Jules Crittenden on the Obamaglow: "We get to sit back and watch the show. Gonna make the world a better place? Kumbayah, dude."
posted by Helen at 6:45 AM
Monday, November 10, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Ask Dr. Helen: Where is Conservative culture?
- The Optimistic Child
- "Hey, Mr. President, leave those kids alone! "
- Another feel-good program that will backfire
- Is the market really better under a Democratic adm...
- Looking ahead to 2010
- "It's the economy, stupid."
- "Stay positive and focused"
- Election Feeling Meter
- Jerusalem Post: "For Americans who have chosen to...
27 Comments:
I've totally tuned out of politics from last Wednesday on, especially from the MSM. It's a waste. Let them go bankrupt. I'm moving on with my life... (I'll still view a few entertaining blogs)
Javad, I am doing the same sort of thing as far as the MSM goes. What is the point? I would have canceled our local paper entirely except we use the Sunday ads to find some bargains.
Trey
I was so depressed on the 5th that I called a crisis hotline. Somehow, I was given a counselor in Pakistan. When I explained I was depressed and upset and maybe suicidal, they got real excited and asked if I could drive a truck.....that wasn't helpful.
Drudge Report,
Obama: With the election over, the U.S. must work together........
Sure enough, pal. Just like we have been doing for the last 8 years.
Apache Man - I was also feeling suicidal on the 5th-7th. Somehow I survived it, you will to.
Yeah, but.
"Watching the show" will turn into a sin of omission.
If we care about having a Federalist government, and a Constitution that protects individuals, we need to squak early, squak often.
The Media Electoral College is going to turn every last bit of flatus into a breath of fresh air.
Gotta call "nonsense", my friends.
I've been doing some pre-emptive "I told you so" pieces in my own Weblog, then I can go back and point them out. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. (I've freely done that both times it's happened.) But yes, it's a deep, blue funk.
For a vast, right-wing conspiracy, we've been doing a half-vast job. The Ultimate Evil (to the left), Rush Limbaugh, pointed out that we have it coming. After all, there are no true Conservatives, just "moderates", and they're losing elections. We have to rebuild, with true Conservative values.
I just hope there's still a country left.
smitty1e:
I disagree. Most of us should go "John Galt" in the sense of abandoning the political process, but continue to support the welfare state. At a certain point it's not possible anymore and the people will then SURELY see the light!
Apache wins the thread!
My oh myl. 8 years have passed and the nation has not done very well and so a heck of a lot of Americans voted for a big change. And got it. and so you "withdraw:" from the process? Great. The Democrats will be delighted to know this! Makes relection all the easier.
Suppose we were all fooled. Both major parties - the people I mean.
Although we are in deep doo doo as a nation, (sure happened fast as hell, didn't it? And great timing!) there is still much more that needs to come upon us before all the people cry "uncle" and accept we need to be saved. Much more division needs to arise before we collapse together in the middle, exhausted and broken, willing to accept the "savior's" plan.
You know, Hillary got screwed. I never would have voted for her, but wow, did her party shove her out the door quick. On top of that, she backed away much too quickly and much too quietly. That ain't Hillary, boys and girls.
This time, it felt "different" from the onset. I've said that 100 times if I've said it once. This time, I don't believe in coincidence. This time, I will know the Constitution well, the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments). This time, I join the NRA. I am truly wondering through the days as they wear on, is my own government become the enemy?
Believe me, no one is more surprised I am thinking this way than I am.
Fred, you are missing the point. People will not withdraw from voting, they wil withdraw from being taxed. They will make less money, tighten their belts, move funds to Grand Cayman, move to Mexico, whatever it takes to keep the addict government from getting to their money.
Then where will the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes be? The tax structure is unbalanced against the producers, the moochers and looters are in peril just when they think they have won.
Trey
I have forgotten the actual date, but most of us work well into May every year (beginning January 02) before we earn take home pay (if taxes were paid in full up front). That means anyone. Black, white, green, yellow, orange, female, male, democrat, republican. Much of the tax we pay on a daily basis is tax on money that has already been taxed.
Continuously, it is not enough. Continuously, the government wants more. The government itself has become the moocher and the looter.
They are not a good steward of money that belongs to its people, of a country that belongs to its people.
Although it may have turned sideways from Jon Kay's original intent (Steppenwolf) truly, it has become a monster that will not obey.
Fred is very aware of the "John Galt" phenomenon. He doesn't care. He wants the total collapse of the current quasi-capitalist system, to full blown Communism. The faster we go John Galt the faster we get there.
Alex--please don't speak for Fred. Full blown communism? I went to Korea 4 months after that war against communism broke out. I stayed with the anti-communism side.
fred - name, rank and serial #?
alex --
Who the hell are you to request such?
What I find problematic is the length of time involved in such things. It tends to change the perceptions that society holds.
For example: When I was a young lad in the 1970's, I remember the first classmate I had who's parents divorced. I was 9 years old and in Grade 4. By the time I was in Grade 7, there were 3 kids in my grade who had divorced. By the time I was in Grade 12, the amount had gone even higher... and then MY friends started getting married and divorced.
Today, 50% of marriages end in divorce (and this still includes marriages like my parent's, who were married for 48 years before my Dad passed away - my generation does not marry like that anymore, and thus "50%" is innaccurate for modern marriage.)
Anyway, the point is, after 30 some years of the mighty academics, MSM and politicians slowly turning up the heat on the pot of water, a significant portion of the population no longer understands what it is like to live in a society that respects the vows of marriage. Enough time has passed that society as a whole is slowly losing such concepts from its mindset.
This is problematic.
The Baby Boomer generation is really the last generation that was exposed to conservative values, and they are starting to retire, and in another 25 years or so, they will be gone, and so will all rememberance of what life was like pre-no-fault-divorce. In another 25 years, the meaning of marriage will be so incredibly redefined, that it will resemble nothing like what it was originally intended for.
The same thing happened in the 1800's and the early 1900's, in regard to Women's Suffrage.
Those opposed to Women's Suffrage at the time were MOSTLY opposed to UNIVERSAL suffrage, which is very dangerous to the hardiness of the state.
The USA is supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Nowhere did the Founding Fathers indicate that they were setting up a "democracy." In fact, Benjamin Franklin stated that they had created a Republic "in the hopes that it would keep."
If one were to go to "The Men's Tribune" (online), you can find a plethora of scanned articles & social commentaries written by people of the 19th and early 20th Century.
You can easily see that much of the arguing over women's suffrage was over the nature of the State, not about women.
A Universal Democracy leads to poor government, and everyone who studies governmental systems knows that Universal Democracy is a very, very, very poor form of government that usually commits suicide - violently.
Benjamin Franklin said of democracies that they are like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner - but liberty is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
However, due to the passage of time, we no longer can even comprehend such things.
In fact, the country that was specifically NOT set up as a democracy has been running around for the past several decades killing thousands and thousands of people in order to "make the world safe for democracy."
The people have forgotten, due to the passage of time/generations. Back in the 19th Century, it is amazing how many people of the general population understood politics and why/how their rights were derived. Why, it is almost like they recieved some schooling on the subject. Perhaps they called such classes "Civics" or something.
The same thing is happening to us today.
Over 50% of children are now living apart from their biological fathers. In another 20 or 25 years, the whole of society will have "traditional" male and female lifetime commitments completely removed from their mind-sets and will be unable to conceive of anything other than the screwy, perverted form of close relationships we are propagandized with today.
And then how does one steer society back onto the right course?
Much better to stop fighting them.
Let them win the tug of war. Let go of the rope and watch them fall ass first into the mud.
Let the Obama Marxists get their way in 4 years, rather than 20.
Make sure society sees what "the change" is really all about. It has to happen fast for society to understand the implications. If it takes 20 years, society will become accustomed to the abuses and will never know what has been happening to them.
That is pretty consistent with the goals of Fabianistic Gradualism.
The more "fighting" that one does to "preserve" the culture, the longer does it take for the Marxists to actually create significant "change." And the longer it takes, the less people realize how much they are getting screwed.
When it comes time to rebuild, I hope I am not the last man, at 85 years old, who still remembers what marriage was like before "no fault." Just like there is nary a person alive today who remembers that the Suffragette Movement was more about injecting Universal Democracy into Western Nations than it was about "women's rights." (with the intention of being able to dismantle them with Democracy). Remember, the feminist movement officially started in 1848- and at that time, landless white men did not have the vote (gained by the 1860's), nor black men (gained by the 1870's), nor men who owed debts/bankruptcies (not remedied until the 20th Century), nor Indians (also not remedied until the 20th Century). So, when "feminism" started, IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE VOTE FOR WOMEN! Because the vast majority of men did not have the vote when feminism organized itself. Feminism was about Universal Suffrage (an element of Socialism, described by Karl Marx, and used historically by both Communists and Fascists to dismantle the state).
The more that the "right" resists the "left," the longer the process takes. The longer the process takes, the less people that remain who will remember the world before Barack Obamanation, or Jimminy Carter... or, LBJ's "Great Society" which completely destroyed the Black Community.
If we would have had all the misandric laws passed over the past decades in 4 years, rather than 40, the people would be in the streets with torches and pitchforks, seeking out anyone who works in the government and giving them just retribution for trampling upon their civil liberties. But, because it happened gradually over 40 years, nobody gives a crap enough to do anything about it.
Let Barack and minions have their way. I can think of no better way to turn the masses on Obamanation than to give them what they are requesting.
The frog in the pot of water thing works pretty well when explained like you said it, rob.
Every time I punch up Drudge Report lately, the headlines reveal another moocher is born.
Panic is never cool. But now a days, one has to keep his head on purpose, as opposed to a cool head just being a natural state of things.
The Suffragette movement of the early 1900s was about equal rights (i.e., the right to vote), equal opportunity (i.e., the right to education) and equal employment (i.e., the right to work). Those women had legitimate complaints, because in a modern society there is no reason why a woman should not have equal rights, equal opportunity and equal employment. But none of those women would have advocated no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, or any sense of female superiority. They simply wanted equality and accepted their responsibilities, as women, wives and mothers, without question. I seriously doubt anyone has a problem with that.
Feminism, properly understood, is a political movement that grew out of the deconstruction mania that infested academia in the 1950s and the radical revolution of the 1960s. Problem was that most the radical males in the 60s were unrepentent sexists. So the radical females started their own movement in the 1970s.
Feminism, like Gnosticism, is best understood in its antipathy to Catholicism. In the early centuries A.D., the Church struggled to define doctrine against the Gnostic cults. Catholicism held that God is a loving father, Jesus is a merciful son, and the Holy Spirit is a redemptive force. The Gnostics argued that God is a tyrant, Jesus is not the Son of God but an aeon, a special power sent from Eternity, and there is no Holy Spirit, only gnosis, which is a secret knowledge. Because the Creation was an act of tryanny, trapping the divine spark in everything within the prison dungeon of the material world, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was sent to awaken the divine spark and through gnosis cast off the material world in order to return everything to its original spiritual and eternal existence.
In other words, they believed they had a secret knowledge--they thought they were smarter than everyone else--and that only they knew the truth. That assumed truth was the exact opposite of accepted truth. Augustine effectively refuted this heretical movement in the 4th century.
Now think feminism. Marriage is not a sacrament. No, it's a prison. A husband is not a loving partner, he's a tryant. Sex is not making love, it's rape. Pregnancy is not a blessing, it's a disease. A fetus is not a baby, it's a parasite. A child is not a gift, it's a burden.
This is nothing new. It's the same shit that's been being promulgated for thousands of years. There's always been a portion of the population that's bought into it. And I wonder if anyone else besides me can see how simple, how clever it is. All you have to do is assume you're smarter than everyone else, take the opposite and throw a fit.
That pretty much defines the anti-American element which has taken over the Democratic party--Ayers, Wright, Obama, Pelosi, Reed. They intend to tear down everything that made America great by attacking it at its foundation, by destroying the truths and principles on which it is based.
Problem is, what are they going to replace it with? I mean, if your sole intention is to deconstruct everything, what do you intend to construct in its place? Gnosticism, deconstructionism, feminism, whateverism has no answer to that question.
Obamamania is indistinguishable from the cartoon Christianity that spread in the early centuries. The Church had to clarify its doctrine, codify its beliefs, canonize the Bible, and certify certain truths, certain values and certain principles. That led directly to the establishment of Western civilization as the greatest force for liberty and equality in the history of the world.
Now that foundation is under attack by the same heretics, using the same tactics, as it was in the very beginning.
My question is this. Where is the Augustine to effectively refute this movement? He's certainly not in the Republican party.
A few days ago I was pretty down on America for the way the vote went, but I've had time to think. Sarah Palin is being attacked from the left, and seemingly, from her own party as well. This idicates fear to me. If she were a person of no consequence, there would be no need to bother attacking her, she'd just fade away. The fact that she IS being attacked gives me a glimmer of hope. I don't think the "old boys" in the GOP are going to get their act together, the young "up and commers, like Palin, are going to have to do it. If she does her homework, and she seems the type that will, she will become a "force" that will take some reckoning with. She is going to need much more vigor than has been shown by McCain and Co.. McCain's campaign was pitiful and he performed gut-less-ly. The whole GOP acted like it was coppin' a skag buzz. Asleep, standing up. The whole party needs a shake up. Out with the old, sick,lame and lazy. In with the fired up and in touch with the views of real people. Their wake up call is named Obama. Let's see what they do with it.
(about Fred's alleged service in Korea):
Who the hell are you to request such?
It was Fred who opened this line of questioning with his appeal to authority. All he needs to do is release his DOD 214 form.
We've had way too many phony soldiers, so Alex is right to express skepticism. And in my experience, someone appealing to authority has something to hide.
Pretty much the last time that worked was when I was 10 and the appealler was my mother.
Well actually, Gawainsghost, I disagree with you most vehemently, which is why I mentioned the Men's Tribune so one can go and actually read a plethora of articles that were written on the subject at the actual time, rather than regurgitating the same old hash that has been historically revised by our wonderful Gender Studies departments.
This nonsense that men have traditionally "oppressed" women is pure fiction. There is absolutely no area, in any society that has ever existed, where women have been considered less valuable than men. In fact, the ***only*** area where one can find that women were definitely treated harsher than men was in regard to their sexuality and the act of committing adultery. And there were several good reasons behind this, of which misogyny was not one of them.
Men and women are equally sexual, albeit in vastly different ways. But anyone who believes that two polar opposites can exist anywhere in the universe without also possessing equal opposite parts that counter the other, is just not paying attention to the world around them. And, just as in the way that for a man, the best way to ensure the survival of his genes is to have sex with as many women as possible, for women, the best way to ensure her genetic lineage survives is to have sex with a man, but use him for his resources while she is vulnerably pregnant or with newborn child, and then to discard that man after the child is no longer 100% dependent on the mother, and she moves on to the next male to get new genes for her very few 400 eggs, and she repeats the process with the new man. THIS is what was suppressed in women, and that is the only thing, because to not suppress this biological instinct in women (via marriage - or more directly, by fathers having custody of children instead of mothers), means that fathers won't be attached to their children... and without that, men will not be so inclined to work, to obey the law, and a host of other things. Women's natural desire for serial monogamy is anti-civilization and THAT was suppressed - for good reason, too. Have a look around.
Many of the early suffragettes did not have adequate complaints. For example: the vote. If men did not have the vote, then it certainly was quite "equal" that women didn't have the vote either.
One could also google "Thomas Dore," who actually led an armed uprising AFTER feminism had already organized. What was Mr. Dore after? The vote for men! Note how he had to pick up guns to get his point across while the oppressed suffragettes managed to get the vote by much more, shall we say, peaceful but means. I wonder how that is possible?
Also, in the British Empire, women could vote if they owned property. In fact, men nearly tripped over themselves to provide this for the oppressed ones. It was deemed that it was entirely unfair that women who were spinsters or widows and owned property, were paying property taxes but did not have the ability to vote (only tax payers could vote, remember, and tax was miniscule, as was the size of government - your vote often meant you had a say over the price of stamp, or, over national defence/the army, for which the suffragettes were certainly not clamboring for equal front line time). Anyways, the men tripped over themselves to remedy this - although, in some districts, women did have to vote by proxy.
And, feminism, and even the word feminism, was indeed officially organized in the year 1848. Before that, there was "feminism" but it was part of the Transcendentalist-Socialist movement of the early 19th Century, the generation of which Abraham Lincoln and Susan B Anthony hail from. The Transcendentalist movement itself was born of the French Revolution.
In the 19th Century, Karl Marx stated that "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx
And this is something that was studied by philosophers at the time and earlier (you know - those misogynist philosophers) - while men control the legal elements of society, women completely control the social elements of society. What women think is good, society thinks is good. This has been true all throughout history and it is still true today.
Karl Marx also pontificated that "Democracy is the road to Socialism." He full well knew that if he could give everyone the vote, they would use universal suffrage to vote away their own freedoms. Hitler even admitted that he did as much, and directly utilized Marx's methods, and boasted that he would use the tools of democracy to remove freedom - and he did.
The first shot heard from the anti-marriage movement, of which many of the suffragettes most certainly were a part of, was fired by Frederick Engels when he wrote "the Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" (that title is pretty telling), and he called the most primal class conflict that exists is that between the man and the woman in marriage, and that the husbands oppression of the wife and his use of her for his production must be abolished.
Divide and conquer, exactly as was done between the working class and the capitalists.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a female suffragette and an unapologetic female supremacist - she could be Shillary's great grandmother, as they sound exactly the same. There are numerous examples of suffragettes just like her.
Susan B Anthony, Helen Keller and so on - do some research on these suffragettes and you will discover that they were all socialists. Anthony herself made political deals with the Socialist political leaders at the time, agreeing that both would work together for socialism.
---
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040126
Susan B. Anthony held a 1905 meeting with Eugene Debbs, perennial socialist candidate in the US presidential elections. Anthony promised Debbs, “Give us suffrage, and we’ll give you socialism.” Debs shot back, “Give us socialism, and we’ll give you the vote.”
Helen Keller, well-known suffragette and advocate for the blind, became an outspoken member of the Socialist Party in 1909. She later joined the ultra-radical Industrial Workers of the World. Keller’s 45-page FBI file can be viewed here.
-----
It goes on and on.
The years from the Civil War until the 1920's were all about dismantling the nature of the State, which was a Republic, and re-inventing it as a universal Democracy, which is friendly to Socialist goals... then the Depression happened, then WWII - things that brought cultural cohesion to the people... and then soon after WWII, women & feminism again lead the charge with their control of society's social values, but this time, by dismantling the family.
If the women aren't on board, nothing happens, because men spend the vast majority of their energy pleasing those oh so oppressed women - and men have been doing this since the beginning of time.
Thus, Socialists ALWAYS appeal to women first, and the men will follow. It sucks, but there we are.
Who was it again that didn't want Sara Palin? Men or women? However, what is one of the reasons why it has already been noted that it was "much harder for Palin than for men"? Why the rampant sexism, of course. And how could this be? How could Palin be damaged by male chauvanism when men FAR outsupported her than the females? Because females traditionally do this, and always have. Men are always to blame. We were in elementary school when we were snails and tails and puppy dog tails, we are when we are so stupid that we should have rocks thrown at us, we are to blame for both Hillary and Palin not getting elected, we are to blame for oppressing women for thousands of years by not giving women the vote, even though men had the vote only a few short decades longer than women, and men consistently have used their vote to better women's position, while women also use their vote to better women's position - BUT NOT MEN'S! Gee, who woulda thunk that society would have turned into a socialist nightmare?
Also, for the education rights and other such nonsense. That is taking a cultural context of the modern day and applying it to a completely different time frame - and once again, it is not completely accurate.
Jobs were not what they are today, and neither was earning money. In fact, jobs were scarce and most people were farmers.
What you will find (even up into the 1930's) is that most often, it was WOMEN who attacked other women for going to the workplace or to get educated because in a society where jobs and resources are scarce and education expensive, while at the same time some families were hurting because they didn't even have ONE job, a two income husband and wife would have been tarred and feathered, run out of town and told never to return. Women played a very large part in their own "oppression" because it was in their own best interests to do so.
One can also read Belfort Bax, who wrote extensively about the suffragette movement in Britain, and also about the effects of society afterwards, and you will see the examples he cites from court cases involving women from the 1920's is almost of the EXACT same manner as the filth we see today. He mentions 14 year old boys being charged with sex crimes in court for having sex with a 16 year old girl who was obviously the sexual aggressor. Mr Bax noted that the instant female judges took to the bench, they instantly wanted men who hired prostitutes to be punished as the prostitute herself (because of course, the prostitute is the victim), and Mr Bax also noted that there was alwaus some mangina in the gallery who would rise and cheer "hear hear." Women control the social values remember - and men salivate to support those values to win favour with women.
Mr Bax also noted that virtually any theatrical production at the turn of the 20th century, by necessity had to hide the more vile aspects of the feminine and portray women only as angelic or as victims, with the males overwhelming the villains, despite whether this reflected reality, because if one deviated from this form, women would not approve and thus, the production would end up flopping.
My oh my, those poor oppressed dears. How did they get into so much mischief while being so utterly powerless.
Of course, modern day feminists can never look at the suffragette movement, nor the cultural context of the time with any intellectual honesty because to do so would demolish the entire foundation of their ideology: That women were oppressed my men who have an innate misogynistic hatred of females. Therefore, men MUST be disadvantaged in every regard in order to free women from the evilness of males.
To accurately portray that women also played an integral part in the shaping of the society in which they lived would instantly indicate that women were not "oppressed" by men. And in fact, anyone who examines the concepts at all will soon realize that for every area in society where a man was dominant, there was another area where a woman was dominant (as in, the law being male vs social mores being female).
But this would be no good, and many dishonest academics would lose their jobs faster than an alchemist in the Klondike.
They sure didn't need to be liberated from the Martians now, did they?
And, btw, I live in Canada and during our election last October, 41% of eligible voters chose of their own free will, me included, not to vote. And, oddly, I don't feel oppressed. My unalienable rights are my freedom, not my vote. Unalienable rights have always been afforded to both genders on an equal basis.
As for religion, the reason why religion and leftism/feminism does not mesh is because books like the Bible are written from the perspective that absolute truth exists, while leftism needs Hegel's "truth is relative" in order to effectively socially manipulate the masses into the altered reality leftists demand the people of the world live in.
This is why the underlying reason for the conflict between creationism and evolution is much more philosophical than it is religious. If creation, or intelligent design, or whatever exists, then it means that there IS a "proper" order, a right an wrong, and there are universal truths that exist despite time. And that would mean that certain things should remain the same - like the state of marriage, if it deals with a form of mankind that remains in an unevolving state where is his biological instincts never evolve.
Evolutionism, however, is THE scientific basis for Marxism. Marxism needs "truth to be relative" so that it can utilize the dialectical to manipulate the truth into whatever may be needed in order to poke, prod, or herd society into the direction of creating Marx's Utopia, or heaven on earth. In order to create Marx's perfect mankind, evolution theory MUST be correct, because Marxists believe that all things can be socially engineered into, or out of human beings.
Thus, Creationism and Feminism/Marxism/Whatever Leftysim are always at conflict, and they cannot occupy the same space, nor the same ideologies. This has much more to do with the attack on Christianity than anything else.
Well, I was referring more to the rhetorical tactics used by the Gnostics, deconstructionists and feminists. The parallels are acute and undeniable.
I R A Darth Aggie --
Nope. It was alex's accusation of communism.
"All he needs to do is release his DOD 214 form."
Horseshit. Open himself up to some ass screwing with his life? It's a form of intimidation, much like calling someone a communist if they express ideas you don't agree with.
oligonicella - nope. Way too many phony soldiers on the blog comments the last few years. Trust, but verify like Magnus Ronaldus taught me.
自拍美女聊天室 s383視訊情人主播脫衣秀微風論壇080聊天室6k情人網性感美女美女寫真影片裸體美女18成人網美女寫真影片免費觀賞777美女dvd影片kiss168下載a視訊交友90739av1688影音娛樂網kiss168成人kiss168下載kiss168成人電影ut影音視訊聊天室13077貓貓論壇台灣18成人網85cc成人片85cc免費情色影片
Post a Comment
<< Home