The right to vote makes certain communities seen as enemies to be physically fought. Democracy, therefore, establishes a war of all against all, which supposedly precedes the social contract.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Today, Israel’s more or less liberal democracy has a notable problem: the difference in birth rates between Jews and the so-called “Israeli Arabs” – a rather imprecise term, since a significant portion of the Israeli Jewish population is made up of Arab Jews who arrived from neighboring countries. As the Israeli Jewish historian Avi Shlaim often says in interviews, he is a Baghdad Jew whose first language is Arabic, and whose music, cuisine, etc. are Arabic. The categories of Jew and Arab are not mutually exclusive.
The “Israeli Arab” population, that is, Palestinian gentiles who have obtained Israeli citizenship, has a higher birth rate than Israeli Jews. In Israel, public authorities always speak bluntly about the demographic problem: in the long run, this would make it possible for the Israeli state to be taken over by democratic means. Thus, the state takes measures such as prohibiting gentiles from living or working on lands under the jurisdiction of the National Land Authority (NSA), which nowadays comprises 93% of the state of Israel. Furthermore, Israel does not authorize the creation of gentile neighborhoods, often under environmental pretexts. With nowhere to live or expand, the “Israeli Arabs” are forced to emigrate.
When someone asks: “Why not give citizenship to all Palestinians?”, the Zionist answer is that the Palestinians would be the majority and Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. This argument was also used by the white minorities of the Apartheid states in Africa.
If nowadays it is commonplace to point out the similarities between the Bantustans and the West Bank and Gaza, that is, between South Africa and Israel, in the 1950s it was not unusual for English-speaking conservatives to point out the similarities between white-minority populations from African countries and from southern United States. In this case, whites from Africa should be an example for those from the southern United States, who should learn to supervise blacks until they have the intellectual capacity to emancipate themselves. Racism is so great that it equates literate English-speaking blacks who have roots in the United States with African blacks who only knew the tribal reality.
We have already seen in greater detail here at SCF that in the 1960s the Ford Foundation, under the leadership of the CIA, stopped supporting the registration of black voters in the South and began to encourage Afrocentrism, which is a separatist ideology. Well then: the parallel that is rarely drawn, and that I want to make here, is between the United States and Israel, since in both countries there is a history of trying to avoid the demographic influence of a minority in a demographic.
In Luther King’s time, the lack of voting rights for blacks was the result of a series of bureaucratic maneuvers, not a legal prohibition on issuing voter registration cards to blacks. In 1870, shortly after the American Civil War (1861–1865), the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited denying the right to vote on the basis of race. The argument that prevailed at the time was that if blacks joined the Army and fought for their country, then they had to have the right to vote. This right was later reduced by the requirement for literacy.
This is a rarely mentioned chapter in U.S. history. When we talk about the struggle for voting rights in the 20th century, the suffragettes come to mind. Another term from the fight of nineteenth-century blacks that ended up being linked to feminism was emancipation. With the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Abraham Lincoln ended slavery and emancipated blacks. In the 20th century, the noun “emancipation” was most often linked to the adjective “feminine”.
In the 19th century, it was common for a wing of liberalism (represented by Mill) and Protestantism (especially Quakers and Unitarians) to compare the situation of women to that of black people. Both were examples of human beings whose equality was denied due to their physical characteristics. Since black people were in an obvious slave condition, the analogy placed women as domestic slaves, servants of their husbands. In short, a drama – a drama that became the basis of the feminist crusade against homes and families.
The women’s right to vote in the U.S. came with the Nineteenth Amendment, which in 1919 prohibited anyone from being prevented from voting because of their sex. The language of the Amendment was, therefore, the same as that of the Fifteenth, maintaining the analogy between women and black people. Between 1870 and 1919, that is, for 49 years, black people were not prohibited from voting and women were. During this period, the feminist movement – which had been very strong and organized since the Seneca Falls Convention (1848) – demanded that its members, educated white women, have the same rights that even black men had. Because of this, the feminist cause was seen, during this period, as a way to neutralize the effects of the entry of black voters. And in fact, since it was very difficult for black people to register to vote before Luther King’s activism, it can be said that feminism served to whiten the electorate of the United States, increasing the control of the WASP population (white and Anglo-Saxon Protestants) over the state and, by extension, over the other populations of USA.
As if that were not enough, from the beginning, feminist Margaret Sanger opened her family planning clinics in black neighborhoods. Since then, abortion has been added to Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive methods, and black women in the U.S. have special access to this “right” sponsored by eugenicists. As writer Patrícia Silva reports, “black women have the highest proportion of abortions [in U.S.], with 335 abortions per thousand live births. Percentages at these levels illustrate that around 20 million black babies have been aborted [in U.S.] since 1973 [Roe v. Wade]. The population of the city of Rio de Janeiro, in 2023, is just over 6 million. Twenty million black babies correspond to more than three times the population of the city of Rio de Janeiro. It is an authorized and, surprisingly, celebrated infanticide.” (Mulheres que o feminismo não vê, p. 175-76) And it is obvious that this infanticide, which can very well be called genocide, has an impact on demographics and, therefore, on democracy.
Democracy is related to demographics. That is why unscrupulous political agents who want to control the state will strive to control the birth rate of unwanted populations. And since democracy taught the U.S. that high population density is a power, the country has endeavored to reduce the world population by controlling the birth rate of other countries – see the Kissinger Report.
A fact that is as curious as it is dramatic is that this liberal-democratic elite is not at all prolific. So, it makes sense that they go around sterilizing and aborting all over the world. Elon Musk’s own movement in defense of natality already shows how they have no inclination whatsoever for this: if reproduction is done through laboratories and surrogate mothers, the price paid to procreate will cause the birth rate to fall even further, since only a handful of plutocrats will be able to have several children. Imagine the birth rate if the middle class had to finance a child on credit, as if it were a car or an apartment…
To return to Israel, and increase the irony even more, even if liberal Jews manage to kill the last gentile in the Promised Land, they still fear the ultra-Orthodox Jews… who have a ton of children. So they don’t know if Israel is destined to become a theocracy similar to Iran in 30 years, because of the effect that demographics have on democracy.
Ultimately, the right to vote makes certain communities seen as enemies to be physically fought. Democracy, therefore, establishes a war of all against all, which supposedly precedes the social contract.
