working class for the German Empire and reduce the outflow of immigrants to the United States, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist.”
            Source: Boundless. “History of the Welfare State.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Retrieved 20 Nov. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/social-policy-17/the-welfare-state-105/history-of-the-welfare-state-558-6935/

         6. Many good points and I agree with the bank keeping government impoverished statement. Hell, you see that on an everyday basis with average working Americans and their debt so with government it’s on a grand scale. The Fed being created, fiat money and taking the dollar off of the gold standard has all lead to this disaster – agree. I also believe the repeal of the bank act of 33 (Glass-Steagall) contributed to the financial disaster in 2008 (along with the housing market crash, bad loans bundled together with good ones to sell).
            Americans are giving up too much of their freedom because of fear. Back when, it was the Great Depression, socialistic programs formed as a safety net. More recently, it was terrorism (The Patriot Act).

   2. I am grateful that my parents took a big risk and moved to a town well above their means to raise my sister and me. I’ve spent years studying classical societies because of this. I studied 9 years of classics, less than half of those in college. History is important business… as they did we shall also.

7. With a history of widespread election fraud going back to at least 1820 in the U.S. (source: History of Tammany Hall by Gustavus Myers), and with a history of election fraud becoming so all encompassing by the 1970s that even the U.S. Supreme Court was taking part in the massive coverup (source: Votescam by James and Ken Collier), and with that massive, all encompassing election fraud now made all the more easier to rig and control elections with computerized voting (source: Black Box Voting Dot Org), therefore it really is a huge, ridiculous moot point as to who votes and who doesn’t.
   However, just on principle, women should not be voting. Only heads of households, i.e., men, should be voting. Just restoring that (useless) principle would go a long way towards psychologically bringing men and women back to normal in the U.S.
   Like everything else that would work or help, though, it ain’t never gonna happen.
   Next stop: Balkanization of the U.S., if not outright national captivity, or both.

8. At one point in history the concept of charity and helping those less fortunate was a job for the local churches. They would take anonymous donations and provide them anonymously to those in need. This of course was eroded by the relentless attack on religion in the fallacy argument of “separation between church and state” that was misinterpreted by liberals and atheists to dismantle self governing communities. It was ramped up and made “federal” when some sanctimonious creep came along and mandated charity. Demanding a portion of your paycheck to others who will never work if constantly provided for. This is enforced by the various government alphabet agencies that will hunt you down if you refuse to pay taxes. So in essence…be charitable or go to jail.

   1. Coerced altruism=welfare.

      1. Exactly:
         http://manwithoutfather.com/2015/11/16/i-am-not-a-slave-of-old-ugly-bitches/

   2. It’s so easy to follow the money that it’s insulting to citizens that the government believes we can’t make sense of their nonsense.

   3. And now all those people are statist zealots.

   4. Churches still perform charity, it’s just done on the governments behalf now. Who do you think is helping to resettle all those refugees and “immigrants” throughout the country? It’s the religious charities. Some of them are raking in millions of dollars a year to perform that task.

   5. Churches did not give indiscriminately. You had to be “qualified” to become a recipient under several passages, such as 1Tim5:9 regarding widows. Further, Matthew 18 shows that someone who does not repent of their sleeping with the neighbor’s wife (for example) gets sent packing. And we all know the passage about “those who do not work shall not eat.” In a church you get to see a person regularly and get to judge them to see if they merit charity.
      Now, charity recipients get to file discrete little papers in quiet little offices and are watched over by impoverished minorities and liberal bureaucrats.

   6. LBJ?

   7. Nothing to do with charity. The illegally collected income taxes are used to fund outrageous spending but more importantly are used as leverage to issue bonds to fund MIC, black projects, and overpromised/undelivered socialism such as “social security”. Welfare is then used as a weapon to create an inferior underclass whose sole purpose is to be used as a pivot to the “middle” class white mainstream. Carlin said something to the effect of: the poor exist to scare the shit out of the middle class. He wasn’t far off.

      1. I’m simply demonstrating government overreach. What was once a function of neighborly people in local communities became mandated and weaponized against a nation.
         Your comments on taxes are spot on and begs for a larger conversation for others to research and perhaps submit an article on.

         1. I agree with your overall assertion.
            I think the short answer to your query can be found in Wikipedia’s data on the FY15 Federal Budget:
            Deficit: $438.9 billion/2.5% of GDP
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget
            This excess spending must be met with Treasury bonds and totals 2.5% of GDP in FY15. If we weren’t already out $18 trillion it wouldn’t be as much of an issue. If we look at this circa 2010 infographic we see 12.79%, 8.19%, 19.63%, 1.34% were devoted to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and HUD respectively. Now aside from administrative costs, this is 41.95% of the Federal budget devoted to some kind of socialism, and if we throw in Veterans Affairs which is or is not acceptable socialism depending on your perspective, it grows to 58.08%. This is pre-Obamacare. Nearly 60% to some form of socialism you may or may not have a benefit to personally’ we haven’t even touched spending on the MIC. 58%. Per Wiki, Social Security expenditures as a percent of budget were 37% only *three years later*. From what I can tell this does *not* include Medicare or Medicaid, if I had to speculate the near 17% rise was a combination of new Boomers hitting the system and SSDI being paid to shitbags, foreign invaders, and fraud.
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
            “In 2013, the total Social Security expenditures were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the Federal expenditures of $3.684 trillion”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
            So back to the 2010 figures which are less fucked for a moment. 58% of the entire budget was devoted to some form of socialism per the infographic. The MIC only got 18.74%, so them plus socialism is 76.82% of $3.552 trillion. But in this budget we saw a $1.294 trillion dollar deficit (8.7% of GDP) which is nearly triple what we are seeing in FY15 which is less in the hole despite increased SS spending.
            Now what is really happening ever year with these deficits is leveraging actual tax revenue against the issuance of new bonds which are sold at treasury auctions. Investopedia has a layman’s explanation:
            “If the cost of a vehicle is $20,000 and a buyer hands over $2,000 in cash and $18,000 in borrowed money in exchange for the vehicle, the buyer’s cash outlay was only 10% of the vehicle’s purchase price. Using borrowed money to pay 90% of the cost enabled the buyer to obtain a significantly more expensive vehicle than what could have been purchased using only available personal cash. Instead of driving around in a battered $2,000 jalopy, the buyer is cruising around town in a shiny new car, having used leverage to acquire a better vehicle than he/she could have purchased using only available cash on hand.
            From an investment perspective, this buyer was levered 10 to one (10:1). That is to say, the ratio of personal cash to borrowed cash is $1 in personal cash for every $10 spent. Now, let’s take the example a step further.”
            http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/073113/leverage-what-it-and-how-it-works.asp
            The socialism already consumes a significant portion of the budget but apparently spending was able to be kept down in FY15 to only being over 500 billion or so (assuming gov’t figures are to believed). So every year they will leverage the deficit at a certain ratio to actual revenue and a percentage of the socialism is used to breed and care for the enemies of a stable society. They got nearly everyone hooked on socialism because everyone but under 65 white males can get a piece of the action and as any rational person can see, the percentage of budget socialism seems to consume goes up every year (I assume everyone reading this is already aware of the FED banking cartel and how they benefit in usury to gov’t debt. If not please look into it, deficit spending is in it’s interest).
            Tin foil hat on for a moment; perhaps could the plan be to import America’s enemies, whose numbers grow each year, so they can be here when they finally drive the car into a ditch? They have already succeeded in dividing the society which was already here along gender and racial lines, now simply move in the fifth column when the final blow comes down?
            Cui bono?

         2. Fantastic breakdown, good work. Thank you for taking the time to research this. You should have really made this into an article and submitted it to ROK.
            Your final conclusion is not tin foil, we are allowing our government to bring in invaders so foreign to us culturally that outright war in the streets post collapse is all but guaranteed.
            This should motivate ROK readers to begin considering strength training, weapons training, and collaboration with like minded neighbors. Max Power has provided the map to our own national destruction…the timeline is getting closer..consider the European invasion we are witnessing, BLM, #mizzou, Ferguson, Baltimore..etc etc.
            The hordes are forming and gnashing teeth.

         3. No trouble at all only took thirty to forty minutes. I’m not sure budget figures, ominous as they may be, are of general interest to most. Although a piece on the Golitsyn Thesis may be of interest to some. I think I will write one on that subject.
            Its just something which occurred to me recently. Depending on who you read, the Cold War is already being considered the Third World War. Now if you have an understanding of the Golitsyn Thesis (which you may or may not) it makes sense the Fourth World War which seems to have begun sometime between 2011 and now, cannot use nuclear weapons much like the Third. So the Zionists/Satanists etc choose to employ civil strife instead. The fact this has all been occurring so quickly since about 2014 or so suggests to me this was not the original plan. If they wanted to just pull the curtain down and suspend the constitution etc they had a chance in 2008/9 when the world was in economic turmoil, but they didn’t. They chose the path of refeudalization through QE which sucks but ok its simply turning back the clock to before WWII on a socioeconomic level. Then came the Libyan op and by 2012 Italy was ravaged by Africans Gadaffi was holding back. Now in a two year period between late 2013 and today both the US and European borders are flooded with invaders.
            The smart move would have been to do it much more slowly over five years instead of two, but that’s not what happened. Whatever plan in motion now was not the original plan. My suspicions are they intend to divide the US and Europe into provinces or warring city states and play the typical both sides against the middle debt and weapons games they have been playing for centuries. This prevents direct confrontation with the Soviets and allows the Chinese to finally emerge as the preeminent world power. Now why they keep fighting the Soviets in Syria and Ukraine I am not sure of at this juncture, unless both are wars on behalf of the Khazars alone and in fact DC is NOT trying to draw the Soviets into combat as it appeared to be. Maybe its both, maybe they have worked it out with Moscow there will be a controlled nuclear release or false flag and it will be what is used to break the US into separate pieces.
            I will also mention Jack Burton, a commentator over at Zerohedge, came up with a simpler theory on ISIS and at least on the European invasion. His thought was Al-Qaeda/ISIS etc are creations of the CIA and the Wesley Clark speech in 2007 naming the countries to be hit (Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran) was to purposely create chaos throughout the Muslim region. Create chaos, AQ/ISIS etc takes control, recruits from these nations ,and then spreads north, east, and northwest to hit Russia, China, and any targets in Europe TPTB want to destroy. This theory only works if you believe DC is not working in collusion with Moscow (on some level) and in fact opposes them. I’m not so sure.
            I do personally recommend as much training as one can muster, things are moving along swifter than they should be.

         4. I appreciate your comments here on ROK.
            I find it amusing we both have the same suspicions of the Russian involvement in the current geo-political landscape.
            Care to share your current or previous reading material? I use zerohedge as well, but if you’re reading more in-depth blogs or books I would be interested in knowing.

         5. I just googled Golitsyn Thesis. I have been thinking about that for the last few years but did not know there was a name for it.
            I think an article on this topic would be of great interest to redpill men as it dovetails into the culture rot we are witnessing now.

         6. My computer at work has better links than I do on this one but some tidbits off the top of my head:
            This guy used to post excellent analysis but now only seems to post relevant links to news stories:
            https://onceuponatimeinthewest1.wordpress.com/
            The Golitsyn Thesis originates in his books New Lies for Old (1980) and to a lesser extent The Perestrokia Deception (1995).
            http://www.spiritoftruth.org/newlies4old.pdf
            http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf
            Dr Helen Caldicott claimed Chernobyl was no accident in either a video or article I read which I can’t find a source now, but here is an interesting link from he source providing the book PDFs claiming the same and it includes some esoteric references as well:
            http://www.spiritoftruth.org/chernobyl.htm
            If I was going to make the deliberate sabotage argument I’d have to do more research than simply citing the above link. Chernobyl was probably the key event which helped in bringing down the Soviet Union because it was a massive economic drain on their empire, as Fukushima is on Japan and to a lesser extent the West.
            My other thought is the 1986 Oil Glut dealt a double blow along with Chernobyl to the tip the economy literally at the same half year period in 1986:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
            “OPEC soon lost its preeminent position, and in 1981, its production was surpassed by that of other countries. Additionally, its own member nations were divided. Saudi Arabia, trying to recover market share, increased production, pushing prices down, shrinking or eliminating profits for high-cost producers. The world price, which had peaked during the 1979 energy crisis, at more than $80 per barrel, decreased during the early 1980s to $38 per barrel (239 US$/m3). In real prices, oil briefly fell back to pre-1973 levels. This “sale” price was a windfall for oil-consuming nations—both developing and developed.
            The embargo opened new avenues for energy exploration including Alaska, the North Sea, the Caspian Sea, and Caucasus.[60] Exploration in the Caspian Basin and Siberia became profitable. Cooperation changed into a far more adversarial relationship as the USSR increased its production. By 1980 the Soviet Union had become the world’s largest producer”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
            So the Soviets had “won” and by 1980 were the largest oil producing nation. If Chernobyl were sabotage I cannot decide if before Andropov’s death in Feb 1984 the Soviets would want to intentionally damage the station if the oil glut were already forming just as they became the top producer (unless this was somehow unknown to them). Matt Simmons argued in his book “Twilight in the Desert” the fact Saudi oil fields were permanently damaged in 1973-4 before Aramco was fully nationalized in 1980. So the Saudi strategy was for the fields to be “rested” in the early 1980s however non-OPEC production was coming online as a response to the 1979 crisis and thus flooded the market in a time when demand was dropping.
            “This sentiment was echoed in November 1981, when the CEO of Exxon Corp also characterized the glut as a temporary surplus, and that the word “glut” was an example of “our American penchant for exaggerated language.” He wrote that the main cause of the glut was declining consumption. In the United States, Europe and Japan, oil consumption had fallen 13% from 1979 to 1981, due to “in part, in reaction to the very large increases in oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil exporters,” continuing a trend begun during the 1973 price increases.[9]
            After 1980, reduced demand and overproduction produced a glut on the world market, causing a six-year-long decline in oil prices culminating with a 46 percent price drop in 1986.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
            “In 1973, following US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% stake in Aramco. It increased its shareholding to 60% by 1974, and finally took full control of Aramco by 1980,[20] by acquiring a 100% percent stake in the company.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
            It is widely believed the US State Dept or some other Western apparatus was behind the early 1986 oil price collapse initiated by the Saudis who turned on the taps after years of “rest”. The timing of Chernobyl, 26 April 1986, is very curious indeed. I’d have to do much more research but to me it suggests either the Soviets were in collusion with the West on the price drop or at the very least they decided to strike when the iron was hot and implement Glasnost which were first “sketched out” in Feb-Mar 1986. We also have to remember Andropov and Chernenko, even if they were just figureheads, where *both* KGB and it was in the 1980s the deception plan would have been unfolding. I think Golotsyn actually names Gorbachev as the already chosen successor in his first book before it happened. The Soviet empire began to crumble just five years after these events.
            “The 1986 oil price collapse benefited oil-consuming countries such as the United States, Japan, Europe, and Third World nations, but represented a serious loss in revenue for oil-producing countries in northern Europe, the Soviet Union, and OPEC.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
            “The conclusions of the paper are briefly as follows. The 1986 price collapse was the result of a decision by Saudi Arabia and some of its neighbors to increase their share of the oil market. Unlike other producers they did not suffer great revenue losses, because the price declines were offset by their output increases. But with oil prices as low as $12 a barrel, their revenue would also decline, so that they can be expected to restrict output at that price, even unilaterally. I expect, therefore, that OPEC’s August 1986 agreement in Geneva to restrict output will be successful. By no means does the 1986 price collapse represent the death of OPEC, as has often been proclaimed. ”
            http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1986-2/1986b_bpea_gately_adelman_griffin.PDF
            “Gorbachev initiated his new policy of perestroika (literally “restructuring” in Russian) and its attendant radical reforms in 1986; they were sketched, but not fully spelled out, at the XXVIIth Party Congress in February–March 1986. The “reconstruction” was proposed in an attempt to overcome the economic stagnation by creating a dependable and effective mechanism for accelerating economic and social progress.”
            “As de facto ruler of the USSR, he tried to reform the stagnating Party and the state economy by introducing glasnost (“openness”), perestroika (“restructuring”), demokratizatsiya(“democratization”), and uskoreniye (“acceleration” of economic development), which were launched at the 27th Congress of the CPSU in February 1986.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev
            What I’d like to do is tie the West in collusion with the Soviets at this time, assuming of course they were already implementing convergence in the 1980s.

   8. Yep. A gun to the head and they say “let’s be charitable okay?”.

   9. Yes, in the UK the single mums get the income support and housing. Its being stripped away bit by bit, but its still there. I had a debate with a lefty recently who told me that all those girls who had babies as teens who I grew up with and knew of on my council estate only did that because they had ‘low self esteem’ and other issues. NOT because they knew they’d get welfare and housing. Despite me giving examples of these girls telling me that’s why they let the local drug dealer hit it (alongside his bad boy status of course!) Was so they got their flat. I told him that I guaranteed that if they didn’t have this resource incentive then there would of been significantly less pregnant teens in my area. He said I was cold hearted for saying that free money and housing was their only incentive. I mean, there’s a little truth. If you know your bottom of the food chain in terms of class then perhaps you do think that this is all you can achieve, however, I know better than to be as Wolly in observing these manipulative low lives. It’s a way for the lowest iq to breed. So messed up.

9. I agree with the overall sentiment (even though I disagree with democracy). The thing is, in order for property owners to be the bearers of the vote in such a scenario, first you need some property owners. Let a property “owner” stop paying property tax and see how long he “owns” it. We tend to think of property tax today as something that just is. It’s one of many unjust taxes that equates to legalized theft.
   The ability to tax is demonstrating sovereignty. Taxing property is the government saying they own that land, and therefor have the sovereign right to tax it.
   “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much
   is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have
   had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to
   exist.” – Lysander Spooner
   The same thing can be said of democracy everywhere.
   There are poor tithe laws set up in Biblical law. It’s for the qualifying poor and not a perpetual handout. Also, if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat. Indentured servitude is another option for people with the ability to work but are on hard times. The answers are there.

   1. Right about property tax. You are paying a lease on that land. You pay someone else (buy) the right to lease the land from the government.
      When you sell the property, you’re basically transferring the lease to the next person(s) for an exorbitant fee.

   2. Amen. Property tax is bs and unjust. Let the people own their land.

      1. The only positive function that a property tax produces is in the case of abandoned property, the tax eventually forces something to be done. There was an abandoned house on my street for several years. The yard wasn’t mowed, rats started growing around, weeds were taller than me, but there were property taxes accruing every year. Eventually, the home was sold, because the owners were having to pay thousands just to continue owning this eyesore that they weren’t using. The new owner mowed the lawn, renovated, and became a good neighbor. Without a property tax, it could have continued to decline indefinitely. It was a health and safety hazard, and a fire hazard as well. But I’m sure some system could be derived to handle abandoned property without taxing all property owners.

         1. Many in Illinois pay 8k+ in property taxes on a 3 bedroom house. There is absolutely no justification for this outrageous amount.
            How can anyone consider themselves a property “owner” if the government forces you to hand over that much money year after year for something you allegedly own. Sounds more like citizens are forced to pay annual rent to the government.

         2. You own nothing, THEY own you.

         3. There are better ways to prevent this without the burden of property taxes. Why not simply enact a law, such that abandoned properties for x number of years will be auctioned off to anyone who will take care of them?

         4. I do think there are better ways. However, the property tax does do a pretty good job at this. If someone neglects paying their taxes, it’s an obvious sign they have abandoned the property. Otherwise it gets very hairy and difficult to prove. Did you forget to mow the lawn? Went on vacation a lot? When exactly did you abandon? If you visited once a year does that still count? Etc.

      2. We should take a step further. Let people own their land AND what’s under it.

   3. I never thought of it that way, when you put it that way property tax only makes sense in monarchies since in Monarchies the sovereign owns all land. Technically the queen of England owns the largest amount of personal property on the planet today, if you buy a home in Canada you are just paying to squat on her land. As a Republic that is opposed to monarchy and holds the right to property as an ideal we should (Americans) naturally be opposed to such a tax. The problem then becomes how to replace that revenue as property taxes pay for some important things such as local funding for schooling.

      1. The problem is not replacing one evil with another evil…
         Why put out a fire and then go ahead and start another one in its place?
         What needs to happen is people need to concern themselves with themselves. They belong to community so act in that community alone. Leave mine alone.

         1. I see your point, what you have said ties in nicely with league of shadows argument above that liberals have dismantled self governing communities.

      2. Fuck the schools.
         Fuck someone else’s kids. Just because they decided to have kids, why the fuck do I have to pay for their education?

         1. LOL. I understand your frustration. It can get worse though… If you have kids you will pay for your own(in full because you won’t qualify for shit, you rich asshole 🙂 ) AND for the ones that are not yours via various taxes…

         2. Some families have one kid, others have 5+ kids. Same taxes.

         3. You read my mind after the previous post.
            Let’s look at what really happens
            1. Property owners pay taxes to local gov’t and school district
            2. School district hires teaches.
            3. Teacher’s job’s are owned by unions.
            4. Since number three is true, teachers pay protection to unions to have jobs.
            5. Unions donate a percentage of their graft to Communists.
            6. Communists use this money to encroach on your rights and destroy your culture/family.
            Thus you involuntarily fund your own destruction as a property owner.
            Fuck the children, there is no future.

      3. Yeah, you can “own” your property free and clear. Stop paying your property taxes and it’s not yours anymore. So, in this country you don’t really own anything. Not even your own body. If an endemic starts you will be vaccinated weather you like it or not.

      4. Yes, but the fed government is finding it’s harder and harder to do the “land grab” – see the stories going on out west where the government is finding property owners who are resisting these land grabs. Owners with actual deeds to properties are fighting the fed because the fed is saying they should have had a deed to the property from the start.
         It’s going to get ugly.

      5. The government spends too much money on things it has no business spending your money on. That’s why they keep coming up with new ways to tax you and get more, like property tax. In Biblical law, there is a flat tax of a person’s increase of 10%. In other words, whatever profit you have left after paying for your needed life expenses (food, fuel, clothes, etc.). It’s affordable for everyone and everyone pays the same- from the rich man down. If you can’t afford the tax, you’re not liable for it. The government is duty bound to operate within the limits of this 10% and that’s more than a government needs if it operating withing the boundaries it should. This also promotes the free market because the more successful a nation’s economy is, the larger that 10% will be.
         Also Biblical law, the sovereign is Yahweh (God), and the land He owns He’s given to His subjects and their families as a perpetual inheritance. Tax free. Real freedom.

   4. In walks Jesus:”This is how I teach a man to fish.” “See how when I’m not spreading the word of God I’m busting my ass as a carpenter with the same wood these pricks will later use to crucify me?”

   5. ……

   6. The real shame is that someone owning property (paying taxes) used to be held in high regard in our society versus others who didn’t take the risks or have the same responsibilities. Today, any legal (or illegal for that matter) holds the same voting power as anyone.

10. As Peter Thiel pointed out, freedom can probably survive either female suffrage or open borders, not both. This coalition of women and foreigners now overwhelms the conservative native male vote.

11. Impressive, well written, thought-provoking article. ROK keeps getting better.

12. Big issue with voting is that there are zero obligations and zero qualifications to voting. Universal suffrage tends to let the votes of the high time preferenced, selfish, and low committed outweigh the votes of the low time preferenced, big picture/future projecting, civic and ideal minded. We need a system that places obligations on voters to vote well and to live with a sense of nobilise oblige (sic?) to the current citizens and their progeny. For example:
    One vote per household – household is a married man and woman with at least two children.
    – Reduces the tendency of women to vote for security vs. freedom.
    – having children should help them have a mindset oriented towards the future as their children will be inheriting the country. Also, helps with population upkeep and reduces the need for importing foreigners into the country.
    Certain income thresholds must be met.
    – Net tax paying. Can’t be tempted to want to vote for public funds to enrich themselves.
    Owns property.
    – further ties them to the nation and its future wellbeing.
    Certain IQ thresholds must be met.
    – Saves the country from the immediate gratification oriented morons.
    Certain moral qualifications must be met.
    – Divorce, cheating, major crimes all lead to revocation of the voting privilege for either long sentences or life. These people need to be able to make smart decisions and stay loyal to obligations and ideals.
    Certain civic requirements must be met.
    – Need public evidence these people are invested in the nation and the ideals we want it to uphold.
    It would greatly reduce the voter roles, but the quality of voter would go up. Also, these would be voters who are more difficult to bribe or manipulate. Not perfect, but it beats what we have right now.

    1. I’d add to your list a maturity requirement.
       In the USA the effective age at which one must be able to provide for oneself is 26, thanks to 0bamacare. I’d suggest that anyone who isn’t that age (barring honorable military service) must not be allowed to vote.

       1. Does honorable military service including droning brides from a video game console in Utah?

    2. I think most of us here are single.

       1. Then just call me your friendly neighborhood outlier.

          1. Hah, I enjoy the advice and input from those married and with families. Just wanted to point out the poster above would be calling on disenfranchising most of the ROK readership.

    3. The biggest one should be if you’re not supporting yourself or a family then you shouldn’t have the power of the purse strings (the vote). We keep letting people have more and more benefits (without ever paying into the system)…what could go wrong? A financial collapse or push back by the people who actually pay into it. People are getting tired of working then tired of paying too much, barely making it as the economy gets worse and watching worthless people get benefits, get a paycheck, vote and do nothing to enrich our society.

13. I’m not so sure how we fix this problem in a peaceful way. The mooch class will never voluntarily give up the means by which it can legally rob taxpayers.
    It is interesting when one goes back and reads the assumptions made by the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was drafted. They never imagined that people other than landowners would ever be voting.

14. Most poor people are poor for a reason. Always with constant excuse, “I can’t” LOL. Or they use words like “should”, “I wish I can be like that”, “I might…”, “I will do that later”.
    You can see the average person from miles away and even from having typical conversation. A loser will say something like … “There is not enough time for me” when they try to justify for (things they couldn’t do when they said they were going to do). If you are poor and you are content then okay but the biggest laugh goes to poor people who complain but yet not take action.
    Slight bit of complaining and you can see it. A truly successful person does not complain and don’t even bother.
    Worse culprit is the promise breakers. A man who can’t even back up his words.
    What does this have to do with welfare?
    Most welfare recipients are not deserving of welfare. The ONLY people who should be deserving welfare (in my opinion) are injured, disfigured veterans, extremely elderly, handicapped (obesity doesn’t count)…
    Today I see these people getting welfare: single mothers, Mexican immigrants, ghetto blacks, lazy whites, obese person, Muslim family, etc….
    Welfare makes a man lazy. He will not want to work anymore. Why work when he can get free money from the government? Only pathetic men would go for the easy option.

    1. Humans are no different than any other species (especially other mammals). A stray cat, thinner, more aggressive, living a risky survivalist life VS. a domesticated house cat that’s fat, meows (bitching & complaining) for it’s next free meal, pandering to emotions for more of everything including attention (women).
       Not only does welfare create dependency, it ruins progress – not to be confused with progressivism – and devolves the species. It’s paying people not only to NOT act, but also, to NOT think, thus stunting their mental development and remaining in lower mental developmental states. The perpetuity of it all is deplorable.
       The sad part is when you take in a stray cat and create its dependency on you, at least you get some satisfaction of affection which you’re paying for. Dependent humans despise you instead, while demanding more and more.

       1. which is why people say dogs are more loyal than humans. Humans have self interest and are self serving by general. Dogs have to rely on humans for protection. Humans backstab because they can and they have ulterior motives. When Human’s self interest conflicts with another human, there will be backstabbing or something like that. Dog gives unconditional love to master who knows how to act like strong master and protects the dog from danger, feeds the dog and gives proper training to the dog.

          1. I’ll take a dog anytime over a human. Fuck people. I can’t stand to watch animal mistreatment. People? Meh..

          2. ^ same I agree. I used to not think like that though but as time goes on, my experience with animals have been better than my experience with people.

    2. You can easily live off the public cheese as full able person. You should easily be able to grab somewhere between 2 and 3K a month from the gov one way or another if you know how to work the system. And the system is pretty stupid, and so it’s workable..

       1. damn 2K to 3K a month from gov. No wonder people will prefer to take easy route lol.

15. When the United States Constitution was written, the founding fathers placed strict provisions on who was allowed to vote. Namely, it was only white, land-owning men. The little squealing fools of certain groups have since been doing what the do best, which is squealing about how it is discriminatory.
    Why were only white, land-owning men allowed to vote? There is a very simple reason for it. White, land-owning men had skin in the game. They owned the property and land that a battle would be fought on in a time of war. They were the ones who would have to pay the taxes to provide for the troops the ammunition and training they would need in a time of war. They were the ones who would have to fight, or see their sons go off to fight in a time of war. These white, land-owning men were the ones who provided 90% of the employment for the rest through farmland, house staff and servants, and were the ones who paid the merchants and bought the goods or commissioned paintings, furniture, and services.
    The reason this carefully-selected group were the only ones permitted to vote, and then only one vote for the head of that house (his sons did not vote unless they moved out and owned their own land) is because these people were the best-educated, best trained people in the country, and had the most to lose from a careless vote. State legislatures were only called in times of great importance, and only for matters that affected all men in the state equally. Small matters were handled on individual farms, or in the case of a crime in a court, where they faced a trial by a jury of their peers: other white, land-owning men who were highly educated in matters of philosophy and law as a matter of course. That, after all, was the one fee that had to be paid to vote, registration for a jury. In return for being able to have a say in your state’s affairs, you were expected to provide for your neighbor the same right to a jury that he provided for you.
    In summary, the addition of larger and larger numbers of people to the eligible voting pool has served the desired purpose: to blunt the power any single individual has. He have drifted ever closer to a democracy, which the founding father’s feared. America was meant to be a Constitutional Republic, and certain groups have a vested interest in making us forget that.

    1. “And to the republic for which it stands..” When our constitution was written, every single able bodied person busted their asses so hard they passed out from total exhaustion each and every night. They had no time for bullshit, and bullshit was called out and squashed in moments, on the spot.

16. This article describes all of Bernie Sanders supporters, who I agree need to be stripped of their right to vote.

    1. Sometimes I think young people vote left, just to stand out like a hipster with tatts and beards.. another feminized attention whoring scheme. “Look at me, you don’t like me because I’m different, na na na na boo boo.” Lefty is trendy.

       1. It is more about the belief in entitlements, encouraged by our marxist professors in our “esteemed” universities. Everybody thinks they are entitled to free shit in the name of “equality”, but when for example I ask my fellow students who will be paying for these handouts I am met with deer in headlight stares. The reality that nothing in this world is truly free is a concept lost on most young Americans.

          1. Note an interesting pattern here that I imagine to observe: The easiest way to convince somebody of something mad – to override reason – is to create a central theme and keep appealing to it. This central theme probably takes a place in the minds where otherwise god would reside and it is of course futile to argue against something when ‘it is god’.
             Replace god with democracy, equality, freedom, et cetera.
             We should do it, because …
             … it is democratic.
             … it is for equality.
             … it is for freedom.
             Often times totally oblivious to the fact that these words are ambiguous and almost anything can be laid out as being for those things. Funny shit.
             And if you assume for a second that god is really another word for higher self, then the argument becomes:
             Do it because higher self.
             In other words: Do it because you already know you want to do it, anyway.
             Which is of course madness.

          2. You definitively have made a fair observation, one that I have made in the past as well. All you gotta add is a hashtag in front of some of those words and the sheep will fall in line.

          3. #SheephoodForever

          4. Hey, would it not be a smart move these days to repaint the image of sheep?
             Wise, loyal animals that contribute their fair share!

          5. Lamb of God ?

          6. Now we are talking.
             The sheep slogan: Walk with me in hell.

          7. That is one solution, reverse indoctrination but the problem with that is that you would first have to get the sheep to admit to being sheep. You can never solve a problem without first recognizing the fact that it exists, perhaps a more apt analogy would be that you cannot help a mental patient if he does not admit that he is in fact need of help. Currently the people who need help are in a state of denial, they would describe themselves as independent and not as sheep. Oops I mean #independent.

          8. The proposition was actually one that would be a good thing for the leftists. I think it is only a matter of time before ‘Being an obedient sheep’ becomes a badge of honor.
             Does god himself not claim to be our shepard?

          9. You are right that it would help leftists, but leftists would probably retort that it is us, the non leftists who need to be helped lol.
             God is our shephard but he has allowed man the opportunity to choose whether or not we wish to follow. Leftists force all to conform or be subject to penalty, usually in the form of loss of livelihood.

          10. To be fair, Christianity proposes a loveless life and hell as the alternative – not really a choice.

          11. To be fair, I cannot speak for Christianity. Perhaps a Christian can better address that point.

          12. To be fair, I only speak from what I overheard about Christianity.

          13. Very succinct observation.

          14. #sheeplivesbaaaaaater

          15. The hashtag is the bane of critical thinking. By it’s very nature, it’s demeaning to the value of the content of the message. It’s saying “what i’m saying is devoid of any originality and/or meaning, thus I must attach something other people have deemed worthy of repetition to be taken seriously”

          16. baaaaaater = matter?

          17. in a bleating sort of way, yes.

          18. Ah, now I get it.

          19. 100% agree, it is basically the twitter equivalent of facebook’s like. If your post does not have enough likes, your opinion does not matter. An attempt to fit in and feel some validation by low esteemed individuals.

          20. #Hashtagisthebaneofcriticalthinking

          21. “To be fair, Christianity proposes a loveless life and hell as the alternative – not really a choice.”
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyV2P27EGZ0
              “To be fair, I only speak from what I overheard about Christianity.”
              Who have you been listening to, sodomites? The “love” of sodomites is just mental illness and misdirected sex. If that is the context that “love” is being used in, yes, the choice is between a “loveless life and hell as the alternative.”
              https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9&version=AKJV
              But, really, Hell is just the Love of God, since God is love, and God is everywhere and fills all things. Those who die in their sins will just experience that love as eternal fire and misery. They’ll be like fans of modern “music” forced to listen to an eternity of Classical Baroque.
              “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.”

          22. Oh, fuck off with your bible verses, you darn sheep.
              Yes, the love of ‘sodomites’ is mental illness, I know it first hand. But I am talking of real love. And when a religion claims that god’s love has to be earned, that religion must be flawed. When a religion makes you ashamed in the face of god, then it is a slave religion and not one that is life-affirming.
              ‘Be obedient or learn to live without god’s love, in hell.’
              Go collect dust.
              I apologize for my rudeness, but I am fucking tired of preachers. Like my dad: Did shit for my life and let me be in misery, then come telling me how to live my life. Fuck you.

          23. As for the video, I can not really see it. Blocked in Germany.

          24. “And when a religion claims that god’s love has to be earned, that religion must be flawed.”
              Well, you don’t earn it, you just accept it. Acceptance does require conditions, just as everything in life has conditions. The only women open to “open relationships” are whores, and the god(s) of ” life-affirming” religion is Satan.
              

          25. Okay, at least you know what you are talking about. It is indeed about accepting. And all that you need to do for that is to not have shame of who you are. Receiving love requires honesty. How can you receive love for being yourself if you do not reveal yourself?
              As opposed to you, I do not condemn Satan. Christianity is a pure sky religion and that makes it bland and incredibly boring.
              As for whores, well, there may be something to it. I lack the experience. I will make my own conclusions when I gain those experiences. And you know what? I will be wiser for it.

          26. God damn, that is a boring song. No wonder: If you devoid yourself of anything worldly and fleshly, of all pleasure and pain, all your art must become predictable and ridiculous.

       2. Young people tend to vote left because for most, that’s all they know. For most of their lives their parents handed them things.
          They’ve never had to work to survive, so when they see a paycheck from a part time job (while living under their parents’ roof) they don’t think too hard about all the taxes taken out.
          They’re also not paying for their health insurance, which would normally take a huge chunk out of their paychecks.
          Suffrage for any 18 year old is nothing more than a Democrat vote-getter. I wouldn’t mind suffrage for anyone that age if they’re honorably serving in the military, but outside of that, absolutely not.

       3. They all think we’re equal until you smack them in the face with reality like: how much do they pay into the system or do they even work?
          Once you start getting into the facts, many of them are pretty clueless. It’s all about appearing to be equal not actually being equal – like working, paying taxes, being responsible, etc… They live in fantasy land and most of them have a mind of a teenager.

17. I have a simple, but effective idea for suffrage:
    Each person is allowed to vote for exactly the things that his own money will be used for.

    1. So you would have to ask permissions about what do you consume? Isn’t that communism?

       1. Ah. I see the mental leap you made there. But I did not say: You need to vote for absolutely everything.
          What I meant is capitalism, but only those whose tax money is actually used for a particular purpose may vote for it.

          1. Well, the welfare state is kind of problematic, but economics and social sciences are not complete BS. They are actually pretty entrepreneurship-advocating if applied correctly. But how to cut “entitlement-spending”, well, let people choose. Meaning vouchers for all government-based services. That would make them a lot more efficient. Government should play more the role of being an insurer and not a provider.

          2. But how is that different from what we have now? The strength of insurance companies is that they calculate the cost of insurance for each individual.

          3. In America, you do. But in “real” welfare states (Nordics), it is government monopoly. Except for at least Sweden.

18. I think 99% of our problems here would be solved if the welfare state was abolished, but, never going to happen voluntarily. We need to become like Greece first.
    Speaking of Greece, someone needs to do a report of how socialist/feminist Greece is post-collapse.

19. “I offer a solution: a temporary recall of the franchise for those currently receiving welfare and income supplements from the Federal government.”
    Can you imagine how fast our streets, local parks, and environment would get cleaned up if all these people were forced to work? Also, the added competition for lower level jobs like fast food, retail, etc would increase accuracy and productivity and make daily living a much more enjoyable environment for all.
    The only thing I wouldn’t care for is the added traffic. However, over time, road workers’ jobs would increase to meet that demand as the need for infrastructure became evident. Something that pissed me off the most about Obama was his promise in 2008 to fix the nation’s infrastructure. Despite some locally – which I believe was mostly state funded – our infrastructure still sucks and few gained employment (except a handful of minorities and protected classes).

20. The voting age should be raised to 25, ownership should be the basic qualification, but for those that do not meet the basic qualification there should be a option of working for the right to vote. Set up a national service that requires 20 hours of donated time per year in order to gain the right to participate in the process.

    1. Great idea. You need some skin in the game. I’d still say let anyone enlisted in the military vote at 18 though. They have literal skin in the game and deserve that at the very least.

       1. Absolutely. Military service is claiming ownership by taking responsibility, and taking on responsibility is what the process needs to be about.

       2. I’d say the opposite. Many 18 year olds who join up are just doing blindly whatever the political leaders in power say, with little or no thought as to what they are doing or why. This to me describes the most dangerous member of democracy.

    2. Instead of ownership as a requirement, I propose it be based on taxes paid. If at the end of the year, you have paid into the system, you can vote. If you have taken more than you paid in, no vote.

21. I’ve recently heard of a Dutch initiative to combat welfare; basic jobs. Instead of getting welfare, the government guarantees you employment, for which they will pay you up to the same amount as you would receive in welfare. Those who want to work can work, those who don’t can fuck off and starve.

    1. Yeah, but what does that do to wages and thus to aggregate demand. One should not play with aggregate demand.

       1. It doesn’t necessarily interfere with the labour demands; most work is work that wouldn’t be profitable without government grants, like street sweeping, helping elderly people shop, etc.

          1. Those are actually quite profitable sectors.

       2. Demand based on the cost of goods remains the same. A welfare recipient is still receiving goods & services right? Labor demand is already automatically cooked into existence based on their need to live. I.e. Buy food, clothing, transportation, utilities, housing, etc. All you’re doing in Steve Fox’s example is shifting whose doing the labor for the same goods and services demanded. Pay for your lunch with YOUR labor, don’t take it from another.

          1. That is pretty supply-sidish. I mean, if there was a labour requirement for a welfare recipient, there is huge incentive for companies to opt them against traditional workers. That would create a hugely stagnant economy, since no company would make forward-thinking investments, since every company would wait for the government-handout-workers (irony). Yes, basic needs would be met, but there would be no economic spine for consumer-sector innovation.

          2. It’s already happening, It’s called EEOC laws and protected-class minority workers. Quota fillers. A large part of the people on unemployment either 1) Don’t want to work and get free shit, or 2) Don’t want to work a lesser job than their previously lost job. Welfare is a whole new level of dependency that’s fraudulently stolen. There’s no way around people having to work lesser jobs at this point, to stay employed. Scale your life’s expenses back. Time for the unemployed drug dealer to sell the Escalade.
             Then it comes to obtaining new training / skill sets in an economy that’s shifted from a manufacturing base, to primarily service-based. So who foots the bill of “education?” Companies or government? I contend that if companies weren’t taxed so heavily, and cost of employee benefits and retirement plans weren’t so high, they’d take on the added cost of training and education (like they used to) whether it’s a manufacturer or service business, and the issue would begin to fix itself.

          3. To the first one, dunno.
             But to the second one, from where I come from, company taxes were downplayed by quite a margin few years ago. Hasn’t mirrored to investments or employment numbers. In my opinion, the only cases when a company employs is when demand (current or projected) is higher than supply. Well, everybody knows that, but my point is that increasing the profitability through tax or cost cuts does not fall into macro factors automatically.
             If the demand does not change, they will go straight into profits instead. It is not a game of good will or fairness.

    2. “basic jobs”
       What is basic jobs? Does it involve litter pickup or basic community service with volunteer organizations (eg soup kitchens)?
       Also, it would not be required for those truly unable to work (basically the
       very old and disabled). Otherwise I agree with the premise that those
       who don’t work, don’t eat.

       1. I like it. Have them pick litter off the road, be janitors at schools, public buildings, and parks. Basically, use them to maintain all the public areas that the government would normally shell out bucks to run.

       2. Those who ‘don’t work’ for paper currency shouldn’t be prohibited though from fishing or hunting for food and shouldn’t be hounded by the state for relocating their family in the most remote area and homeschooling. The family pictured did just that:
          http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i-RYRWulUn8/TyJ8FDjS-XI/AAAAAAAALO4/FjINTX1Yg2A/s400/Weavers.jpg
          The Randy Weaver family was butchered by federal goons on Aug 21, 1992 in Ruby Ridge, Id. Wife Vicky, 14 yo son Sammy and their dog Striker were asassinated by proud fed snipers. Others in the home were hit but not killed luckily. Vicki (mom) was holding her 18 month old when a head shot exploded her skull.

       3. Here, it’s mostly creating ‘jobs’ that are now being done by volunteers, or not being done, kinda like community service. Those truly and permanently unable to work are cared for, after it is established they cannot work.

22. Absolutely remove the right to vote for those on extended vacations funded by welfare. Romney was right, 47% or more people in this country do nothing. That sort of thing used to be shameful. Democracy has become nothing more than tax payer funded bribery.

23. Patriarchy built the worlds foremost culture, women and children are destroying it.
    The values of patriarchy, the political values older men tend towards is the competitive advantage liberalism had over it’s rivals. Women and the young generally tend to be politically opposite to that, they prefer security over liberty and collectivism over individualism.
    We are taking what made our culture successful and we are replacing it with what made other cultures less successful and it is happening because we gave women and the young political power.

24. Certainly I will agree with a lot of this here. Truth is and I have said it many many times Gross Big Corrupt Government needs hordes of Immoral and Unproductive People dependent upon it for money, legimization and protection to keep them in power with their votes and threats of riot problem is they don’t pay for themselves and are nothing more than parasites for big parasite government to bleed others dry to support and keep. Margaret Thatcher said it best Socialism is wonderful until the money runs out and that is what is happening now.

    1. Frankly I feel it is time for those with heart and brains to move into space and start civilization over and leave these parasites and their protector/patrons behind to rot.
       Professor Gerard K. O’Neill’s L5 plan is the most viable.

25. It’s time to rethink suffrage.
    But unfortunately the welfare hordes and the cunts won’t give that up.
    Therefore civilization has to collapse and these people need to be sloughed out of the human race.
    Then over their bleached bones we can use them as an example of what happens with universal suffrage.

    1. ‘sloughed’ . . heh . . ‘bleached bones’ . . heh heh . . you forgot ‘blanched nuts’ . .

26. “Democracy is not conservative, it does not link generations past and present; democracy concerns itself with the winning of votes, and hence why a coherent philosophy will never be found in an elected official.”
    Solid article. Looking forward to your next instalment.

27. A proposal: those who are net contributors to the Federal Treasury (where benefit costs are subtracted and taxes paid are added) are permitted to vote. Those who are net drains on the treasury have no right to vote.
    I’d also be willing to consider “enslaving” the net drains to apprenticeships until such time as they are able to become net contributors.
    Why allow the socialists to continue to grant themselves greater shares of our value? Let them contribute to the collective value greater than they withdraw, and watch their politics change.

28. If you think abolishing universal suffrage is shocking, brace yourself. We need to stop pussyfooting around with incremental changes and address the problem head on. Democracy is the problem.
    Yes, democracy is a failed institution, and it is a fallacy to think that “oh, if only we get the right people to choose who our leaders are” then it can function effectively. Democracy is rule of the majority. It’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. It’s the triumph of the popular over the good.
    Imagine if our companies were run democratically. I don’t work in a corporation, but I can be pretty sure that Bill Gates and especially Steve Jobs would not have won elections to run their companies. Hell, Jobs had a hard enough time pleasing his dozen or so board of directors. No, it’s more likely that you would see maybe the butt kissing frat boy elected head of the firm, or perhaps the fat woman in HR with all her connections and manipulation. But never would the most effective leader be elected by the workers. Never the one who pushes them hard to be the most competitive in their field.
    Typically, the boss, rightly or wrongly, is hated by most of the workers. And that is because the capitalist system is antagonistic–the goals of labor are often opposed to the goals of capital.
    Imagine if your household was run democratically. Yep, the wife and daughter also have veto power over dad. Sound like a good idea? The notion that popularity or sheer numbers should lead to decision making is flawed logic.
    Throughout history, societies and cultures were made great by great leaders, typically through benevolent monarchy. I don’t mean the bow-to-me-or-I’ll-chop-your-head-off monarchy. I mean the reasoned, wise, post-Magna Carta monarchs who operated in the best interest of their peoples. This was all destroyed in the First World War, along with much of the dignity, morals, and culture of the west.
    Getting the “takers” off the voting roles or even all the women off would make a slight difference, yes. But likely this would be at the expense of more power towards wealthy corporations. The approval of democratically elected congress stands in the single digits. Is that not proof enough that electing our lawmakers is universally failing? Voting “correctly” is not going to change anything. Voting is the problem.

    1. A lot of people in this neck of the woods say that monarchy was the best system of government, and the only way for the world to right itself is to return to monarchy. That may be true, but here’s the question: who’s to be the monarch?

       1. Well, if we don’t like him, it’s easier to remove one man from power than an entire populace.
          That said, I doubt we’ve seen the one who would best reign over us.

          1. That can and did happen many times throughout history. Whereas the closest you could come to in America is impeaching Nixon, and that just meant Ford took over with the exact same legislative and judicial bodies, and business continued as usual.

       2. It’s not an ideal system; simply a better one than democracy. Familial lineage is a good system, because it removes debate; the future monarch is decided the moment the current ruler has his first born son. That son will be groomed for years in the history of his nation, learning and visiting all parts and ideally becoming a well rounded philosopher king. Learning political theory, diplomacy, understanding that war is costly in both the future ability of the nation to do good through a reduced treasury and in blood and bodies. Monarchs have a long term horizon. And perhaps my favorite, no politics on television! We will find other things to argue about.
          All of western civilization can be traced back to European monarchy, as this was when the west because the dominant society in the world. Even today, who is the only nation moving forward? China. They are a pseudo-monarchy. A government where there are monarch-like powers but the leader is chosen, not born.
          Of course occasionally you will get bad or dumb ones but at a far lower rate than democracy provides.
          One could even argue the IS group in the mid east is taking some pages from monarchy. Its actual leadership is VERY decentralized, but they are all on the same page, and there is certainly no democracy deciding what to do next.

       3. Another thought. Democracy is the idea that your leader should be no better than the average person (how W was a “guy you wanted to have a beer with”). Monarchy is the idea that the guy calling all the shots should absolutely be better than the average Joe the Plumber.
          Who is the monarch isn’t as important as the institution itself. There were whole systems of advisors, trainers, educators, and consultants who existed only to enlighten and assist the monarch. Were some of them corrupt? Surely, but they were also heavily rewarded and didn’t really need to be bribed.

       4. God.

29. Right to vote should only be given to citizens who volutered for army duty or at least national service. Only one who is ready to die for the country or at least volunteered some years for the good of the country and his fellow citizens should have a say in how the state should be governed.

    1. Eh, I think that’s a little extreme. I more of the mindset that you must have skin in the game. Military? Sure, but also those paying taxes and not living off welfare. I think a good system would be if you take in any sort of welfare (minus Social Security), you shouldn’t be able to vote. To each their own.

30. A good thought provoking article. It is very peculiar how in the west today we really worship “democracy” as some unarguable good to the point that we think we can invade other countries to try to force them to adopt it. I would far rather live in a free society than a democratic one.
    I think events over this summer have reminded us that it was probably an error to let women vote and let them get involved in the political system. One only has to look at Angela Merkel. She is very intelligent. She is also by all accounts a good and honest woman. And she is a compassionate person as most women are if given the chance. However like almost all women she is irrational and a prisoner to her emotions.
    So when presented with the photo of a drowned child she repsonded emotionally – as women are hard-wired to do. Never mind that any rational analysis told us that her encouraging a mass invasion into Europe would result not only in many social problems (as we saw in Paris) but also more drowned children, Merkel had to respond emotionally and sought out the praise of the world.
    Women simply lack logic and reason. Furthermore they lack any interest in abstract ideals. Men will often fight and die for things such as truth, justice, honour and their society. Women only look to the immediate. That belief in abstract and noble concepts is what allows some men to persevere and do what’s right no matter how hard it is.
    So we see that even an obviously intelligent and nice woman as Merkel is entirely unsuited to politics. The same can be said of the many effeminate and feminist-indoctrinated weak men who dominate the western world today. And Islamic State spot it and exploit it. They ruthlessly seek out weak nations and invade them. When we see young Swedish girls holding “refugees welcome” signs, literally welcoming the men who will rape them, we can see how illogical women are.
    I am convinced that future historians will see the connection between women being allowed to vote and then participate in politics with the decline of the west that has slowly but surely occurred ever since. What kind of weak men lose control of their women?
    This photo gives a little hint at why Islamic State target soft western nations for invasion:

    1. I assume you are using the feminist definition of rape above. Make no mistake, these women will welcome the invaders into their homes and between their legs.
       Look at how dangerous and unstable a democratic middle east is. Yeah, democracy was a fucking great idea.

31. I find it ironic and humorous that the people who are being financially taken care of by the government and welfare are just as expendable as every other useless idiot. No one cares fore these people, even the liberals who claim humanitarian reasons whatever they do not care, its just an altruistic shield of their own greed.
    I think all welfare spending should be eliminated immediately, but that won’t matter eventually. It’s already collapsing.
    Pull out now gents, before the vampiric elites drain whats left of your assets.

32. Pardon me, quick aside but related comment. I just want to say fuck this move towards a “post “gender” world”…what the fuck is that! You know where these shitlord protesters at universities are coming from? Fucking the aggrieved studies or “gender” and/or “women’s” studies fucking departments, which include shit like queer studies. These losers can’t find a man because they smell, are hideously ugly, fat or fucking tapped nuts. Along with the queers who are for all the obvious reasons support of a post “gender” world because they’re also fucking tapped too. Honestly, something needs to be done. These dickheads are influencing policy and culture and its the worst of the worst humanity has to offer. Its why they cry about “equality”…these are the people that need to be made “equal” because they’re so hopeless elsewhere. As Neomasculinitist we must start taking a concerted stand right now against shit like this.

33. This is no different than Mitt Romney’s 47% assertion…the thing was he was right…you have a large enough number of people on some form of government benefits and as a result the democrats know they can keep pandering to those that ‘need’ benefits to get re-elected. The Liberal Left have been able to confuse the issue by lumping in Grandma’s Medicare and a Veteran who served his country and lost a leg overseas collecting Disability with the usual suspects of welfare cheats and EBT Queens.
    The simple fact is…if you are able bodied there should be no free ride from the government…and if you are collecting benefits, and are able bodied, then you should NOT vote…Grandma is retired, she can vote…she worked hard all her life and she earned it…if you are disabled then you have the right to vote….but an able bodied welfare case? No Vote. Oh, and no free college either…cuz that’s how the democrats will sneak in more voters, a permanent ‘student’ class.

34. I would make two requirements for voting:
    1) Only those who can be drafted, have served, or are serving get to vote.
    2) You have to show your selective service card at the polling station.

    1. Just curious, what’s inherently good about serving in an army that makes one qualified to make decisions about society?

       1. My reasoning is since only men can be drafted (and mostly men have served), this is a palatable way (to the public) that could disenfranchise the woman vote (mostly).

35. I think it’s pretty amazing that other countries have restored their middle class. I mean despite the negative rhetoric we Americans are political idiots. We have the power to establish labor unions and fair pay, but instead the general population doesn’t have a clue about the power of voting and policy changes.
    We have a fiat currency that is meaningless except for the value we give it. We make up money, but while other countries make up money for themselves we make up money for big corporations so companies like time Warner and boa can unofficially monopolize on utilities and assets while the rest of the country points fingers at everyone they can to try and understand where all their money goes. You don’t even need money you just need people to go to work and real vocational agencies that actually put people to work. When we recently released a study on how potentially corrupt all of our state governments are nobody got above a c grade. My state F. We let this happen because America is full of do nothing bitches that will complain, but not solve anything. When we finally do its the voice of Gilbert Godfrey screaming noise behind your years and the most radical left or right people who are heard. You’ll get nothing good from anyone too left or too right. We could fix our entire country if people would collect signatures for themselves instead of big money. The rest of the world figured it out. Why can’t we?
    You want to get rid of lazy people you need a funded department that finds jobs for people like that. That reaches out and pulls people off the couch and gets them moving. You want to get rid of lazy people you’re going to have to do a lot of work and not be lazy. Again a bunch of shit talking do nothing but bitch are lazy people regardless if they’re working. If you’re aware there’s a problem and all you do is complain you are by definition part of the problem and a do nothing bitch.

    1. “The rest of the world figured it out. Why can’t we?”
       Examples? Most of the world is in debt like us and the state takes most of their income.

       1. In fiat currency debt = money. My whole point is if we are just making up money and giving all the power to makeup money to private institutions then we could just as simply take control of the fed and rewrite rules on debt and currency. Debt is an illusion, and the economy isn’t built on psychics or universal law it’s built on a few peoples’ crazy ideology. So either we take it like bitches or we take it like bosses and literally take it.

36. To push a little further… is it time to rethink democracy itself?

37. Its self correcting.
    Women get vote.
    Women emasculate the male populace.
    Women vote for manlier immigrants
    Women lose vote.

38. “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democratic president.” -Ann Coulter
    Even some women are admitting it.

39. Another reason women shouldn’t be allowed to vote is they are emotional beings and therefore susceptible to jewish “muh feels” propaganda regarding allowing blacks and allah-apes into our base.

40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFhA_sL38c

41. Remove the vote from all public sector workers, teachers, binmen, council clerks.. everyone on the public payroll. Youre employing them via your taxes, and these clowns are supposed to be ‘public servants’, so why should their vote get to cancel out yours? Its a virtual guarantee these people will vote for lefty parties committed to maintaining the gravy train rolling along at your expense.
    Its bad enough that men are paying the salaries of the armies of wimmins studies lecturers and all the other dopey crap, why should they also get a vote? they sure aren’t going to vote for parties committed to lowering public spending & reducing taxes, and they add fuck all to economic growth. theyre a drain on resources inc your wallet.
    At your place of employment, youre unlikely to get a say in the direction & management of the company, you are paid, & your employers expect you to do the job you are hired to do. end of.
    Same thing with a country, we employ & pay these clowns (whether we want to or not) so why give them a say in the running of your country?

    1. As a former state employee, I understand your point, but a bit impractical. I worked in private consulting and you would be amazed at much ‘gubmint’ work occupies an allegedly private business. The fed gov alone probably employees and additional million or more people and thats the ones that can be visibly counted.
       Also, some public employees are property owners, so a federal or state parasite does not like to pay any more than they have to for a local government parasite.

42. This is one of the best articles on this site. It reminds me of something that would came from Lew Rockwell but with a more look on the affects that women have on the
    economy. By the way I enjoy the work that both Thomas Sowelland Peter Hicthens do though I do not alway agree with them.

43. “If we take a look at prior American elections we can see the pernicious influence of universal suffrage in action: according to polls by CNN and Gallup, in the 2012 election unmarried women 66%, non-whites 90%, and those with less than a high school education 51%, as well as 60% of those who earned less than $50,000, and 73% who earned $15,000 or less voted for Obama. Not surprising, but it is readily apparent that these demographics skew electoral outcomes significantly.”
    Well, yes. And there’s actual scholarly literature on this as well:
    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
    “Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.”
    …
    “Within four years after women’s suffrage, expenditures had risen
    above their previous peak, and within 11 years, real per capita expenditures had more than doubled from $101 to $208.”
    …
    “Although it is difficult to estimate the effect of women’s suffrage
    on federal spending using time-series data, examining the voting
    behavior of the state congressional delegations provides pooled
    time-series, cross-sectional evidence on whether giving women the right to vote made legislators more liberal and thus more inclined
    to support a larger role for government. The measures of congressional and Senate voting behavior are obtained from the legislative vote indexes compiled by Poole and Rosenthal…The two consistent results were the following: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large. For voting by House members, a one standard-deviation change in female suffrage fraction of the population over 21 that is female is able to explain 14.5 percent of a one-standard-deviation change in how a state’s House of Representatives delegation votes, and a one-standard-deviation change in the additional turnout due to female suffrage explains about 19 percent. For the Senate these figures are 21 and 30 percent, respectively.”
    …
    “Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws.”
    Yeah, this universal suffrage idea is horrible, and will get worse as it expands. The idea that voting is a right is fallacious, but it sounds good and is easily sold to uneducated and weak minds.

44. From the Enjoy the decline book:
    The federal government accounts for 40% of the GDP, and half of all Americans are collecting a government check one way or another..
    benefits.gov
    List to be found there as federal programs
    Career Development Assistance
    Child Care/Child Support
    Counsel/Counseling
    Disability Assistance
    Disaster Relief
    Education/Training
    Energy Assistance
    Environmental Sustainability/Conservation
    Food/Nutrition
    Grants/Scholarship/Fellowship
    Healthcare
    Housing
    Insurance
    Living Assistance
    Loan/Loan Repayment
    Medicaid/Medicare
    Social Security
    Tax Assistance
    Veterans Active DutyVolunteer Opportunities
    Food Stamps at the state level
    fns.usda.gov/snap
    Disability– All you have to say is you are bi polar and bingo.
    ssa.gov/pgm/disability.htm
    Medicaid
    finder.healthcare.gov
    Section 8
    rentassistance.us
    Grants
    grants.gov
    Welfare
    acf.hht.gov/programs/ofa/help
    Head Start/Early Head Start
    eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc
    Supplemental Security Income
    ssa.gov/ssi
    Women Infants and children –WIC
    fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/
    State Level
    Health Care/Insurance
    Education/Training
    Child Care (subsidized child care and day care, etc)
    Housing
    HOW MUCH OF THIS SHIT IS ENOUGH? I dare to ask…

45. Hey guys this is the Author of the post. I can’t seem to get my blog link to work in the profile, but for anyone who would like to read it here you go: http://dominionstandard.blogspot.ca/

46. I once met a homeless guy.. Pretty clean, kind of sharp, young dude. So I did an experiment. Gave him $100 and told him to find a warm place to sleep (it was winter). I also gave him my contact info. What do you think he did? I’ll tell you exactly what he did: he contacted me for more money. Of course I cut him all off, but it proved what I always thought about “poor/unprivileged” people. They’re not that. Unless they’re truly sick, I can bet my left nut they’re simply lazy.

    1. Why go work when people will give you money for free?

       1. exactly

47. Voting for land owners with verified tax payment only!

48. The first fucking mistake is calling The United States a democracy. We are a republic.
    Two things that would improve this country is by getting rid of the 12th and 24th amendment to the constitution.

49. 1. Get rid of Earned Income Credit and lower the child tax credit. It encourages too many welfare child-births and rewards fraud.
    2. Get rid of Corporate welfare.
    3. Eliminate many loopholes that allow the wealthy to get away with paying much less than their fair share in taxes.
    4. Say no to TPP and yes to a renegotiation of NAFTA! Bring more jobs back to the US.
    5. Say yes to Gvmt subsidized investment into training for higher tech STEM jobs to compete with Germany and China.
    Bring our Economy Back! Go Trump 2016!!

    1. Define “fair share”. As of 2010 the top 20% of income earners paid close to 70% of the federal income tax. The goal should be to get more people working higher end jobs which would increase overall tax revenue. The only way to get out of our current situation is to grow ourselves out while at the same time having enough discipline to curb our politicians infatuation to spend spend spend. Our current regime clearly has no want or need for these ideas. They need people dependent upon them to stay in power.

50. Tough to wipe out the welfare state when the entire Black underclass in all our big cities are up to their ears in EBT/Sec.8/SSDI and the rest. Hispanics and White single-sluts and their bastard children all have to be fed. And you can’t stop it, millions and millions of them, they have no other support and they are the bloc that votes in Democrats. I’m not advocating it, but the motivation to keep it going today is the same as it was when it all kicked off in 1965 onward: ghetto pacification. Think they rioted over Michael Brown? That’s kisses from a broad compared to the riots that would result from any curtailing of the welfare state. Same for women. Women are free to bang men, get preggars, stay single, collect welfare. Where do you stop it, how and where in the population do you enforce discipline? There are few jobs any of these folks could ever take on and just look at the top 100 cities? Filled to the brim with a murderous underclass of violent Blacks and you have to support THAT.
    We’re doomed, stack your money as best you can, enjoy the decline. I appreciate that folks want to rescue the situation, but really, it’s pretty much over. Morally and fiscally bankrupt, our cities and economy ruined, our people all on the dole. Its over.

    1. BLM and ISIS could join forces encouraged by Obama admin. after his inflammatory, devisive stmt tonight. So sad 🙁

    2. Agreed. There will be hell to pay once that cash dries up. And it will dry up. Also, don’t hold too much cash. The fed has been printing it in absurd amounts and it will eventually be worthless. A picture is worth a thousand words……

51. Why, it’s not shocking at all
    Democracy was a retarded concept the moment whichever Greek thought it up. At its core democracy is an appeal to emotion, to scream “People Power”! with no afterthought on whether or not the masses should have said power
    Monarchy is the worst form of government – it’s just better than all the other ones we’ve tried

    1. Heh. Monarchy works without voting. After the ruling dynasty family becomes inbred and vile, you have to kill them and seat a fresh family. No voting required. Britain’s royalty has long expired. Charles is the biggest cuck and sets the most shameful example to all men. Camilla?? That old bag hit the wall three decades ago. With Charles’ wealth, he should have as many wives and eye candy concubines as Moses. But nooo, he’s practically more woman than Bruce Jenner. At least Bruce bagged a hot half Gypsy wigger with big tits. Those Kardashian nut jobs must have doped him though. Once the date rape shit wears off, I bet Bruce will shit when he sees his pics wearing drag in the tabloids. Old farts have to run primo asshole/dread game when robbing the cradle. The young shits will tear an old man up. Chump ass Bruce never knew that.

    2. Democracy works just fine as a form of corporate governance, especially since only stakeholders get a say in the outcome.
       Applying that to elections for government would work just as well.

    3. Let me clarify a few things here. The Demos was originally the collect of the free, educated, property-owning, military-trained, adult males who could at least afford a working set of arms and armour. That means maintaning in pristine condition over 45 kg of equipment in bronze and steel in your own backyard while exercising for several hours every day. It not only was masculine, it was also extremely lethal! To put in modern day terms, have every income-earning adult male practice on an operational tank on their property every day and then try to impose central-government-welfare-sponsored-feminism on that jolly crowd…

    4. It’s the great masses of ordinary Americans who don’t want terrorist-ridden Syrian refugees in the USA, and it’s the elites who do want them here. Still think oligarchy is all that and a bag of chips? Vox populi, vox dei.

    5. I disagree. The constitutional republic is the best known to mankind evidenced by the highest standard of living it creates. In the US it has been hijacked by liberals and lying politicians. I doubt very highly it will return anytime soon.

52. True fact: Switzerland was the last developed European country to grant suffrage to women. Federal voting was granted in 1971 to women and the last canton to allow the female cantonal vote was in 1990. Swiss women historically opposed the vote themselves, especially leading socialite women. A wealthy Zurich banker’s wife once declared ”Swiss women will never vote. We women rule Switzerland through our men like queen bees rule the hive”. In the 60’s it was groups of worker’s wives that began wagering for the federal vote, but the Swiss aristocracy unanimously opposed it.

53. Democracy only works in fairly homogeneous societies with a high level of public trust. Neither of these describe the United States in the new millennium.

54. The only sustainable path is to require some form of serious public Service, similar to what was envisioned in Starship Troopers. Anyone can find a way to serve, even to the point of being subjected to medical research, though the most desirable way is through Military Service.

    1. The idea of being forced to “serve” the state any more than I already do by forced taxation is utterly repulsive to me.

       1. Being a net taxpayer, or at the very least not not being on the taxpayer teat should be qualification enough to vote.

55. Quite simple: True freedom is the privilege to work for your dreams, not a right to its rewards.

56. “…as well as 60% of those who earned less than $50,000, and 73% who earned $15,000 or less voted for Obama. Not surprising, but it is readily apparent that these demographics skew electoral outcomes significantly. The idea that a large swatch of the population that creates little economic value can act as a political power broker is dangerous indeed.”
    So the working class, which is what this quote implies, creates little economic value? But Wall Street types who earn six or more figures per year just for moving paper around create lots of economic value?Um, sure, whatever.

    1. The point is that people in the middle lower income brackets disproportionately collect entitlements at a greater rate. In essence, this allows the majority of the population to vote for more entitlements for themselves by electing Santa Claus politicians bearing more and more gifts using other people’s money. Hence the reason the U.S. Is 18 trillion dollars in debt. Also, I don’t know too many Wall Street types earning a mere $100k per year. The person on Wall Street making a mere $100k per year is more likely the doorman.

       1. The last 2 lines of your reply just bolster my point.

          1. If you’ve ever lived in NYC you realize $100k is more like $40k in other places. It needs to be put in context.

57. Democracy as originally instituted and practiced by the Greeks never contemplated universal suffrage. It was always the right of the ruling or upper classes with the hoi palloi excluded. Part of the rationale for this was simple: the lower classes were not educated and had no wider understanding of how the country worked. This is not to say the rationale was not self-serving or that the Greeks had anything less than a flawed institution. Take a look at Thucydides’ History of the Pelopennesian War, and in particular the Mytilene Debate, and you’ll see a contemporary Greek historian basically enunciating all the problems inherent to democracy — in particular, the power of rhetoric, and the fact that when politics becomes entertainment, democracy dies.
    Democracy I think can only achieve best results when it’s governing relatively small groups of people — the US Constitution as originally enacted is a miracle of bureaucracy — and not universal suffrage.

58. Hence why I have become a more of a libertarian type in the last few years. Even when I was part of the lefty crowd I still suspected the welfare state was bs. I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to realise that the larger and more powerful the government the more screwed up the voting is. In the UK the welfare state is going through austerity and there’s lots of ho-har about morally how wrong it is. Thing is, our conservatives are not as conversative as they need to be in my opinion. So even if all those suggested lost their right to vote in the UK then we’d Still have the conservatives who are in power currently. Maybe they’d become more right leaning as a result. Not sure about this suggestion…
    However, I totally understand why those with land and what not used to have the vote. Makes complete sense. What we have now make no sense.

59. “However, take away the right to vote, and I believe you would see a rapid change. Democracy would become an incentive to leave poverty, and those who have means would no longer fear that the greater portion of the population will inevitably vote against their effort and work ethic.”
    Thank damn goodness someone else has said it, and said it much better than I would have myself. I may have posted once before that this is all we need to whip this country into shape in a few decades. Require all voters to be tax paying property owners not receiving any subsidies or income from the government. It’s as simple as that. The demographics of votes would turn quickly to a majority conservative and that would start us down the right path as more journalism and most political money would start to pander towards people whom bring value to society. It’s quite literally this simple.

    1. What I don’t like about the property owning requirement is that homeowners in the USA are a huge welfare electorate. In the last bubble bust, banks were bailed out and delinquent debtors forgiven. They have held back the economy for almost a decade.

60. If people are going to have power over you, you should have a say in who those people are.

Comments are closed.