Allowing Loafers and Weaklings the Power to Vote: Edward Leedskalnin’s ‘A Book in Every Home’

I have reported on the work of Edward Leedskalnin before—the little man who mysteriously built Coral Castle in south Florida. I like the guy and his science and am puzzling through his mid-twentieth century writings for my new Cliffhanger project. In his writing is a unique glimpse into how people from a previous time thought contrary to the contemporary—which I have stated often I abhor. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT LEEDSKALNIN. It is not a debate that one of the greatest generations of Americans was the World War II generation, which Leedskalnin was a part of. He was also a fine example of an American mad scientist in that he was eccentric enough to remove his vantage point back far enough to provide commentary based on his unbiased observations. He marked these observations down in a small book called A Book in Every Home meant to impart wisdom to future generations curious about the little 5’ man who could lift 3 ton coral rocks like a child plays with toys. Leedskalnin is an American enigma and his writings are quite intriguing.

In his A Book in Every Home Leedskalnin only writes on the left side of the book leaving the right side for a future decoder of his cryptic work to decipher his numerous mathematical puzzles. He dares readers to attempt to top his work by writing their own contributions into those blank pages. Of course for my task, I’d rather leave them empty for the evolving analysis that I am conducting with his work. Rather, I will gladly place my thoughts on his work here in Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom for my readers to ponder. Leedskalnin’s written efforts are a time capsule through our own corrupted education systems softened by political communist infiltration over time. Leedskalnin’s mind was extremely observant of the human race and was unconcerned with political correctness. For me his work is refreshing as many of my thoughts are similar observations uncovered from under attempted suppressions by contemporary corruption. For instance, below is but one small section of his book that I will focus on in this article written about Leedskalnin’s view on voting. He says:


It is not sound to allow the weaklings to vote. Anyone who is too weak to make his own living is not strong enough to vote, because their weak influences weakens the state and a degenerated state cannot exist very long, but every state should be sound and lasting.


By voting, the voters dictate the state’s destiny for times to come and then allow such a weak influence to guide the state, it is not wise and so you see one should vote according to how he is carrying the State’s burden.


Another unwise thing about equal voting is that it gives the loafers and weaklings the power to take the property away from producers and stronger people, and then another unjust thing about equal voting is that it gives the loafers and weaklings the power to demand an easy life from the producers and leaders.


Self respecting producers will not stand such an injustice for long. It is not the producers’ fault when one is too weak to make his own living. The producer’s life is just as sweet as the weaklings and loafer’s life is to them. All people are independent so you see everybody will have to take care of themselves and if they cannot, they should perish and the sooner they perish the better it will be.

To be lasting, the government should be built in the same way as the Supreme power of the land “the army.” Governments have been rising and falling but the army always remains. You know there is no equality in army and so there can be no equality in the state. If you are not an equal producer you cannot be an equal consumer.


In hindsight what Leedskalnin has said has proven 100% correct. From the vantage point of the counter-culture hippies and bra burning despots, Leedskalnin was participating in hate speech, but from the context of historical accuracy, nobody could argue the truth of his statements. The only criticism possible is to declare that it is mean-spirited to allow the weak in society to perish while the strong prosper and that it is up to the intellect of mankind to outthink the whole survival of the fittest mentality. However, which is a better mentality for the collective whole, the view-point of progressives who want to raise all boats even those with holes in them determined to remain on the ocean floor, or people like Leedskalnin who thinks society should advance regardless of those who desire to be the bottom feeders drowning from their own ineptitude? Obviously, the old hippie model has brought us all the elements that Leedskalnin predicted, so it was the little 100 pound man who stood at just 5’ in stature who said that weaklings should perish if they do not desire to be strong—that society should see itself as an army not as a government of equals—because such a view forces the strong to be weak so that the weak do not feel lowered in value.

There is no modern choice for the strong but to diminish themselves to the weak as the lesser have no ambition to become strong. So when society decides to make all people equal whether they are producers or takers the takers will always have leverage over the producers. This of course leads to the monstrosity that we have today in modern politics—a valueless system of corruption and disaster—just as Leedskalnin said it would. It’s not mean to say the truth unless the desire for society at large is to hide the truth from their own eyes to fulfill a fantasy of equality as possible no matter what level of ambition that an individual exhibits.

All people are created equal, as our founding documents in America declare. From there people make choices—even the mentally handicapped have opportunities under capitalism to overcome their stature and become something more. But people have to decide if they wish to become leaders or followers. Most people desire to be led about and to follow behind someone on the cutting edge. Those people are not equal to the leaders. It takes courage to be a leader and courage is lacking from the typical follower. So when the decision to become a follower is made, those people surrender their rights to be equal to a leader. There is no way to trick the system into some behavioral nonsense when distinctions between the strong and the weak need to be made.

For the followers nobody is proposing that they be blasted into space or imprisoned for foolishness—or even left to die. Actually Leedsalnin did say it would be better for weak people to die, but what he pointed out is that a democracy cannot survive if weak people have equal rights to vote with strong people—because the weak are not qualified to make proper decisions about such matters. In modern times we can now see what happens, campaign donations are horrendously high, progressives are pushing the ignorant to vote so that they can have wind in their sails of insurrection toward communist thought and the entire political system is bent around the will of lobbyists because of the intellectual vacuum created by such a failed system. When the weak are mixed with the strong and all assumed equal, the weak bring down the value of the strong and the sum of democracy becomes lessened.

All people do start in life equally, but as decisions are made in those lives a vast number of any given social population will desire to fall behind a leader. Such people then cannot expect to have the right to vote equally with people who have proven themselves to be leaders. To allow such a thing brings about the very conditions we are struggling with in American society presently. A continuation of that commitment will only lead to more of the terrible behavior currently witnessed on the political scene.

As hard as Leedskalnin’s comments were in the context of the World War II generation toward an emerging threat that he saw percolating through his scientific observations of unquestioned genius—the results are now confirmed. The progressives ran away from such wisdom and guided society to a precipice of destruction. At the time of his writing, Leedskalnin in his little book A Book in Every Home could not prove the debacle that would soon come from the 1960s in America continuing to the present—but he did predict it. Now looking back, it is time to analyze what values we must carry with us into the future knowing what we do. To fail such a task would be to doom ourselves to our own extinction. The weak cannot be made to sap off the strong so to make everyone equal because that is the only way such a thing can occur. The sum than of such a society is one relegated to the efforts of the weak and not the strong—which does nobody any good—not the weak or the strong. So it is time to take seriously the wisdom of our past and apply it to the future and a good place to start is where Leedskalnin properly identified a potential failure in American democracy within a republic—at the voting booth and the type of people qualified to handle such an important task.

Rich Hoffman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.