Counter-Currents
687 words
Let’s have these three changes first.
“Our” President proposes “mandatory voting” for the USA. Well, when the Establishment has such a stranglehold on the sociopolitical system of the country so that they win regardless of the outcome of elections, mulatto empty suits can smugly advocate forcing folks to vote.
But, what if we demanded real choice, and real political freedom, in exchange for accepting a mandatory voting system?
It is in this spirit that I propose the following three changes that would be an absolute prerequisite for any mandatory voting scheme.
1. The Social Pricing Disempowerment Act. We’ll need a constitutional amendment extending free speech into the private sphere. In other words, all the “watchdog groups” would become impotent, as it would be illegal to impose social pricing (e.g., in employment, promotion, school admissions, housing, access to any community resources, etc.) against anyone due to their sociopolitical beliefs. In other words, sociopolitical beliefs would be a “protected category,” the same as race, color, religion, sex, etc. For example, the sort of harassment faced by Kevin MacDonald at his university, including the “watchdog” attempts to get him fired (which failed because he is tenured), would be illegal (regardless of his tenured status). The same would apply to anyone else.
Now, there would have to be some very narrowly defined, very carefully defined, exemptions. If an organization was dedicated to promoting tax cuts, then they would have the right not to hire a person who publicly advocates in favor of raising taxes. A church need not hire a priest who is an avowed atheist. A political party dedicated to White rights would not be obligated to embrace anti-Whites (of any race). However, these exemptions would need to be very narrow, very specific, and only applied when the fundamental purpose of the entity is involved.
Thus, Kevin MacDonald’s university could NOT say “diversity and tolerance are crucial to our mission so therefore anyone against multiculturalism is not allowed.” Overly broad and non-essential definitions of primary purpose would not be allowed. A university is fundamentally about teaching, and as long as Kevin MacDonald effectively teaches his courses, then his politics are irrelevant and his position inviolate.
Of course, there are some, including and especially on the Right, who would whine that this law would violate freedom of association and would be unwieldy and oppressive. Yes, indeed, it would be, but it is also a very reasonable response to the oppressive and ludicrous idea of “mandatory voting.” What’s worse? Expanding free speech or forcing folks to choose between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush?
2. Ballot access. The two party monopoly has to go. “Third party” ballot access must be made much, much easier. There has to be real choice on the ballot, and once the Social Pricing Disempowerment Act is in force, dissident parties will pop up like mushrooms after a spring rain. Lowering the bar to access, coupled with an end to social pricing, would ensure that a wide variety of parties – from the extreme Left to the extreme Right – will obtain the required signatures to have full ballot access throughout the country. Ending social pricing would benefit the Right much more than the Left because, let’s be honest, that pricing is targeted only to the far-Right of the political spectrum (when’s the last time some academic got in trouble for being a Marxist? Indeed, that’s celebrated!). Let a “thousand flowers bloom” – if voting is mandatory, let people have a real choice on who and what to vote for.
3. Proportional representation in government. End the “winner take all” system. Let’s get all those small parties represented in Congress and also in state legislatures. Let’s make it feasible for the free choice picks of all those mandatory voters to have access to the levers of power in the government.
So, hey, King Mulatto – you do steps 1-3, and then we can have your mandatory voting. But, you wouldn’t dare, would you? Unleashing decades of White middle class anger? The possibility of far-Right populism? Would you let that genie out of the bottle? I very much doubt it.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/mandatory-voting.html
1 comment
Whites in general, and the “White Right: in particular, seem to me completely helpless in response to the memetic attacks from the anti-White Left. All they know how to do is react with incoherent anger, sputter about “freedom,” or silently smolder, unable to articulate exactly why such things as “mandatory voting” are so infuriating.”
The “point” of this “mental exercise” is to generate memes to use in this ideological warfare. The next time the Left brings up “mandatory voting,” the proper response should not be “Jeb Bush in 2016!,” but responses such as those outlined in this post, designed to underscore leftist hypocrisy and the fact that the sociopolitical system is stacked against Whites. Use every stupidity uttered by leftists as a “teaching moment.”
And, by the way, there is a difference between “proposing further enslavement” and actually implementing it. The USA will not suddenly have “mandatory voting” just because a teleprompter-reading mulatto proposes it. That would need to go through a lengthy process, and although the Process is controlled by the System, there are sufficient System elements that would oppose the idea so as to give an opening to create political chaos through far-Right memes.
I don’t know, perhaps the “movement” could use some “mental exercise” instead of scoffing at it. One would have thought what I have just written here would have been obvious.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.