You can reduce every single political problem the West is currently experiencing to one word: Legitimacy. By what right do our rulers rule us, and who counts as “us”? Every successful political movement has an answer.
Yes, even the Left. They may not remember it themselves — they don’t read much that isn’t Harry Potter, and for them History begins anew each dawn — but even the “everything is a social construction” crowd once thought this through. They concluded that, though races, nations, borders, etc. are of course “social constructions,” we’re all members of the Proletariat — or, at least, we will be, when we’ve killed all the class enemies — and so the government of the “vanguard of the Proletariat” (i.e. them) is legitimate.
It’s not the most elegant argument to have graced the pages of a political science text, but when your whole family gets shipped to Siberia for disagreeing with it, it’s remarkably persuasive.
The Human Biodiversity (HBD) crowd, on the other hand, hasn’t thought this all the way through. If they — we, I guess, though with more asterisks than MLB home run records — want to be more than just a bunch of internet gadflies, they’ll have to resolve the fundamental contradiction between HBD and democracy.
Social contract theory — by which representative governments become “representative,” hence legitimate — presumes rough parity between the contracting parties. It’s the basis of citizenship. Have you ever wondered just why America opened her borders in the 19th century? Vox Day et al like to bang on about the Naturalization Act of 1790 and its “free white” requirement, but Congress could have limited immigration in any way it chose — not just by race, but by country of origin, skills, literacy, whatever. Instead, the naturalization acts specify “loyalty to the principles of the Constitution.”
The United States was, indeed, a “proposition nation” — the proposition in question being “the validity of the social contract.” The 1802 act (which keeps the “free white” provision) makes this clear: Renounce your previous allegiance (including titles of nobility), be of good moral character, be loyal to the principles of the Constitution, and you’re in. If all men are indeed created equal (= “equal enough to legitimately sign the social contract”), then it follows that anyone who renounces his previous allegiance and swears to abide by Constitutional principles is legitimately an American. It’s the closest thing to literally signing a social contract a 19th century government could administer.
But again: A legit contract absolutely requires rough parity between the contracting parties. We don’t let four year olds sign binding legal contracts because they don’t have the mental equipment to understand what they’re signing. Signing on to “the principles of the Constitution” was pretty basic until after the Civil War, because back then the only interaction most folks had with the Federal government was at the post office. That’s why the 1862 Homestead Act, for instance, came with citizenship attached — declare your intention of becoming a citizen, and 160 acres in the West was yours for the taking. Subsistence farmers on the frontier are equal, or equal enough, when communities arise organically and the only permanent government official is the town postmaster.
Modern life, needless to say, is a bit more complex than that. As you know, we all inadvertently commit three felonies a day. Who can say what “the principles of the Constitution” even are anymore? Hell, can most people even pass a basic civics exam? Is this thing graded on a curve?
So much for re-signing the social contract, eh?
And falling back on the “representative” part of “representative government” won’t do, because the hardline HBD folks have been quite clear about this: There is an absolute cutoff between “competent” and “not competent.” IQ is destiny, remember? Read the comments on any “alt-Right” site — Blacks, you’ll be told, are inveterate criminals because the average Black IQ is 85. If the nice white high IQ readers of the Wall Street Journal (3rd link above) commit three felonies a day, what hope do ghetto dwellers have? Any “representative” of the “Black community” — which has been a real, untouchable, national thing for going on a century now — will, by definition, only represent his/her group… which is below the participatory threshold.
Right there you’ve just disenfranchised 13% of the population. But it gets worse, because the number 100 gets thrown around a lot on HBD sites. 100 is, supposedly, the average national IQ needed to maintain an advanced postindustrial society like ours. Surely I don’t have to tell y’all what average means. So now you’ve disenfranchised 50% of the population, and you still haven’t addressed the three felonies a day we 100+ IQ brainiacs are committing….
I think we all — Left and Right, cat people and dog people, Crips and Bloods, Team Edward and Team Jacob, Hufflepuff and Slitherin — can agree that any government that only represents at best 49% of those under its jurisdiction is not legitimate in any modern sense. (For further examples, see the EU, the unelected unaccountable nobodies who are responsible for the European version of this mess). By what right, then, do the rulers rule?
I’ve got an answer for you, but you’re not gonna like it.Loading Likes...