Author Topic: 100 Years Ago Today the Seeds of Our Inevitable Destruction Were Sown  (Read 1493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101077483







1913 was a truly horrific year!

* 16th Amendment - Direct income tax
* 17th Amendment - Democracy butting its way into the Republic by starting the popular election of Senators
* Revenue Act of 1913 - Gave us the IRS, and our sphincters have never been the same since
* Federal Reserve Act - Giving us the Fed and all the Neo-Keynesian fiat manipulation and sundry puppetry we suffer under today
* Kingsbury Commitment - Deal between AT&T and the Fedcoats to allow telephone monopoly with certain conditions...I suspect this is when tapping on citizens was first made easier to do
* Wheatland Hop Riot in CA - The IWW agitators...more socialist union asshattery just got worse and worse as time went on
* Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913 in DC - With all due deference to the ladies...7 short years later the 19th Amendment was passed and while I am not opposed to ladies voting, I think the voting would have been better as it was initially in the early days of the Republic, and a requirement that only property owners (clear title) could vote should have been the only hard requirement along with valid citizenship...if ladies owned property I would have no problem having them vote.  But the road to populism and democracy has done as much if not more damage to the fabric of the Republic.

Anyway, 1913 was a dark year...we are seeing its sins all around us today.

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/nuclear-explosion-chemical-reaction.jpg
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: 100 Years Ago Today the Seeds of Our Inevitable Destruction Were Sown
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2013, 12:41:51 PM »
[
* Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913 in DC - With all due deference to the ladies...7 short years later the 19th Amendment was passed and while I am not opposed to ladies voting, I think the voting would have been better as it was initially in the early days of the Republic, and a requirement that only property owners (clear title) could vote should have been the only hard requirement along with valid citizenship...if ladies owned property I would have no problem having them vote.  But the road to populism and democracy has done as much if not more damage to the fabric of the Republic.


Nope. Shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ann Barnhardt convinced me Its effects are far more reaching than simply voting because women, especially single women,  by their nature, will vote for surrogate husband. This basically breaks the substructure and promise of the family, lets men off the hook and deteriorates the non-governmental institutions required for a moral society to survive.

No. I fully recognize that isn't "fair" and that women are not property, and ,  according to my own principles and beliefs should have a voice.  That they should be equal before the law.  But, you see folks, women are NOT equal to men. They are DIFFERENT, and different in ways that quite frankly need to bar them from participation in government. 
Yes, there are sentient thinking women, and those that are, know full well that the majority of women ARE NOT. If there were a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, I would be all for it.  But I hardly understand women now, so coming up with a foolproof way to do that is certainly beyond me.  But I do know this - They are "emotional beings" as well known "Misogynist" and creator of my Avatar's Character ,  Dave Sim will tell you...

Quote
It wasn't communication in any meaningful sense of the term as I understand it. It was a kind of “emotional badminton.” I acted happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was her turn to act happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was my turn, etc. She might accidentally say something interesting where I could, with sincerity, say that I found what she had just said interesting. This temporarily escalated the level of her cheerfulness but, alas, that is all that it did: whatever was being said ranking a very distant second to maintaining and escalating the level of cheerfulness. A very, very distant second. I realized that this is where the “henhouse cacophony” originates. If “communication” within a group of women is working properly (as women see “working properly”) everyone should be talking faster and faster and faster and in a higher and higher musical range – either portraying themselves or being (the two states being deemed interchangeable in the female world) cheerful, more cheerful, “cheerfulest” – until, maximum cheerfulness having been achieved, a glass breaks or something.

A Sentient, thinking women will read that and think - yeah, that is exactly why I find the company of other women trying and have tended to hang out with men all of my life. But back to Sim

Quote
That was when I realized that women are emotion-based beings. “Once a thing is seen, it can't be unseen.” I gave a couple of more tries at relationships after that (a year-and-a-half and three-and-a-half years respectively) but it was really like solving a “brain teaser” after someone has given you the answer. You know – one of those puzzles where you are supposed to “make three triangles by connecting the dots using only seven lines” (or whatever). It can drive you insane for a month, but if you look in the back of the book, or if someone shows you how it's solved or you figure it out on your own, there is little entertainment value to be had in endlessly drawing those same seven lines to make those same three triangles. Likewise, there is little in the way of intellectual value to be derived from revisiting – either mentally or “in person” the simple fact (once discovered), that women are emotion-based beings and that (consequently) any female-centred or female-originated political movement – more precisely, “political” “movement” – will lack sound intellectual footing. Hence, my billing of “Tangent” as “my last word on gender.”

And I am sure that will offend. However, it is, as much to my dismay as to yours, TRUE.  Or true enough that it must be considered so for most purposes. Sim will tell you its all women, and yeah, I have seen it in all women. Not always in ways or situations that are relevant, or as painful as Sims makes it seem. .  However,  Since Political movements are by definition MASS MOVEMENTS, the disposition of individual women even if not so afflicted is irrelevant. Any mass movement in which females are the main participants will , of necessity, will lack the common sense needed to yield a good result, because most women aren't after truth, they are after this "maximum happiness glass breaking effect"

And for those who may be inclined to argue, I quote more Dave Sim

Quote
In the arena of intellectual opinion, when it comes to these hard questions, asking Dave Sim, “Why do you hate women so much?” is irrelevant when my subject is feminism's lack of sound intellectual footing. It is irrelevant whether I hate women. It is irrelevant whether I love women. It is irrelevant whether I consider women in any emotional context whatsoever, just as – when my question is directed toward feminism's lack of sound intellectual footing – it is irrelevant whether I hate ice cream, whether I love ice cream or whether I consider ice cream in any emotional context whatsoever. All That Is Relevant, when the issue at hand is my contention that feminism lacks a sound intellectual foundation, All That Is Relevant, Germane and/or Pertinent is the intellectual foundation – or lack of same – upon which feminism rests.

Walking away is not relevant. Rolling one's eyes theatrically is not relevant. Snorting derisively is not relevant.

It seems to me that after thirty years, all thinking people must be coming to realize that these reactions – far from constituting a defence of feminism – lead, inescapably, in the contrary direction: lead, inescapably, to the fact that feminism has no sound intellectual foundation: that, in fact, feminism has only its own rapidly dwindling momentum and the sheer gall, chutzpah, nerve and inherent unreasoning contrariness of its perpetrators as its foundation, as its sole line of defence, as its single raison d'etre and as its solitary rationale.