slug.com slug.com
1 1

Carl Benjamin @carlbenjamin

Another CNN reporter being a CNN reporter in Afghanistan.

Notice how there is no resistance from her whatsoever. If a man in America had said this, she be outraged, but when the Taliban say it, she just bows her head.

[gettr.com]

And that is why you don't let women vote. They produce feminist run shithole countries like most of the west is right now. And when Taliban types come to visit Europe and America, Europe and America will need strong men to defend the women and children, not weak men and dumb feminists and big incompetent and corrupt nanny state with the likes of Pelosi and DeBlasio and Biden in the office.

Krunoslav 9 Aug 17
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

There is some truth to that. Traditionally, fathers have an outward looking role while mothers tend to the internal family. But, removing women from politics would be a loss I think (my wife is currently running for a local political position). With the understanding that much of the left is built on broken people that have made poor life choices, if we could encourage a more wholesome culture, a lot of the Left's base would be removed.

Well, I'm against women and men voting, because if you really think about it, it is identity politics. Men and or women, tells you nothing of the individual. Anymore than blacks, whites etc.

Originally in Athens in Ancient Greece, about 10% or so people got to vote, because there were qualifications one needed to meet. You had to be male, 18 years or over, serve the military duty and if I'm not mistaken , own property. That way, a person would be deeply invested in protection of the, than city state. And so only small percentage of people got to vote and in direct democracy in a relatively small place like Athens back in those days that was somewhat possible. Still of questionable efficiency.

Pretty soon concept of republic came about. Unlike in democracy, in a republic people vote for their representatives. When founders of United States were thinking about all this, they modeled their new country on republican model and very few got to vote. About 6% originally.

Timeline of voting rights in the United States

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States. The timeline highlights milestones when groups of people in the United States gained voting rights, and also documents aspects of disenfranchisement in the country.

1789 - The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population). However, some states allowed also Black males to vote, and New Jersey also included unmarried and widowed women, regardless of color. Since married women were not allowed to own property, they could not meet the property qualifications. - Georgia removes property requirement for voting

[en.wikipedia.org]

It is not hard to see that as the voting rights increases, what happens? Corruption goes up, goverment gets bigger, more regulations, and standards go down.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse ( willingness to give money, or money given to poor people by rich people) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 300 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

“Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.” ― Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

Let us nor forget, women's right to vote was discriminatory. Was it not? Men had to go to do military service in case of war and would be allowed to vote, women got voting rights with no military draft requirements. Why? Because some politician saw an opertunity to get elected if he promises women free ride. And what is the trend since than? Look around you. More people with no investment in the community or country vote to give themselves more money from the public treasury, and more and more laws are passed to make people dependent on the nanny state, and women are likely to marry the goverment and not their husbands. Since they can use the force of goverment to force ex-husbands to pay for children, to pay alimony and lose custody of children. That is if they don't kill the children first. Meanwhile and more and more children are growing up with no father and psycho mothers. If they even survive coming out of the womb.

Meanwhile politicians more and more corrupt simply bribe people with other people's money. You vote for me, I'll give you wealtfare money or pass this and that laws. It does not take a genius to see where that is going.

And that is how you get to current state of affairs in many western countries. It went from lets give women right to vote? what's the harm. to Lets import millions of illegal aliens and make them all citizens and give them right to vote so we can stay in power. Signed---- Biden.

Meanwhile, a piss poor group of mountain men with old rifles are chasing away the biggest military in the world and telling women from CNN to stand in the corner. Any nation that allows women or men simply because they are men or women, and especially women to vote, is doom to fail. This is not an opinion, its a clear history pattern.

If a country will keep democratic process, it must ensure that people who vote are not going to commit cultural and national suicide for personal gain.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.... A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ― Thomas Jefferson

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action. Democracy is not a synonym for justice or for freedom. Democracy is not a sacred right sanctifying mob rule.” ― Terry Goodkind, Naked Empire

“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” ― Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America, from 1901 to 1909

" (my wife is currently running for a local political position). "

Can you tell me why is she running? Also you said; "removing women from politics would be a loss I think" A woman politician is a loss of a woman mother. A woman CEO is a mother lost. You lose to many mothers you lose a nation .

Feminist used propaganda ; women can have it all. No they can't.

Additionally, in the hard times when hard moral choices need to be made. I'm yet to see a woman politician who stood her ground. Women simply because of evolutionary reasons tend to compromise. And if the other side pushes hard enough they compromise and that is not what I want from a leader. It might work in peace time, but in war or hardships. I'm yet to see a woman who stood her ground. Look at women in leading political positions in Europe and disastrous decisions they made across the board. Especially on the topic of migrants and terrorism. Look at all the male feminists, they all failed miserably when it takes courage to make hard moral decisions and carry them out.

Women are good an nurturing and they are needed in that area, now more than ever. Men are good at protection and providing for family. When you try to reverse those natural tenancies , you end up with giant mess. Much of the west have been feminized to the point of not even considering that women should not be doing men's jobs any more than men should be doing women's job. For much of the world the west is obviously weak and its clear why. Once along ago they let people who had no investment in the preservation of the country vote. And it was the beginning of the end.

Democratic process is neutral, It is not what is often propagated. a moral superiority. The notion of democracy is thinking that if people are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely. And it simply is not so. Standards and interests and abilities matter. Equality is a false notion that leads to suicide of the west. Even the once supportive women of feminism, are realizing that instead of promise of utopia, everything ended up worse than they could imagine. Even second wave feminists will say this, reluctantly.

@Krunoslav - my primary concern for limiting voter access is "Who is given the power to limit someone else's ability to vote?" A form of the old "Who will guard the guards?"

Landownership can be restricted and push us into a lord and serf system. The lords of the land would manipulate the laws they would then control to restrict the distribution of land to the lower class.

Military service can be denied to some and would push people into serving for reasons other than strict volunteering (expect military desk jobs for children of powerful families).

I've considered limiting suffrage to only those who are not dependent on the state (those who pay taxes and receive no benefits). But, this too can be manipulated. Consider that here in the US, all but the very rich receive Social Security.

Limiting suffrage by sex seems to me to be fair and resistant to manipulation so I'm open to the concept. As I said, the husband's role is exterior and appropriately applied to the state's affairs and I can see the advantage of that side. The loss, in my mind, would be the use of women to perform political positions. And, at this point, the presentation of a seemingly illiberal restriction to suffrage. I don't see a strong historical connection between women's suffrage and national failure. I would link the failure of a moral system to the rise in corruption and less to voting access.

As for democracy, the best democracy is the free market where votes are cast with money and services and goods are sold to obtain votes.

My wife is running for a local township position because she feels a need to be politically involved in an impactful way.

@RobBlair my primary concern for limiting voter access is "Who is given the power to limit someone else's ability to vote?" A form of the old "Who will guard the guards?"

If voting system is implemented than voter access must be based on the contribution and investment in the preservation and prosperity of the nation. Land ownership. Tax paying. Military service. Some involvement in local community with measurable positive outcome. etc.

If there is nothing invested and or exchanged for voting access than voters will vote for wrong things and politicians will bribe the voters with other people's money. So whatever kind of voting access system is used, it must minimize and discourage that and maximize and promote merit based contribution system. Not of money contribution, but of values that are promoted. Lefty value system is easy to disqualify since its based on subjective feelings and not objective positive outcome.

@RobBlair "Limiting suffrage by sex seems to me to be fair and resistant to manipulation so I'm open to the concept. As I said, the husband's role is exterior and appropriately applied to the state's affairs and I can see the advantage of that side. The loss, in my mind, would be the use of women to perform political positions. And, at this point, the presentation of a seemingly illiberal restriction to suffrage. I don't see a strong historical connection between women's suffrage and national failure. I would link the failure of a moral system to the rise in corruption and less to voting access."

Well as I've mentioned, Limiting suffrage by sex I think is a bad idea because its identity politics. It does not tell us anything of the individual. I'm against either sex voting if sex is the only measurement.

In the old days women were not allowed to vote, and men were not allowed to vote. Some men were because of mainly military service and land ownership. I'm ok with women having the same right to vote in exchange for their contribution to society, but you can't send women to military, that is suicide, and if you have women property ownership its tricky. Since it can be inherited and we yet again do not know about the individual. In the old days, when someone did inherit the land, it was a fair bet that their father was also in the military. So there was a linkage to military service and role of a provider.

Men fall apart when they are not allowed to be providers and protectors and you do that when you make women do men's work. That is what happened in the western countries. And its a civilization suicide in the long run. So I would not think in terms of "equality" but in who is best for what role. Based on our evolutionary past. Men are best as protectors and providers so I would reword and encourage that and make room for it in society. And women are best at nurturing next generations and so I would encourage and reward that and make room for family units.

If individual men and women want to do secondary type activates in society, I would encourage that as well, not as replacement but as addition to primary duties. This is how our societies have evolved to function because we humans have evolved to function like that. When other models of society have been tried, they worked of the momentum at first, but they always ended badly, because it does something that makes little sense. It takes the weakness of people and tries to use that instead of straights of people in its society. This is off course mostly done to rule the society or from adoption of some destructive religion like communism. Millions of people dead and suffering in the 20th and even 21st century should be clear evidence it does not work.

@RobBlair " I don't see a strong historical connection between women's suffrage and national failure. I would link the failure of a moral system to the rise in corruption and less to voting access."

How should I put it. Women who vote simply because what is between their legs, are not required to make any other investment in society and so what do they do, they vote for larger state and more "liberation" at the expense of everyone else, including future women. The connection should be pretty obvious.

Think of it like this....

When the society turns its back on family unit than society cannot function as a family unit. And it starts to tear itself apart. American is an example of what identity politics can do to a society. There are other economic factors and historical reason for America being what it is and going downhill, but identity politics has speed up decline.

“The patriarchal authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the revolutionary processes of latter-day matriarchy (economic independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom, making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of economic subjugation. From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed. In terms of patriarchal demands, the innocent sensuousness of matriarchy appears as the lascivious unchaining of dark powers. The Dionysian becomes "sinful yearning," which patriarchal culture can conceive of only as something chaotic and "dirty." Surrounded by and imbued with human sexual structures that have become distorted and lascivious, patriarchal man is shackled for the first time in an ideology in which sexual and dirty, sexual and vulgar or demonic, became inseparable associations.”― Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism“

Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother.” ― Camille Paglia, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism

“As Baskerville points out, wherever fatherhood is discarded or diminished, we find “impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies.” Taking on the role of proprietor, the state becomes the father under such “matriarchies.” According to Baskerville, “Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.” Quite naturally, the state has an ever-increasing reason to intervene in such a society – and inevitably, in the economy. What many defenders of capitalism have failed to understand is the connection between paternal authority and the free market. They have failed to understand that the erosion of patriarchy signifies the rise of a leviathan state (i.e., ever increasing government controls on the economy, and socialism).” ― J.R.Nyquist“Teaching a boy to be a man is the primary job of a father.”― Clayton Lessor MA, LPC

“But though direct moral teaching does much, indirect does more; and the effect my father produced on my character, did not depend solely on what he said or did with that direct object, but also, and still more, on what manner of man he was.” ― John Stuart Mill, Autobiography

“The importance of fatherhood in our society is gravely underrated; the damage of fatherless generations is upon us.” ― ALLENE VANOIRSCHOT, Daddy's Little Girl

............................................

Liberalism and feminism lead to liberation of everything at the expense of everything else. And it start when one can vote for no other reasons than being of particular gender. And women are particularly problematic in this regard because of ideology like feminism. Liberalism and feminism is a potent combination.

“AFTER THE ORGY”

"I have a vision for the future where all the necessary sex education will be available for everyone. . . . No one will ever go hungry for sex because there will be sex kitchens all over town serving sex instead of soup. . . . We will learn how to use orgasm to cure disease as some of the ancient Tantrics and Taoists did. . . . In the future, everybody will be so sexually satisfied, there’ll be an end to violence, rape and war. We will establish contact with extra-terrestrials and they will be very sexy." - Annie Sprinkle, (1996) an American sex educator, former sex worker, feminist stripper, pornographic actress, cable television host, porn magazine editor, writer, sex film producer, and sex-positive feminist, which now identifies as ecosexual.

"If it were necessary to characterize the state of things I would say that it is after the orgy. The orgy is . . . the explosive moment of modernity, that of liberation in all domains. Political liberation, sexual liberation, liberation of productive forces, liberation of destructive forces. . . . Today everything is liberated . . . we find ourselves before the question: what are we to do AFTER THE ORGY?" - Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) a French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer in The Transparency of Evil (1993)

Contemporary attitudes toward sexuality and its liberation—what Jean Baudrillard has aptly dubbed the “culture of premature ejaculation.” This is a culture rooted in an imagined dialectic of “repression” and “liberation,” or the belief that our sexuality has been suppressed and denied by prudish Victorian values and that we must now free our sexuality through hedonistic enjoyment:

Ours is a culture of premature ejaculation. More and more, all seduction . . . disappears behind the naturalized sexual imperative calling for an immediate relation of a desire. . . . Nowadays one no longer says: “You’ve got a soul and you must save it,” but “You’ve got a sexual nature and you must learn how to use it well.” . . . “You’ve got a libido and you must learn how to spend it.”

Yet this leaves us with the troubling question of just what is there left to do “after the orgy”—after every taboo has been violated, every prohibition transgressed, and every desire satiated.

― Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion (2003)

............................................

Daisy Cousens: The Sexual Revolution Destroyed The West

The sexual revolution is portrayed in popular culture as one of the crowning glories of Western civilization; a triumph of female sexual empowerment. But has it really benefitted the West? Is patriarchy to blame for the decline in female happiness from the 1970s to now, or do the cultural foundations that forced women to behave like men have more to do with it than feminists let on?

@RobBlair "As for democracy, the best democracy is the free market where votes are cast with money and services and goods are sold to obtain votes."

But it tells you nothing of morals, especially shared moral values in society. When you make it material only, you end up with same problems. Golden rules. He who has the gold , makes the rules.

"My wife is running for a local township position because she feels a need to be politically involved in an impactful way."

What would be her moral and political convictions? What would be to her wrong in her local community that needs her intervention to make an impact?

@Krunoslav - I have no problem disagreeing with most tenets of "Feminism." The idea that women and men are interchangeable is both absurd and contrary to the joys of life.

Historical examples of societies with women's suffrage is very limited. However, one of those examples is the US. Certainly, there is a downward trend, but assigning that solely to women's suffrage while ignoring the inordinate success, is inappropriate.

Perhaps re-establishing the joys of life that come with traditional family roles will reverse the downward trend.

@RobBlair Well the model of societies with women's suffrage is something many European countries have adopted after WWII and results were predictably bad in each of the Western European countries. Large welfare state. Weak standards. Lefty ideologies.

Scandinavia is feminist run. Disaster. UK same thing and same problems. Germany, same thing and same problems. France, Italy,etc. Spain and Portugal have only recently entered this field, but same pattern is seen. Eastern Europe has been under communism until the fall of Soviet Union and has adopted a different kind of liberalism, a more traditional kind, so it did not suffered complete breakdown yet, but swollen wealth-fare state is very much a guarantee that it will sooner or later.

To be honest, I have a hard time finding any success in women's suffrage. I don't see any trend that women's vote contributed that was not by and large geared to bigger goverment, bigger welfare state, disproportionate laws changes in favor of lower standards, and more rights, not duties, but rights for women and various minatory groups. This is not by accident, its a predictable patter if you look at it across the countries where it was implement. Various cultural differences in individual countries will have impact on it, to lesser or larger degree, but patter is predictable. Increase in nanny state instead of strong families. Socialism being in the increase. Laws favoring women instead of men, not based on merits of individuals but on their sex. Off course feminists even brought us the trans lunacy.

Attempt by feminist to gain even more political power that backfired.

Roger Scruton made a key observation, which is that feminist understood, they cannot win in direct competition with men, so in a sneaky way they saw opportunity in hijacking the language of the society and turning it into political weapon.

"As far back as 1949 the seminal feminist thinker Simone de Beauvoir made this programmatic recommendation: “Language is inherited from a masculine society and contains many male prejudices . . . Women simply have to steal the instrument; they don’t have to break it or try a priori to make it something totally different. Steal it and use it for their own good” (1972, p. 123)."

And indeed they tried to do this with sex and gender. "During the 1970s American feminists seized on the idea of gender as a social construct, and used it to hide the truth about sex as a biological destiny. By replacing the word “sex” with the word “gender” they imagined that they could achieve at a stroke what their ideology required of them – to rescue sex from biology and to recast it as a complex social choice." (December 2002/January 2003, p. 1)

This lead to creation of a monster. Trans movement which now is the enemy of the very same feminists that created it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the danger of letting politically ambitious people play with language. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Now there is something rotten in the state of Scotland: Children allowed to change gender from age 4 without parental consent.

Quite simply once you open the door for people with no merit or investment in the culture and nation to vote themselves in power, you have opened a Pandora's box with no end.

Would the activism we see today, all across the west by the trans lobby, feminists etc. be such a big industry if those that could vote had to earn their right by demonstrating loyal interests in the preservation of the nation? I don't think so. Lets not forget the women's suffrage was tarted by middle upper class, well off women who were politically driven activists. They were not oppressed and they did not care about women . they cared about their own political influence. And people who approved it were either short sighted or have seen it as a way to gain votes simply by using other people's money and achievements to secure thier own position.

And that is another problem. Lack of consequences in democracies. You can do as much damage as you want, and at worse you don't get second term . In the past you would lose a head for doing damage. And so corruption soon becomes encouraged and institutionalized by the system and people who should have interests against them were outvoted by those who were granted power not on merit but on political alliances.

And that becomes the double helix spiral of self destruction over time. It is a pattern we see across the west. All civilizations have a particular lifespan, regardless of their political system because of human nature. But if we can say that one system is bad and proven to be bad , we should be able to say that current system of voting is proven to be more destructive than constructive as well. And we should not promote it, but correct it. Off course concept of "we" is an illusion. There is no collective we. In the end there are those small minority in position of power that make the rules.

@Krunoslav - only 2 things - what is the control group to compare the feminization of Europe against? (the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, or sim)
Pragmatically, how would a merit based voting system be administered? (It could be argued that China has a merit based voting system)

@RobBlair What do you mean by control group? You mean the opposite reference? Well, look at what caused the breakdown of society. It was the breakdown of families. And who is discretely responsible for that. Feminist policies. Without a family unit you cannot have a society.

Nazis were one of the most brutal regimes in history, killing men , women and children. But not their own. Communist ever the most destructive to families, but even they did not go as far as communist manifesto suggested as complete destruction of family unit as a concept. They did destroy their own people and families since its communism, but they did not destroy the family unit. Even they understood that would be the end. Soviets try to curate the family units as they tried everything and CCP try to limit family units with one child policy. But even the two most brutal regimes in history did not try to abolish it. But western communists , they openly say they want to destroy family units. Nuclear family and they are trying to do this with abortion, divorce laws, demonetization of men and boys, even pretending men and boys or women even exists in their post humanist religion. It is by far the most radical of all religions and its communism on steroids. Since that is its origins.

Saudia Arabia, Vatican, all major religions understood and valued family because it was the future. They will try to control it but not abolish it. They are not that crazy.

I'm an anti Nazi, Anti communist Atheist. I'm not religious. But its hard to look at monarchies, theocracies based on traditional religions and compare it to modern so called secular religions of the left , after French Revolution.

Nothing is as destructive as modern people's state. Liberalism by itself is not as destructive, but because of its origins its can only lead to some form of communist rule. It is build into its political DNA.

Ideally the best system is classical conservatism. Which is essentially like classical liberalism + wisdom of tradition and traditional values, especially in regards to family. But conservatism is to reactionary and to passive to survive simply on the merit of its arguments. Because unless you are capable of great violence, you are not peaceful , you are harmless. And everyone knows that about conservatives that come out of English tradition.

In the end, monarchy would be the best system if other monarchies were also established. Quite simply because there is a natural selection involved. Good kings defeat bad kings and force improvement of kings by natural selection. And if kings are not defeated by external forces they are defeated by internal rivals. In modern democratic system of republics, when politician is in office is a license to steal. At worse he is not elected for another term, and at best he gets personally rich. By connections he makes in office he can get jobs later. In the past as kings, you would be killed or worse, and so fear of punishment and competition kept kings from committing mass murder.

No wide scale massacre during monarchies or theocracy comes even close to modern nation states and their regimes, namely communism in its many forms and nazism. And Nazis despite their factories of death and at one point killing 6000 jews per day in gas chambers still are no where close to communist regime that are more wide spread, more people died and still endure.

To give you some context. The infamous Spanish Inquisition.

So, if we limit the discussion to official executions during the Spanish Inquisition, experts today seem to place the total number in a range between about 3,000 and 10,000. A further 100,000 to 125,000 probably died in prison as a result of torture and maltreatment, but these went largely unrecorded in the records of the Inquisition. (The separate Inquisition in neighbouring Portugal resulted in fewer deaths) [Pérez, 2006, p173 and Rummel, 2009, p62]. Henry Kamen is one of the world's leading experts on the Spanish Inquisition. He concludes that:

We can in all probability accept the estimate, made on the basis of available documentation, that a maximum of three thousand persons may have suffered death during the entire history of the tribunal.

Established 1 November 1478
Disbanded 15 July 1834

By comparison Communists are estimated to have killed over 100 million of their own people.

So you see, while a person might enjoy greater standard of living under liberalism or even more freedom, liberalism inevitably leads to some form of communism and that is far more deadly than anything that came before French Revolution because the idea of modern nation states, the people state has that kind of nasty nature. Because there is such a high price to pay, you want to be very very careful who you give rights to vote.

Originally founders of United States of America were very afraid of tyranny of the majority and so they limited themselves to republic, not democracy and even in republic voting rights were very limited and there was attempt to limit power of the goverment as well, by checks and balances.

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

If voting is a way to keep it, than you want to keep once close eye on voting rights and the other close eye on the duties of the voters. You don't give those rights for free or the republic will be lost.

How do you give rights to vote. Simply, by merit and by usefulness to the preservation of the healthy republic. If its more destructive than constructive to the the preservation of the healthy republic you rank it lower and if its more constructive than destructive you rank it higher. Simple.

There are many other tings I could point out to but I'll just leave this:

Roger Scruton: How Socialism got Repackaged into Human Rights

@RobBlair

"Humankind has long since become accustomed to the mass destruction of those identified as enemy combatants—and the enslavement of others taken in war. In the past, millions have been put to the sword arbitrarily, because of their ethnic origin or their religious convictions. But it was the twentieth century that managed to bring even more capriciousness and inhumanity to the mayhem. By the mid twentieth century, mass murder came to typify an entire class of political regimes.

Even before the coming of the Second World War, millions of citizens were destroyed by those who governed, even though their rulers were nominally at peace with everyone. Untold numbers were threatened with “shunning,” incarceration, expulsion, or death—because of membership in a proscribed class, ethnic, or religious community. However prepared those threatened might have been to abandon those identities—to become whatever wished by those who ruled—that possibility was foreclosed. Those afflicted with “counterrevolutionary class consciousness” could do little, if anything, to have themselves restored to good favor. Those so unfortunate as to have “bourgeois”— landlord or capitalist—backgrounds were denied schooling or employment, and were often marked for destruction. Rulers sometimes sentenced them to thankless labor, exiled them, transported them, incarcerated them, and often, if not always, killed them. Finally, those deemed members of a scorned race or despised class could do very little to earn tolerance, much less security. Minimally scheduled for abuse, many, if not most, were ultimately consigned to martyrdom.

In the twentieth century, hundreds of millions of human beings suffered unnatural deaths at the hands of those who governed them. Of course, mass murder has not been unique in history, but its sanction by public rationale—providing motives to rulers, and influencing the behavior of masses—may well be. That such a rationale licenses the systematic destruction of entire groups within a community at peace, contributes to the enormity.

That such homicidal public enterprise has behind it the persuasiveness of moral counsel, the force of law, and the power of the state, renders its enormity almost incomprehensible. In such instances, the murder of those the state is expected to protect is not rndom, but governed by principle, and facilitated by carefully contrived organization. Murder on such scale, supported by public endorsement, and employing public instrumentalities, must necessarily engage the overt or tacit participation of large segments of the community—so that virtually all are made complicit. In substance, in the twentieth, humanity has experienced a century in which governments have sponsored, sanctioned, and created special facilities for the mass destruction of innocent lives. It has engaged almost everyone in the doing. All of which makes the mass murders of the twentieth century perhaps unique in history."

  • Totalitarianism and Political Religion An Intellectual History, 2012 by A. James Gregor

Say what you will of the traditional oppressive regimes, but chances of being killed by your own are far less in those than in modern regimes that came after French Revolution. Statistically speaking.

And Its important to understand why. Its because of the way modern nation state, the people state is structured. It opens doors for the kind of horrors never seen before. I don't call that progress, I call it regression. Instead of dismissing the past form of rule, perhaps we can study them to learn why they did not kill millions of their own people.

There are things that have been good for average citizen in open market, classical conservatism or even liberal type society. No doubt about that. The problem is that price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and people who are comfortable take what they have for granted. And than they lose it. Plus most people do not understand the complex nature of modern systems and are easily manipulated to vote for their own downfall.

Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable.

This is very dangerous. Voting for gay marriage or trans rights or open borders or healthcare for all etc. Even women's right to vote or abortion. How many voted for it thinking they are being "progressive". And had no clue the dark places it leads to. A wise king would not do that. Even a stupid king would not do that because he would died or been replaced.

History is full of dumb or incompetent kings, but death count does not compare to modern regimes. Because the problem is in the system itself. IT lacks self correcting mechanizms.

Its not that previous kings were better than today dictators or bureaucrats, its that there were by default more correcting mechanizms. True checks and balances. Not legals ones.

@Krunoslav - control group is to illustrate the baseline for comparison. For instance, there is currently an argument in the US that our country is evil and racist. This argument points to the history of slavery and inhumane treatment of our fellow man. If the baseline is perfection, then this is indeed true. However, if the baseline is a typical European country during the same time period, then a real comparison can be made for what was done well and for what was wrong.

If we look at women's suffrage without a baseline, then every ill accomplished can be placed at the feet of that movement. However, if we compare the US to another country over the same period, say Turkey (continues to work to women's "equality" - 1985 CEDAW and 2011 Istanbul Convention), we would be able to do a more appropriate comparison.

I think much of the rise in modern mass murder is due to capabilities. Man's evil is inherent.

@RobBlair "For instance, there is currently an argument in the US that our country is evil and racist. This argument points to the history of slavery and inhumane treatment of our fellow man. If the baseline is perfection, then this is indeed true. However, if the baseline is a typical European country during the same time period, then a real comparison can be made for what was done well and for what was wrong."

That is true. Off course people making these accusations are not against slavery, they simply are frustrated they are not the slave owners. Cultural Marxist is driven by deconstructionism and postmodernism dielectric here.

In other words, find a pressure point in a society that is easy to agitate, like racial tensions and you press on it until the society is sufficiently divided to be easy pickings. In the meantime "diversity and inclusion" and CRT is big business. Easy money for race baiters and grifters. Among them there are both "useful idiots" and true believers.

.............................................

As Yuri famously put it: “[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.” ― Yuri Bezmenov

“But it would be a mistake to assume that the liberal class was simply seduced by the Utopian promises of globalism. It was also seduced by careerism. Those who mouthed the right words, who did not challenge the structures being cemented into place by the corporate state, who assured the working class that the suffering was temporary and would be rectified in the new world order, were rewarded. They were given public platforms on television and in the political arena. They were held up to the wider society as experts, sages, and specialists. They became the class of wise men and women who were permitted to explain in public forums what was happening to us at home and abroad. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a cheer leader for the Iraq war and globalization, became the poster child for the new class of corporate mandarins. And although Friedman was disastrously wrong about the outcome of the occupation, as he was about the effects of globalization, he continues, with a handful of other apologists, to dominate the airwaves.” ― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

.............................................

There is a an argument to be made against "all men are created equal" written by a man owning slaves, but it would come and has come from people with different intentions.

@RobBlair I regards to "equality" its a dangerous idea. Marxist idea. Never to be realized because even in communist societies there are always those that are just a bit more equal than others, isen't there?

Equality is not universal value or high moral ground, its a Marxist delusion at best, and Marxist weapon at worse. As we have seen in feminist movement, equality for board of directors of fortune 500 companies, but no equality advocates by the feminists for construction or sanitation work, is there.

Besides: “Captured by the ideological animus, both socialist and liberal-democratic art abandoned the criterion of beauty - considered anachronistic and of dubious political value - and replaced it with the criterion of correctness. …egalitarianism and despotism do not exclude each other, but usually go hand in hand.

To a certain degree, equality invites despotism, because in order to make all members of a society equal, and then to maintain this equality for a long period of time, it is necessary to equip the controlling institutions with exceptional power so they can stamp out any potential threat to equality in every sector of the society and any aspect of human life: to paraphrase a well-known sentence by one of Dostoyevsky’s characters, ‘We start with absolute equality and we end up with absolute despotism.’ Some call it a paradox of equality: the more equality one wants to introduce, the more power one must have; the more power one has, the more one violates the principle of equality; the more one violates the principle of equality, the more one is in a position to make the world egalitarian.

Liberal democracy is a powerful unifying mechanism, blurring differences between people and imposing uniformity of views, behavior, and language. But it does not require much effort to see that the dialogue in liberal democracy is of a peculiar kind because its aim is to maintain the domination of the mainstream and not to undermine it. A deliberation is believed to make sense only if the mainstream orthodoxy is sure to win politically. Today's 'dialogue' politics are a pure form of the right-is-might politics, cleverly concealed by the ostentatiously vacuous rhetoric of all-inclusiveness.

The illusion they cherish of being a brave minority heroically facing the whole world, false as it is, gives them nevertheless a strange sense of comfort: they feel absolutely safe, being equipped with the most powerful political tools in today's world but at the same time priding themselves on their courage and decency, which are more formidable the more awesome the image of the enemy becomes.

The ideological man is thus both absolutely suspicious and absolutely enthusiastic. There seems to be no idea under the sun that he would not put into question and make an object of derision, skepticism, or contempt, no idea that he would not reduce to an offshoot of hidden instincts, mundane interests, biological drives, and psychological complexes. Hence he is likely to despise reason as an autonomous faculty, to downgrade lofty ideals, and to debunk the past, seeing everywhere the same ideological mystification.

But at the same time, he lives in a constant state of mobilization for a better world. His mouth is full of noble slogans about brotherhood, freedom, and justice, and with every word he makes it clear that he knows which side is right and that he is ready to sacrifice his entire existence for the sake of its victory. The peculiar combination of both attitudes--merciless distrust and unwavering affirmation--gives him an incomparable sense of moral self-confidence and intellectual self-righteousness.”

― Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies

Recent Visitors 13

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny Liars A Look at CDC, Big Pharma, MSM & Social Media Cartel Owners SUMMARY: I like the Natural News Anti-Medical Tyranny stand.

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators