The end of suffrage

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”
Ann Coulter

Oh, it will happen. It is absolutely inevitable. Unfortunately, because we live in an irrational world where people cannot modify their behavior even when it is logically predictable that the consequences of that behavior will be disastrous for all and sundry, it won’t happen until after the collapse into imperialism, dictatorship and social chaos.

Democracy’s day is nearly done in the West. The American political parties aren’t even pretending to represent their bases anymore; once the anti-war crowd realizes in 2009 that they’ve been sold out as badly as the pro-life, small government and anti-interventionist blocs were sold out by the current leadership, both bases will understand that there is no representation for them.

In Europe, on the other hand, you can vote for whatever party you want, so long as it is Eurofascist.

I have no idea how long it will take, but it will happen.

The policy of human sacrifice

I found this to be very interesting, especially in light of what I wrote in TIA about the Aztec practice of human sacrifice:

Before being chosen as sacrificial victims, the boy and girl had followed a typical peasant diet. This raises the possibility that they were chosen from among the Incas’ conquered subjects and killed not only to pacify the mountain gods, but also to instil terror and respect for an imperial power. “It looks to us as though the children were led up to the summit shrine in the culmination of a year-long rite, drugged and then left to succumb to exposure,” said Timothy Taylor of the University of Bradford, one of the lead researchers.

“Although some may wish to view these grim deaths within the context of indigenous belief systems, we should not forget that the Inca were imperialists too and the treatment of such peasant children may have served to instil fear and facilitate social control over remote mountain areas.”

Now, I certainly don’t deny the religious aspects of historical human sacrifice, it would be intellectually irresponsible to even try to do that, to say nothing of how it would contradict my own spiritual worldview. But I’ve noticed that although Mesoamerican human sacrifice took an overtly religious form, mass human sacrifice tends to correspond much more strongly with imperialism than it does with religion. I won’t be surprised if scholars eventually conclude that at least for the Aztecs and the Incas, human sacrifice was less a form of worship than it was a means of political terrorism designed to keep their more numerous subject peoples in line.

Light up the New York sky

Bomb New York,
Light up the New York sky
Like the Fourth of July!

It’s typical Onion humor, but it wouldn’t be so funny if there weren’t more than a grain of truth to it. I don’t give a damn about New York City or its denizens and it’s not hard to make a powerful case that America as a nation would be better off without it and Washington DC.

“You can just reduce New York City to a pile of rubble, it ain’t going to affect us much.”

Whether you think that’s sad or not, it’s absolutely true. It also means that the Giuliani campaign, based as it is on his self-styled status as “the thavior of New York Thity”, isn’t going to get anywhere near the White House. You’ll notice that the Queen-in-waiting hasn’t been talking about being a big Yankees fan since her campaign started, she’s been playing up her carpetbagging Southern twang instead.

Don’t worry

Nothing will change with mass immigration:

A southwest suburban school district has taken action, responding to the concerns of a parent who is Arabic….

There was some heated discussion between parents outside Columbus Manor Elementary School in Oak Lawn on Friday. The thought of no more traditional holiday celebrations has many parents really upset. For now, children in Ridgeland School District 122 will celebrate fall festival instead of Halloween and winter festival instead of Christmas….

The district has a 30 percent Arabic population. The superintendent says the reason for the change in tradition comes after one parent wanted Ramadan decorations put up inside Columbus Manor Elementary.

One wonders if the multicultis at the ACLU will finally begin to see a problem with third world immigration when the public schools are no longer content to ban Christmas, begin teaching “kill the Jew” and require mandatory clitorectomies in addition to vaccinations for all the girls.

History teaches that mass immigration – migration – is always a terrible thing for the host population, but it’s a particularly bad idea in any society that pretends to pass for democratic.

Game Theory and Giuliani

The Evangelical Outpost uses game theory to demonstrate that moderate Republicans who support Giuliani in the primary will be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton, not conservative Republicans who stay home in November:

Imagine that you have three groups of voters. Group A likes Hillary and opposes all Republican nominees; Group B prefers Giuliani, but would choose another nominee over Hillary; Group C prefers anyone other than Giuliani and Hillary….

Group A would be happy with A1, and unhappy with either A2 or A3. Similarly, Group B would be unhappiest with B1, happy with B2, and satisfied with B3. Group C would be unhappy with C1, dissatisfied with C2, and happy with C3.

Now let’s examine what rational choices each group of voters should make in a Republican primary.

Since the GOP is never going to nominate Hillary, the most rational choice for Group A would be to skip the Republican primary altogether and vote in the Democratic primaries. The most rational choice for Group C would be C3–anyone other than Giuliani. So what should Group B choose? Even though their first preference is B2, they have to consider how Group C will vote.

For Group B, choice B3 is what game theorists call the minimax condition, the choice which minimizes the maximum possible loss. They don’t get Giuliani but they don’t get Hillary either. (That same outcome, by the way, is the optimum choice for Group C.)

Even if they were unable to communicate with Group C, the most rational choice for Group B would be to choose the minimax. But they have even more incentive because social conservatives (Group C) have communicated to Giuliani supporters (Group B) that they will not accept option C2. All things being equal, it would therefore be irrational for primary voters to choose Giuliani….

Unless social conservatives vote for Hillary in either the primaries or the general election, we are in no way to blame for her moving back into the White House. That blame will go to our friends and neighbors. The same goes for the nomination of Rudy.

But what if the reason that Hillary wins is, as some want to claim, because social conservatives did not choose the lesser of two evils and vote for Rudy? Again, we social conservatives are not to blame at all. We are the ones who will have made the rational choice during the primaries while the Giuliani supporters made an irrational choice.

This is a solid explanation of the inherent futility of the moderate Republican candidate, one that I wish I had thought to develop. As I’ve been pointing out for months now, it is counterproductive to nominate a candidate who is so moderate that he has negative appeal to the base. The polls are irrelevant, Giuliani and Romney are demonstrably less electable than Paul, Huckabee or Thompson. Thompson and Huckabee can’t beat Clinton because they share her views on the major issues of the election cycle, but that’s another matter entirely.

By the way, Richard Dawkins should note that this is a proper use of game theory, not inventing Evolutionary Stable Strategies out of arbitrary assumptions and imaginary values.