"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against
the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which
a simple government of any form can admit of." James Madison 1788
So the grand plan is to dumb down America through fluoride in the drinking water. The Germans in WWII and Russians under Stalin, proved without a doubt that feeding humans Fluorides, makes them as docile as cows.
Almost the entire liberal-left Weltanschauung is predicated on portraying every group in America except white, male, heterosexual Christians as oppressed. Women are oppressed by men. Blacks and Hispanics are oppressed by whites. Gays are oppressed by straights. Non-Christians are oppressed by Christians. Of course, the fact is that American women have more opportunity and more equality than just about any women in the world today and certainly in history. Moreover, if either sex is ‘oppressed’ today, it is far more likely to be males. If women were incarcerated, let alone murdered, as disproportionately as men are; if only 40 percent of those getting a bachelor’s degree were female; if girls dropped out of high school at the rate males do, there would be a national outcry. It is men who are, in fact, suffering... What this thinking leads to is girls and women seeing themselves as victims, and almost as often to the emasculation of boys. (And then women looking to marry a man wonder where all the masculine men are)
Once the young men are all emasculated and docile, the liberals in Congress along with the President will revoke the 2nd amendment and make gun ownership a crime. The Old warriors and the new will look at eac other and say WTF.
"Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it
begin here." Capt John Parker, Lexington, MA
Is that what things will become.
Too many want a friggin handout, complain incessantly, blaming others for their own inadequacy, or want others to feel sorry for them and give them free stuff and privileges without working for it. Would you lay your life down to defend the freedom of these types ? Not me.
It's unfortunate that you feel that way. It has been my experience that some of the most intelligent, resourceful and compassionate people are those who have you would probably consider to be 'degenerates'. Perhaps if they were not judged so harshly and if assisting them were thought of as a hand UP rather than a hand-out those precious resources would be discovered and utilized to the benefit of all of us... including your children.
but the sheperd always has in mind either shearing or slaughtering them, in the end. Mal-nourished shepherds also like to use sheep as the receiving end for their wick-dipping activity.
*As a Marine... you also might be interested in doing some research regarding PTSD in women. Although PTSD has been previously been associated with male veterans... it is now estimated that twice as many women have suffered with PTSD as have men.
Look you can write all the you want about PTSD, I sure you have experienced trama first hand and can relate to all the victims who use PTSD as crutch and as an excuse for everything thats wrong with there life and health.
I know I must be the exception, lets see; Start with a bipolar mother who would sooner smack you with a belt than talk to you, and of course some days she was as sweet as honey.
She even manged to make a cat-o-nine tails once to whip us with, such a sweetheart. Luckly my father found it and took it away before she could do too much damage. She did get to try it on me one day, when my sister didn't put the towels in the closet the way that she expected. In her twisted mind it was my fault since I was supposed to supervising her ( I was 10) I got flailed across the back of my legs. PTSD I guess. I left home and lived on the streets at 11, snuck back in the house sleep, did all my homework at the library. I graduated in the top 10 of my class, guess I could have dropped out and blamed PTSD.
Went to university on a jock scholarship, graduated cum laude, in 3.5 yrs and joined the USMC. I guess I could have been a 4.0 student, Guess I can blame PTSD on that.
In the Marine Corp, I was wounded twice, went down in a chopper twice, pissed my pants numerous times while invovled in trying to keep my marines alive.
PTSD you betcha!! I got in spades and enough to go around the room more than once.
I got over PTSD, and got on with living, I don't look back O, I look forward. I've been in sessions with Viet Nams where all they want to do is blame something or someone for how screwed up they are.
We all need to take responsibility for our lives and those we touch.
"Of course, the fact is that American women have more opportunity and more equality than just about any women in the world today and certainly in history. Moreover, if either sex is ‘oppressed’ today, it is far more likely to be males."
I included the information about PTSD because I am aware that you are a Marine. As I indicated... there is also the matter of sexual assault and a whole host of other ways that women... including American women... are oppressed and discriminated against.
Ever heard of the CEDAW? The US... the country you fought for... is the only 'first-world' nation that has yet to ratify it!
The discrimination and oppression of women... even in the US... is so systemic and so deeply imbedded in the collective psyche that people are utterly oblivious to the ways in which it manifests!
Christ... we haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years! And we STILL don't receive equal pay for equal work! That scholarship that was your ticket through college wasn't even an option for women at that time. And Title IX is still a highly controversial issue regarding women in sports!
I could go on and on and on listing the multitude of ways that women... including American women... continue to experience oppression on a daily basis! And the day that men and women are charged the same price for a haircut or to have a shirt dry cleaned is the day that I might seriously consider that men are also oppressed!
I agree with you about looking forward and taking complete responsibility for our lives... and that includes being fully honest about issues such as oppression... and other issues such as racism and poverty, too!
And just to be clear... I am not a radical feminist. As a matter of fact... I strongly believe that many aspects of the women's movement have done considerable harm to both women and men. The issue should never have been about what men had that women didn't... which is part of the reason for the very significant rise in illnesses that used to be primarily associated with men and now are seen in women. Rather the focus should have been on raising a positive consciousness of women's contributions so that what they have to offer is considered highly valued and sacred. This shift in consciousness is not only a critical issue for the sake of all women... but also for the benefit of men as well. And the way that women are viewed parallels the manner in which we view the planet. The macrocosm is reflected in the microcosm... and both are taken for granted!
*By the way... I, too, grew up with a very sick mother... far sicker than anyone every imagined. I can very much empathize with what you experienced. And much like yourself... I did the same very sane and natural thing... ran away as a kid. Only I didn't get far enough away! It is also necessary to factor in the manner in which boys and girls are raised. I'm going to be posting more about this on my forum in the future because I believe that it is so important for people to really understand the anatomy and subtleties of abuse and how it has a ripple effect from generation to generation if it isn't addressed. This requires a degree of honesty and openness that many are very uncomfortable with. Nevertheless... it is the only way for true healing to take place.
Women who think they need the "right" to vote, haven't thought it through. That's because they're more emotional, than rational. Those who don't believe it, ask a chinese, an arab, an african (not an "african american", rather, a REAL african), a european, and even an american woman. The honest ones with good hearts admit it and are proud of the diversity in essence (their feminine traits) conferred to men and women by God, and they don't lie, deny, or try to fight against nature, which, for those who do fight nature, it leaves them lonely.
With the right to vote, comes receiving of civil rights, from government. It also means that one must work in order to be eligible to receive a benefit under the national trust. Women get to vote, but those who haven't thought it out, have traded a position of privilege in the Western world that was a far higher position than women anywhere. In so doing, they've aided and abeted the enemy by helping them take down our system. One must admit, our enemy is very coy, using our own women against us. We set up our gov to insulate women. They were the most protected of all. Had to be that way, because we loved them.
But it's also Darwinian, because the dumb women don't get good men, and won't have good babies, but will rather spawn useless trash (in genereal, but there are always exceptions) that can never amount to anything because the parents are of the type that want to stuff orifices more than they want to devote themselves to jack and jill. Ever notice that the kids that "women's libbers" have (usually adopted, since no sane man would ever do the act with such types) nearly always turn out neurotic ? They get it from their parent.
Civil rights are probably ok, for women who can't find a man, or who don't really like men. That's ok too, nature does make errors, especially when people are injected with mercury in vaccines, fluoridated in their water etc., you get more freaks in society when you poison the people from a young age, and its only equitable that the resulting freaks should have civil rights too.
"With the right to vote, comes receiving of civil rights, from government. It also means that one must work in order to be eligible to receive a benefit under the national trust."
I disagree that one had to follow the other, V.
The right to vote recognizes that women should have a voice in group decisions regardless of whether they can contribute via "work," not in exchange for work. It was a reasonable response to the admission that some women will not be protected by reasonable men -- as you put it in the last paragraph of your post, "for women who can't find a man." Widows, orphans, cripples, women who marry imperfect men, infertile women, transients pushed out of their homes/tribes by war or famine/drought -- they've always been at risk for being cast off and rendered beggars.
The establishment of taxation for the purpose of funding state hand-outs is a whole separate historical thread, by my reading of it. Seeds were planted by Teddy Roosevelt and his ilk and then FDR brought it to fruition. Perhaps you can knit the two together further back but in the U.S. I see the creation of the national trust as you call it an elitist power grab at bottom--old money family with a high opinion of itself found a way to generate populist appeal by "taking from the rich and giving to the poor." This proved so easy that subsequent generations of pols piled on, now pigs like Murtha dare do it right out in broad daylight. Communism played into it by the 30s but that was more the intellectual class than the political class. Not that the former didn't influence the latter, but the pols are opportunists like all parasites; Communism just helped to soften the host.
The suffragette movement was earlier, and for better or worse it tackled the problem of the widow/orphan/infertile woman in post-Industrial society. She is of little value to men--the widow in the Bible signifies the lowliest of the low. In an agrarian society she can glean the olive groves but what is she supposed to do in say Victorian London? The vote gives her a voice, at least. She may be of no value to man but she has value to G*d; she can stand on her own two feet and speak up for herself if there is nobody else to speak up for her.
The woman's suffrage movement didn't *have* to divert womens' allegiance from her menfolk to the state -- that wasn't a given, it doesn't follow logically -- the married woman can use her vote to double her husband's (and the daughter can double her father's; the mother can double her son's) -- the perversion came elsewhere.
I'm a poster child for all this myself. I married badly and will be grateful if I don't end up destitute myself one day as a result. I'd just about kill now for a man who would take pride in shouldering my load too a bit but at my age I have less & less to offer such a man. But even if I had made wiser choices years ago things still could have gone wrong and left me in this same boat -- and I'm worlds better off in America today than I would have been 150 years ago, pre-suffrage, when my choices would have been to become someone's servant or maybe run a brothel if I were canny enough. Oh, or stay with my husband and steal from him to protect our money from his wantonness, I could have done that :-P
"taking from the rich and giving to the poor." Goes back a long long time. Early 1800's in the US.
Everyone, men and women alike, are dis-enfranchised from the voting process. Those who select the candidates to be offered effectively control the election's outcome. There are certain requisites each candidate must meet, otherwise they won't even be permitted into the convention, regardless of how many people vote for them. Votes do make people feel as though they have a voice, however.
Even Men in the US never voted for El Presidente. This was to insulate the people from the national gov't, which was traditionally very small in size and power. Only later with the 17 amendment did the states effectively lose their voice in congress when senate elections were turned over to the people at large and the gov officially became a democracy. Prior to that, everything was done at the state and local levels. So, along with calling on the national gov as a watchdog to change local politics through supreme court decisions, the people have also invited the big dog into their backyards. They oughtn't complain then when the dog starts to bite and messes up the yard. The grass is always greener on the other side, but sometimes one doesn't learn how good they had it, until after it's too late.
I'm with you on that, V. -- but votes do still have some meaning locally. School budgets, school boards as one example.
Once you get up to state & federal levels, I'm not sure what the the fix is when we're dealing with a population of 300 million. There has to be a sorting process of some kind. I don't see a return to tribalism as a happy option.
As long as we have the right to vote there's always a chance we can upset the applecart at some point. I'm an optimist!
Re: the notion that we should redistribute wealth during the 1800s, I'd be interested in your sources for that, assuming you mean state-sanctioned. I was thinking in terms of the post-income tax era and the nationalization of charity. Robin Hood's been with us a long while :-)
Nah, could happen to anyone, it's always a gamble to some extent. At least you gave it a shot. I think that in any event, a failure is really a success, so long as there was an attempt.
Home
Speaking of Sheep.. 
V... You Should Really Spend Some Time In The Hood.4 by UserX
5 year
1,482
Re: 
