The purpose of a gate is to preserve the order contained therein. If there were no gates, then anyone who sought to create would quickly find himself the subject of attempts to repossess the valuable goods his industriousness and ingenuity were essential in producing. All civilizational developments have consisted of increasingly sophisticated forms of gating. The development of money as a medium of exchange allowed for wealth to be effectively privatized, for instead of an implicit redistribution between all members of the tribe or community everyone’s production one could withhold his own production in order to assert his market power as he wished. Property acts to distinguish what is and isn’t one’s own to determine, providing an incentive to invest one’s wealth into future, greater production on the expectation that it will not be capriciously appropriated by another. Academic journals have very high barriers to entry in the expectation of very formal requirements with the purpose of maintaining a high quality level of discourse necessary to scientific and philosophical investigation. Wherever there is a gate, there you will find civilization. If no effective barrier to entry is possible, that which is created within a group becomes effectively commons, and open to be appropriated by whoever wishes to exert the energy.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his monumental Democracy: The God That Failed, writes that “One-man-one-vote combined with ‘free entry’ into government democracy implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of and is up for grabs by everyone else. A ‘tragedy of the commons’ is created. It can be expected that majorities of ‘’have-nots’ will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of minorities of ‘haves.’”[1] There is an inevitable logic to losing the will to protect the order created by a particular group of people due to their unique qualities. Other groups, unwilling or unable to produce the material and, most significantly, social goods, would seek to redistribute from the producers to themselves while protecting whatever is particular to themselves at all costs. To perceive this ongoing process of democratization in the United States requires understanding that not only redistribution of a material kind has been continuously taking place, but especially a redistribution of social goods in the form of status, privilege [yes, that privilege], and the opportunities that follow of these.

Politicians in a democratic government can obtain and maintain power in one of three ways; 1) the convincing of eligible citizens to vote for them, 2) the expansion of the voting base, especially to include those who are likely to vote for your party and preferred policies, or the 3) minimization of the influence of those groups which tend to oppose your party. The first means is the most well-understood, and tends to be respected as the only way of legitimately obtaining power, while the latter two are thought to be “against the spirit” of democracy or else a kind of loophole. However, there is nothing about democracy which prevents this strategy of seeking to expand the voter base, diluting the influence of the presently represented interests, and especially given there is no penalty for seeking to expand the voter base and many rewards, it becomes easy to see how democracy increases its power at the expense of the original voter base. Historically in America, this has been white men, who have been increasingly marginalized in favor of any other group, in recent decades particularly those which favor Democrats.

Is it only a coincidence that, were the vote limited to only white men in 2012, Romney would have beaten Obama in a historic landslide? Hold off on any objections about the supposed imperative of equality; if you’re thinking in normative terms you will overlook the definite material trend revealed in democratic politics since the very beginning. At first elections were limited to land-owning men; then the franchise was expanded to all men; then women; this means of expanding the voter base being exhausted, the gates were opened to immigration from all countries and nationalities. It is hard not to appreciate the ingenuity of such a program. With Obama’s intent to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, the Democrat party will be even more powerful, and the Republican party will have to pursue it leftward as ever-controlled “opposition.” After all, the only group which skews Republican are white men; every other group skews Democrat in varying degrees. White men, who originally built the United States and saw it rise to power on the global stage, are being effectively marginalized as a voter base, their interests of trivial political worth.

It is convenient there are ideologies which dovetail with the interests of  Democrats to justify this elimination of the worthiness of white men’s interests in favor of everyone else. The poverty of African-Americans is, naturally, the result of white men being unfair in the way opportunities are handed out; thus democratic politicians sought to redistribute opportunities from white men to this historically oppressed group. The limited role of women in public life was the result of patriarchy, a grand civilizational-scale injustice maintained against women on account of sheer prejudice. That these groups just so happen to skew decidedly Democrat, who are their eternal and unrelenting champions, is something you’re not supposed to notice, and if you do, there is a litany of negative moral judgments pre-packaged and ready to be unleashed on you. But the question must be  asked, would Democrats have such an interest in these groups if they didn’t skew Democrat?

Democracy is a rigged game. Everything we are told about how it’s supposed to work is a pretty fiction. While you might make a decision as to how to cast your vote on the basis of what you believe is best for society, all things considered, it is obvious others aren’t voting on this basis. Rather, these groups, on the pretense of merely appropriating for themselves what they are owed, merely coincidentally vote in a way which, without that pretense, would be immediately recognized as naked self-interest, nothing more. If I were to vote to curb the relentless derogation of my status, no matter how I portrayed my decision-making calculus, it would always be stipulated that I did so only for the ulterior motive of protecting and increasing my privilege; but if anyone, so long as they aren’t a white man, casts a vote in order to increase his own status and wealth, he is only voicing a social protest. Not only democracy, but the entire discourse surrounding its operation and telos is rigged against white men. White men are forbidden from complaining at the appropriation of their wealth and social status produced by their forebears.

Votes are bullets, elections are low intensity civil war. Any fool can understand that more bullets never hurts, and from this perspective one sees how the Democrat party has sought to wield more and more bullets against those who oppose them. In the way a black man might be derogatorily dismissed in the early 20^th century for complaining at the injustice of racism as “just a dumb nigger,” you as a white man will be summarily dismissed as “just an angry white man.” Your voice is illegitimate, and your desire to be judged on your own merits apart from the color of your skin or the sex organ between your legs is a racist, sexist pretense.

[1] On Democracy, Redistribution, and the Destruction of Property, page 96.