Post: #76

(08-06-2015 09:46 AM)TheNookieMonster Wrote:  It's a vicious cycle. The bullies (conservatives) put is in debt to fund their unnecessary wars, the bullies lose power to the pussies (leftists) who expand the welfare state (usually with debt) to appease the mass of weak people who would rather put future generations in debt than live within their means.

This analysis is weak: every major war in the 20th century (WWII, Vietnam) was started by leftists and so were all the major welfare programs (Social Security, Great Society).

In reality, leftists have been the cause behind 80% of the debt expansion in the USA as well as the destruction of the native culture.

Post: #77

On the debt and who is responsible for it:

How many "conservative" politicians have ever severely rolled back liberal welfare programs?

They all talk about it, liberals all fret about it, yet in the end it is never done.

So when they cut taxes, leave all the liberal spending projects in place, well of course our debt increases.

Which lends creedence to the idea that conservatives are useless, not really "conserving" anything, and are basically just liberals on a 10-20 year delay. They are a controlled opposition. They are the Washington Generals. Supporting Republicans in the fight against Liberalism is beyond worthless, it is contributing to our corrupt system.

Look at Obama's wars. He's back at war in Iraq again. Funding a civil war in Ukraine. Funding rebels in Syria. Destroyed Libya. Droning Yemen and Pakistan, as well as who knows where else.

Ya, what a dove.

Post: #78

(08-06-2015 10:55 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 09:46 AM)TheNookieMonster Wrote:  It's a vicious cycle. The bullies (conservatives) put is in debt to fund their unnecessary wars, the bullies lose power to the pussies (leftists) who expand the welfare state (usually with debt) to appease the mass of weak people who would rather put future generations in debt than live within their means.

This analysis is weak: every major war in the 20th century (WWII, Vietnam) was started by leftists and so were all the major welfare programs (Social Security, Great Society).

In reality, leftists have been the cause behind 80% of the debt expansion in the USA as well as the destruction of the native culture.

You're wrong on this. I stand by my original analysis.

If you mean who was in power in the US when the US was drawn into those specific wars then it's true that leftists were in power in the US. However, those wars were going on before the US government decided to get involved and the wars were started by conservatives (in the aggressive bully sense) even if some of them had socialist economic policies.

If we take a broader look at the American experience, we see that America's unsustainable debts were driven by leftist welfare state policies and conservative warfare state policies. FDR gave us the cancer of a welfare state. Post WW2 debt was at a minimum during Carter's administration but warfare state Reagan reignited the debt bubble we're still riding high on.

FDR and Reagan, the most overrated American presidents of the 20th century.

Post: #79

WW2 was in large part caused by the Russian Communists (they invaded Poland with Hitler, remember?). And the conservative movement in the USA was strictly isolationist before WW2. WW1 for America was caused by Woodrow Wilson (very left for the time).

Left has pretty much caused all the problems in the USA.

Post: #80

A bit more on Moldbug's hypothesis that modern liberalism is an evolution of American Mainline Protestantism, aka Unitarianism, aka "Ultra Calvinism"

Quote:First, ultracalvinists believe in the universal brotherhood of man. As an Ideal (an undefined universal) this might be called Equality. ("All men and women are born equal.") If we wanted to attach an "ism" to this, we could call it fraternalism.

Second, ultracalvinists believe in the futility of violence. The corresponding ideal is of course Peace. ("Violence only causes more violence.") This is well-known as pacifism.

Third, ultracalvinists believe in the fair distribution of goods. The ideal is Social Justice, which is a fine name as long as we remember that it has nothing to do with justice in the dictionary sense of the word, that is, the accurate application of the law. ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.") To avoid hot-button words, we will ride on a name and call this belief Rawlsianism.

Fourth, ultracalvinists believe in the managed society. The ideal is Community, and a community by definition is led by benevolent experts, or public servants. ("Public servants should be professional and socially responsible.") After their counterparts east of the Himalaya, we can call this belief mandarism.

...

Richard Dawkins has referred to his beliefs, which certainly include the four points above, as Einsteinian religion. Dawkins' description of this creed is poetic and extremely reminiscent of Emerson's Divinity School Address. Has he never heard of Transcendentalism? Is he unaware that Emerson was a Unitarian minister?

Einstein certainly believed in the four points as well. Did he invent them during his annus mirabilis? Did they arrive in a stroke of light along with Brownian motion, special relativity and the photoelectric effect? Probably not, because the four points also feature very prominently in a little book called Looking Backward, which appeared in 1888 and sold about a bazillion copies. The author of this novel was not a Hindu. His readers were not Zoroastrians. The political movement Bellamy helped spawn did not put its faith in Allah. And nor were any of these folks atheists, which was still quite a dirty word at the time.

In fact, the four points are very common and easily recognizable tenets of Protestant Christianity, specifically in its Calvinist or Puritan strain.

...

Ultracalvinism's camouflage mechanism is easy to understand. If you are an ultracalvinist, you must dispute the claim that the four points are actually Christian, because you believe in them, and you believe they are justified by reason rather than faith. Therefore they are universal and no one can doubt them, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...is-in.html

Interestingly, here's the Center for American Progress with a report on "The Role of Faith in the Progressive Movement":

Quote: An equally powerful strand of progressive thought emerged directly from religious values during the social gospel movement. These reformers argued that Christians should apply their teachings to public problems. American Protestant ministers and theologians during the 19th century such as Walter Rauschenbusch espoused this belief, as did politicians such as William Jennings Bryan, and settlement founders such as Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr. Catholic social justice leaders such as Fr. John Ryan and Dorothy Day pushed for similar values and religious activism, and later civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. followed suit. Many of the most prominent social movements in American progressive history would not have been possible without the inspirational values and moral authority of socially conscious Christianity and Judaism, an idea that we explore in more detail in see part three of this series, “Social Movements and Progressivism.”

Progressives working within these faith traditions applied religious morality to the task of transforming American society during the industrial age away from the exploitation of workers and toward more cooperative forms of economic life. These faith-driven progressives insisted that society and governments uphold the fundamental notion that all people are equal in God’s eyes and deserve basic dignity, freedom, political rights, and economic opportunities in life. Religious progressives promoted the notion of community and solidarity above concepts of individualism and materialism, and worked to stop unnecessary wars and military aggression across the globe.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/...-movement/

Post: #81

Further Moldbug on the question of, "Why would liberalism just be Protestantism that stopped talking about God?"

The basic answer is the U.S.'s constitutional prohibition on establishing a religion meant that if a religion wished to take over the U.S. government, it must ditch the whole "God" talk. So Puritanism/Protestantism/Universalism just did that, and the ideas were then able to take over the U.S. government as "progressivism" and not "Puritanism".

Quote:The question is: why? How did we fall for this? How did we enable an old, well-known strain of Christianity to mutate and take over our minds, just by discarding a few bits of theological doctrine and describing itself as "secular"? (As La Wik puts it: "Despite occasional confusion, secularity is not synonymous with atheism." Indeed.)

In other words, we have to look at the adaptive landscape of ultracalvinism. What are the adaptive advantages of crypto-Christianity? Why did those Unitarians, or even "scientific socialists," who downplayed their Christian roots, outcompete their peers?

Well, I think it's pretty obvious, really. The combination of electoral democracy and "separation of church and state" is an almost perfect recipe for crypto-Christianity.

As I've said before, separation of church and state is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic. What you really need is separation of information and security. If you have a rule that says the state cannot be taken over by a church, a constant danger in any democracy for obvious reasons, the obvious mutation to circumvent this defense is for the church to find some plausible way of denying that it's a church. Dropping theology is a no-brainer. Game over, you lose, and it serves you right for vaccinating against a nonfunctional surface protein.

We can see this very easily with another modern crypto-Christian movement: intelligent design. Supporters of intelligent design claim it is not Christianity at all. Rather, it is good science, derived like all science from pure reason, and the fact that it seems to resemble the Bible is (a) a coincidence and (b) evidence for how true the Bible is, after all. Therefore, like all good science, it should be taught to innocent young people.

I wouldn't want my children to go to a school where they learned intelligent design. At least not if they learned it as simply reason and reality. But I also wouldn't want my children to go to a school where they learned ultracalvinism as reason and reality.

Unfortunately, the latter is a lot harder to avoid.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...is-in.html

Post: #82

Here is Moldbug explaining his theory of The Cathedral, or The Polygon, basically the unity between our government, education system, and media. He argues that our media is far from free and controls our government exactly as a religion would. He argues that we have effectively separated church from state only to have a non-religious ideology take control of our state in exactly the same way a religion might, just without talking about God.

Quote:It would appear that the press is not part of the state. But appearances can be deceiving.

First, note how little difference there seems to be between press institutions that are nominally private corporations, and between ones that are formally state-sponsored such as the BBC.

Of course, TV networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS are the closest to the BBC, because they owe their existence to broadcasting licenses granted gratis as a public service. In the bad old days I think FDR, for example, used to renew radio licenses every year.

CNN and the New York Times enjoy so such obvious privilege. But a journalist is a journalist at any of these. Journalistic ethics are civil-service ethics, and one notices very few conflicts between the two - the Polygon hypothesis.

It strikes me that journalists who work at Western state-sponsored institutions are in a very similar situation to those at corporate ones. In both, they are or at least are supposed to be "independent" - the former from politicians, the latter from CEOs. Instead they follow their higher ethical calling or whatever.

We accept this very strange state of affairs as normal. But fictitious management relationships are not, in fact, normal.

The question to ask is: why? Why, when I have 200 cable channels, isn't one of them called something like "Confederate Racist Television"? Yellow journalism is dead - what killed it? Where does all this unanimity come from? Even the gap between Fox News and PBS is miniscule by the standards of 100 years ago.

In other words, what we have is a very mysterious unanimity, which needs to be explained. I can think of three explanations.

One is that the connections are subtler than they appear. This is the reason we insist so strongly on absolute sterility betweeen church and state - coziness can creep in. For example, the NYT does not have a broadcast license, but it does deal with various unions. It also bases many - if not most - of its articles on confidential sources, who violate their employment contracts with peculiar immunity. And of course there are various more mundane forms of "access" granted to the press. Basically, this hypothesis suggests that it would be very difficult for any publication explicitly hostile to the extended civil service to operate on any substantial scale.

A second hypothesis, which I think is closer to the truth, is that a business needs a market, and the market of intelligent readers who distrusted the Polygon - readers, for example, of the old McCormick Tribune, the Chandler LA Times, etc (actually, in general it was the newspapers that were the fiercest foes of FDR) dried up, or were at least washed away as progressives took over the higher educational system that created their readers. Instead after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed we got talk radio, which I think is generally as awful as most Brahmins say it is. The readership of the Washington Times, New York Sun, etc, is tiny, and why would it be otherwise? Journalism, in other words, looks like an unfree market because it is tied so closely to the unfree market of higher education.

And then the third hypothesis is that we simply have the power relationship reversed - it is not Tony Blair that pulls the strings on the BBC and the Economist, but the BBC and the Economist that pull the strings on that Tony Blair.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...y.html?m=1

Post: #83

[email protected] how wrong this is.

WWII was started by Nazi Germany, and their allies fascist Italy and fascist Japan. The root causes were nationalism and militarism, as was the root cause of WWI. Sure, LBJ was in charge for much of Vietnam, which was a pointless war, but it was the left that wanted out of it, and Nixon stayed in it after it was obvious to all thinking people that it was pointless. Conservatives by and large supported Vietnam as they believed communism must be contained at all costs. This position was revealed to be thoughtless the moment China invaded Vietnam shortly after the US withdrew.

Re: Debt. Lol at this as well. It just so happens that Reagan and Bush II, both Republicans, ran up large deficits in ways that were harmful to the US.

Remember too that blacks couldn't vote in the south until the 1960s, or use white water fountains. It used to be scandalous for Catholics and Protestants to marry. Elvis Presley wasn't allowed to show his hips on TV. Sex outside of marriage is much more accepted today than it was in 1955. The birth control pill used to be illegal, much less marijuana. How many of you really want to turn back the clock on these things?

(08-06-2015 10:55 AM)Samseau Wrote:  This analysis is weak: every major war in the 20th century (WWII, Vietnam) was started by leftists and so were all the major welfare programs (Social Security, Great Society).

In reality, leftists have been the cause behind 80% of the debt expansion in the USA as well as the destruction of the native culture.

Post: #84

(08-18-2015 04:24 AM)_Cicero Wrote:  [email protected] how wrong this is.

WWII was started by Nazi Germany, and their allies fascist Italy and fascist Japan. The root causes were nationalism and militarism, as was the root cause of WWI. Sure, LBJ was in charge for much of Vietnam, which was a pointless war, but it was the left that wanted out of it, and Nixon stayed in it after it was obvious to all thinking people that it was pointless. Conservatives by and large supported Vietnam as they believed communism must be contained at all costs. This position was revealed to be thoughtless the moment China invaded Vietnam shortly after the US withdrew.

Re: Debt. Lol at this as well. It just so happens that Reagan and Bush II, both Republicans, ran up large deficits in ways that were harmful to the US.

Remember too that blacks couldn't vote in the south until the 1960s, or use white water fountains. It used to be scandalous for Catholics and Protestants to marry. Elvis Presley wasn't allowed to show his hips on TV. Sex outside of marriage is much more accepted today than it was in 1955. The birth control pill used to be illegal, much less marijuana. How many of you really want to turn back the clock on these things?

A solid counterargument.
WW2 was definitely a war created by the right (specifically the 'far right', which is the pro-militarism, supremacy, absolute monarchy, and conquest faction). I'm a right-winger, but I'm not going to pretend that the right can't do any wrong. WW2 stemmed from good old fashioned 'our tribe must annihilate or dominate the other tribes' barbarity. This in turn was seeded by WW1, itself driven by a good old-fashioned 'for king and country' style desire to conquer territory and increase power. It lead to the toppling of the moron Czar Nick II by the communists (ushering in the era of socialism), and to the crippling peace terms that fueled the dissent that brought Hitler to power.

In fact the world wars have been the primary fount of leftism in the world. The Western stance on religion, race, multiculturalism, immigration etc, have all stemmed from the 'swing as far the other way from this as possible' backlash from the Nazi regime (which was as far right as Genghis Kahn, i.e. the maximum) and what it did. The remaining leftist aspects around economics, gender relations, and the family, have drawn from the massive reservoir of leftism (ideologically seeded by Marx/Engels, and physically seeded by Lenin) that was created in Asia/East Europe following the toppling of the monarchist & nationalist regimes in that region, the fuel of which came from the despair and mistreatment of the lower classes under those regimes.

The question as to 'what is the nature of the Left', is a very interesting one. My current insight is that it is probably just a cultural manifestation of humans 'faction instinct' and 'enslave/dominate instinct', rather than an independent phenomenon.

So I'd argue that modern leftism has ultimately stemmed from the actions of the more stable right-wing establishments in first half of the 20th century, who pushed too far themselves in their faction/dominate desires, breaching the peace, which seeded the new unstable leftist forms of 'faction/dominate'. But my understanding of history isn't top notch, and I'm still working this out.

Post: #85

Who actually started WWII?

England and France when they declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

The whole thing was started to stop Poland from being conquered.

And yet at the end, Poland was conquered by Communists, after the side with England and France "won".

Whoever started WWII, it was certainly won by the forces of leftism, and left the Soviet Union with a bigger empire than Nazi Germany could have hoped to create.

Post: #86

No, Germany started it. Poland was hardly going to be the last country they conquered, and alliance treaties exist for a reason. Once an enemy finishes off your friend, next they'll come for you.

Post: #87

(08-18-2015 09:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No, Germany started it. Poland was hardly going to be the last country they conquered, and alliance treaties exist for a reason. Once an enemy finishes off your friend, next they'll come for you.

You can speculate about what might have happened in counterfactuals, I can speculate that the opposite might have happened, but we don't know.

However Hitler wanted to conquer Poland and France and England declared war on Germany because of this.

Then France and England's side won the war and let Communists conquer Poland.

So democracy and communism/socialism won out over fascism. A huge victory for leftism regardless.

Post: #88

False. WW2, according to the Germans, was started by the Polish because they were massacring Germans along the city of Danzig. According to the German government, up to 60,000 Germans had been murdered before the German military invaded in self-defense.



German citizens and Poles were already fighting as a fallout from WW1. The borders created at the end of WW1 were moronic and lead to more ethnic warfare. Hitler actually appealed to Chamberlain claiming they needed to protect their citizens being slaughtered in Danzig but Chamberlain remained silent. So Hitler took it upon himself to invade Poland and rescue his own citizens. He also allied with the USSR in order to make it apparent it was not merely a war of German aggression but instead a morally righteous war of defense.

Moreover, the Polish state was heavily compromised by Communists (heavily Jewish Communists) and the Germans feared the Communists, so it was not too far of a stretch to associate Communist with the Jews.

The hypocritical British and French then only declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not Russia. Hitler then concluded the only reason the British and French declared war on Germany but not Russia was because Germany had been kicking out its Jews but Russia was run by Communist Jews.

Of course none of this is ever mentioned in allied propaganda, which is why you cannot rely on American history books if you want the whole story of WW2.

My personal take? It does seem true that Danzig citizens were being killed by Poles before Germany invaded. However, how many I do not know. I do not know if the 60K number provided can be trusted. As with all wars, the truth is probably lost beneath the violence. Still, without Communist agitation inciting the Poles to kill Germans, WW2 would have never happened so I put the blame along the left.

Post: #89

More Moldbug on "Why do rich upper-class liberals patronize lower-classes with whom they have nothing in common?"

He thinks it comes down to basically rivalry between upper-class liberals, those who make the real decisions in our country, and rednecks, who are their traditional enemies and they want to destroy. He thinks they are busy supporting every other lower-class group as a way to basically destroy their own traditional enemy.

Quote:It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as "using the barbarians to control the barbarians." Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I'd like to think it's obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins[upper class liberals] have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya[rednecks], the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it's lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they'll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you're a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I'm not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it's all working. They don't need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they're doing. And you can't exactly call it a failure.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...class.html

Post: #90

"So Hitler took it upon himself to invade Poland and rescue his own citizens. He also allied with the USSR in order to make it apparent it was not merely a war of German aggression but instead a morally righteous war of defense"

Isn't this the same guy who wrote a book about a 'liebesraum' in the east, and about how WW1 could've been avoided if jews had been gassed?
I submit that pretending that man only had good and defensive instincts, and not desires to brutally and aggressively expand, is fantasy alternative-history stuff.

Saying WW1 and WW2, the two most clearcut cases of severe social malias caused by the right (imperialism and nationalism/racism), is to dishonestly say that the right can do no wrong. Next I'll be hearing that Ghenghis Khan was a actually a peacekeeper.

Post: #91

(08-20-2015 11:34 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  "So Hitler took it upon himself to invade Poland and rescue his own citizens. He also allied with the USSR in order to make it apparent it was not merely a war of German aggression but instead a morally righteous war of defense"

Isn't this the same guy who wrote a book about a 'liebesraum' in the east, and about how WW1 could've been avoided if jews had been gassed?
I submit that pretending that man only had good and defensive instincts, and not desires to brutally and aggressively expand, is fantasy alternative-history stuff.

Saying WW1 and WW2, the two most clearcut cases of severe social malias caused by the right (imperialism and nationalism/racism), is to dishonestly say that the right can do no wrong. Next I'll be hearing that Ghenghis Khan was a actually a peacekeeper.

Saying WW1 was caused by the right is patently ridiculous when every nation eagerly jumped into the fight without a second thought. There was no left or right, everyone wanted in on the action and was looking for an excuse to fight. Even the Communists say WW1 as a chance to take over Russia, so they were agitating for a fight as well.

WW2 was a matter of Germany being raped (similar to how Europe is being raped right now) by elites for their own gain and Hitler being elected as a response by the people. It does seem Hitler used criminal tactics to take over the German government but blaming WW2 on him makes no sense in light of the available evidence. He spoke about living space but he it did not mean he was planning on invading Europe until he had a legit excuse to do so when the Poles were murdering German citizens, similar to the way illegal immigrants are murdering American citizens.

Back in those days invading another country was generally much easier than trying to be diplomatic as there was no easy way to bring attention to national issues as electronic media was far slower.

Don't get me wrong, Hitler definitely was too ambitious for his own good and losing WW2 was his fault, but the facts do not support the case that he started WW2. Before the fighting started, he was peacefully deporting Jews and trying diplomacy with the Poles. All of this you can verify.

I place more blame on the British and French, who really were content to rape Germany under the treaty of Versaille and ignore Germany's problems while people were being murdered along the Polish border. Had they been concerned with peace they should have started talks as mediators much sooner. Also them declaring war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland but not the Soviets made no sense at all and they were punished heavily for it.

Post: #92

@Samseau That's very interesting. I had no idea of these events you mention in the run-up to WW2.
In Ireland, in school we were more or less taught that Hitler was evil incarnate and he and the Nazis (aided/influenced by Mussolini) were solely responsible for the deaths of many millions, including of course several million Jews.
Although that being said, Britain was not exactly painted as 'Saviours of the Free World' either, due to the history between Ireland and Britain!
Is there any particular non-revisionist book you would recommend on this topic?
I visited the National Historical Museum in Berlin last year, their exhibition on WW2 was outstanding!
A real education and from what I could tell, relatively impartial.
Sadly, it seems to be finished now, although there still are exhibitions relating to the World Wars.
Unfortunately (and being Berlin) they also peddle some pro-LGBT type stuff as well (no chance of impartiality on this one!)

Post: #93

I recommend metapedia as a good source of "banned" perspectives on WW2.

Post: #94

Blimey, Metapedia is not liked by the mainstream!
I see they've tried to tarnish it as far right, neo-nazi, etc
In reality, this probably just means that it hasn't been whitewashed by overt political correctness like Wiipedia has, hence the hate.
Thanks Samseau, will take a look.

Post: #95

(08-25-2015 02:37 AM)amity Wrote:  Blimey, Metapedia is not liked by the mainstream!

That seems to be the signal that something might be good or correct, so maybe I'll check it out too.

Post: #96

Just to add to Samseau's point. I never learned much about the lead up to WWII while learning history in the USA. It always sounded suspect, so I didn't just buy into the Germans were mad they were behind other countries and just used the Jewish immigrants as a scapegoats. Germans are VERY intelligent people. They are not just going to behave in such a fashion for no reason.

Looking into it more, I did read what he has posted here. Also, there was a near civil war in Germany in the 1920's as the economy was in ruins from the overly harsh WWI treaty which was the real source of WWII. There were shoot outs on the streets of Germany in the 1920's between communist agitators who had moved into Germany following WWI and the nationalists who were sick of seeing their homeland be destroyed by outsiders. In the end the nationalists won the elections, and then things really started to speed up through the 1930's.

Post: #97

And the simple answer to the OP is...

Women have the right to vote.

Women are natural communist. They were biologically designed/evolved to live in the community provided by them for men and raise the babies and do the nurturing and have their petty arguments that by and large had no impact on the men as they build civilization.

Once women were given the right to vote, 50% of the voters overnight were added. Most of these 50% have no clue what goes on outside their little safe bubble provided for them by men. Now with arrests and earlier deaths, women are the majority of voters at 53% in 2012. Obama in 2012 was the first president to not win the male vote and become president.

So both parties move to the left to pander to women and their communist utopia ideals, which most men realize will never work and are only destroying western civilization.

Post: #98

(08-25-2015 04:49 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  And the simple answer to the OP is...

Women have the right to vote.

I view this as a symptom, not a cause. What could have induced men to give them such a right to begin with?

The hypothesis I've been sharing here is that the same force that caused women to gain the franchise has been in motion since 1776, or earlier, since the enlightenment. That "liberalism" and "progress" itself is at the core of all this. That expanding the franchise to every person with a pulse (hell even some without) is an unavoidable result of what we call liberalism, progressivism, etc.


You can read here some opposition to this force from even before women could vote:

Quote:The object of this work is to examine the doctrines which are rather hinted at than expressed by the phrase ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ This phrase has been the motto of more than one Republic. It is indeed something more than a motto. It is the creed of a religion, less definite than any one of the forms of Christianity, which are in part its rivals, in part its antagonists, and in part its associates, but not on that account the less powerful. It is, on the contrary, one of the most penetrating influences of the day. It shows itself now and then in definite forms, of which Positivism is the one best known to our generation, but its special manifestations give no adequate measure of its depth or width. It penetrates other creeds. It has often transformed Christianity into a system of optimism, which has in some cases retained and in others rejected Christian phraseology. It deeply influences politics and legislation. It has its solemn festivals, its sober adherents, its enthusiasts, its Anabaptists and Antinomians. The Religion of Humanity is perhaps as good a name as could be found for it, if the expression is used in a wider sense than the narrow and technical one associated with it by Comte. It is one of the commonest beliefs of the day that the human race collectively has before it splendid destinies of various kinds, and that the road to them is to be found in the removal of all restraints on human conduct, in the recognition of a substantial equality between all human creatures, and in fraternity or general love. These doctrines are in very many cases held as a religious faith. They are regarded not merely as truths, but as truths for which those who believe in them are ready to do battle, and for the establishment of which they are prepared to sacrifice all merely personal ends.

Such, stated of course in the most general terms, is the religion of which I take ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ to be the creed. I do not believe it.

I am not the advocate of Slavery, Caste, and Hatred, nor do I deny that a sense may be given to the words, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, in which they may be regarded as good. I wish to assert with respect to them two propositions.

First, that in the present day even those who use those words most rationally—that is to say, as the names of elements of social life which, like others, have their advantages and disadvantages according to time, place, and circumstance—have a great disposition to exaggerate their advantages and to deny the existence, or at any rate to underrate the importance, of their disadvantages.

Next, that whatever signification be attached to them, these words are ill-adapted to be the creed of a religion, that the things which they denote are not ends in themselves, and that when used collectively the words do not typify, however vaguely, any state of society which a reasonable man ought to regard with enthusiasm or self-devotion.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...art-4.html

Post: #99

I think the reason men gave women the vote was to stop the bitching at home. American women were probably just as insufferable back then as they are today, and men gave them the vote so they could have some peace and quiet. But their sons have paid for their beta sins.

Post: #100

(08-25-2015 01:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think the reason men gave women the vote was to stop the bitching at home. American women were probably just as insufferable back then as they are today, and men gave them the vote so they could have some peace and quiet. But their sons have paid for their beta sins.

I don't know what took place in Europe around the time of women's suffrage. My guess is the elite realized technology was freeing the peasant men and they needed another means of control over them.

I do know that women got the right to vote under Woodrow Wilson, who was not the most popular presidential candidate, but Teddy ran as a 3rd party candidate and split the conservative vote.

Regardless it still would have happened.

To answer the OP...

Technology greatly increased during the industrial age. This started to allow average men to be free from the normal toils of having a fire, cutting wood, day long manual labor and so on. So they had to find a new way to control their peasant citizen men before they started to get out the pitch forks due to having free time to realize how much they were being screwed over.

Now women have the right to vote, controlling the people, taking away their freedoms, and moving the west to the left is extremely easy.