Main/Active Blog Found At:
This is currently the back up (slowly to be updated) of the blog found here:
Thoughts On Female Suffrage And In Vindication Of Woman’s True Rights
By Mrs. Madeline Vinton Dahlgren (1871)
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”
– Robert E. Howard, “Beyond the Black River” (1935)
Interesting comment at Lawrence Auster’s View From The Right.
LA is starting to come around a little in regard to female hypergamy.
The thread is found here: VFR Honor Killing or Eloi
Expatriot’s comment is as follows:
Hypergamy means that women are attracted to men who are “above” them–superior to themselves and, ideally, to other men as well. This can be either social dominance, in the form of wealth or social status, or personal dominance, in the form of physical strength or force of personality. The social dominance of men over women, being a function of traditional patriarchy, has been negated by female empowerment. With women more or less equal to men in socioeconomic terms, only those few men who are of much richer or higher status than the common run of men are perceived by women as socially dominant.
This leaves personal dominance as the weightier factor influencing the modern woman’s choice in men. As for physical strength, modern man has little opportunity to display his superiority in this area outside of sports. Not long ago, even the lowliest manual laborer could establish and reestablish his virility daily by performing tasks beyond the ability of most any woman, and thus partially offset the disadvantage incurred by his lower social status relative to other men. Mechanization has largely neutralized this male advantage as well. The other venue in which brute physical strength was displayed was fighting, which was once tolerated if not outright encouraged but is now so severely sanctioned (at least for white men) that the only ones who can afford to engage in it are those with nothing left to lose. Once upon a time, even good men were occasionally violent. Nowadays only bad men are violent. If violence is outlawed, only outlaws will be violent.
Which brings us to the final point. The only way that an increasing number of men can distinguish themselves is by resorting to the one type of dominance remaining to them: dominant personality. This covers a wide range of qualities: leadership, decisiveness, confidence, determination, independence, resourcefulness, risk-taking, charisma, intelligence, wit, etc. What needs to be noted about all these is that, while they initially appear to be unreservedly positive qualities, they are in fact morally neutral (as are all the other forms of dominance mentioned above–a physically strong man is not necessarily good, nor a rich man, nor a high-status man, despite the fact that we would all prefer to be strong, rich and powerful). A personally dominant, “manly” man may be either good or bad. We could just as easily re-word the above list as: domineering, impulsive, arrogant, pig-headed, selfish, inconsiderate, irresponsible, reckless, devious, and yes, violent. Whether we choose positive or negative terms to describe them, these are the “alpha” traits that women subconsciously associate with high-status men. Of course, the “alpha” qualities they crave are really epiphenomenal, merely superficial markers of the things they really need, not the things themselves. Thus, to a woman judging men in the raw, unmediated by any societal evaluation, a man who puts on a convincing act of being confident and charismatic is as good as a man who is confident and charismatic and has the accomplishments to prove it. And when this act is accompanied by the brute physical violence forbidden to men who play by the rules, the combined effect is intoxicating. Women are attracted at the visceral level to the raw masculinity, which they in turn interpret at the conscious level in the most hopeful light possible, taking wishful thinking to heights unimaginable to us men. A temple built atop a sewer indeed. “But to the girdle do the gods inherit, beneath is all the fiend’s.” There is thus no contradiction in a woman imagining herself to be seeking safety from a “strong” man who excites her and ends up abusing her.
Patriarchy valorizes qualities that men value in other men, dominant or not, “beta” qualities such as loyalty, honesty and industriousness, and converts these into a currency that women value: social status and the financial resources that accompany it. In this way male and female values become aligned. In the past, women’s judgments of men were mediated by male authority. Nowadays, however, women are evaluating men on the basis of their own subjective, gut-level feelings, which, while accurate indicators of the thrills they can expect from the relationship, are poor indicators of their prospects for long-term happiness.
It’s not a real President’s birthday (Lincoln was the 12th, Washington is the 22nd), but everyone wants a day off, so sorry Abe and George, but we’re taking it today. But in the spirit intended for the holiday, let me offer up Borepatch’s bestest and worstest lists for Presidents.
#5: Calvin Coolidge
Nothing To Report is a fine epitaph for a President, in this day of unbridled expansion of Leviathan.
#4. Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is perhaps the last (and first) President who exercised extra-Constitutional power in a manner that was unambiguously beneficial for the Republic (the Louisiana Purchase). He repealed Adam’s noxious Alien and Sedition Acts and pardoned those convicted under them.
#3. Grover Cleveland.
He didn’t like the pomp and circumstance of the office, and he hated the payoffs so common then and now. He continually vetoed pork spending (including for veterans of the War Between the States), so much so that he was defeated for re-election, but unusually won a second term later. This quote is priceless (would that Latter Day Presidents rise so high), on vetoing a farm relief bill: “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.”
#2. Ronald Reagan
He at least tried to slow down the growth of Leviathan, the first President to do so in over half a century (see entry #5, above). He would have reduced it further, except that his opposition to the Soviet fascist state and determination to end it cost boatloads of cash. It also caused outrage among the home grown fascists in the Media and Universities, but was wildly popular among the general population which was (and hopefully still remains) sane.
#1. George Washington
Could have been King. Wasn’t. Q.E.D.
#5. John Adams.
There’s no way to read the Alien and Sedition Acts as anything other than a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It’s a sad statement that the first violation of a Presidential Oath of Office was with President #2.
#4. Woodrow Wilson.
Not only did he revive the spirit of Adams’ Sedition Acts, he caused a Presidential opponent to be imprisoned under the terms of his grotesque Sedition Act of 1918. He was Progressivism incarnate: he lied us into war, he jailed the anti-war opposition, he instituted a draft, and he was entirely soft-headed when it came to foreign policy. The fact that Progressives love him (and hate George W. Bush) says all you need to know about them.
#3 Lyndon Johnson.
An able legislator who was able to get bills passed without having any real idea what they would do once enacted, he is responsible for more Americans living in poverty and despair than any occupant of the White House, and that says a lot.
#2. Franklin Roosevelt.
America’s Mussolini – ruling extra-Constitutionally fixing wages and prices, packing the Supreme Court, and transforming the country into a bunch of takers who would sell their votes for a trifle. At least Mussolini met an honorable end.
#1. Abraham Lincoln.
There’s no doubt that the Constitution never would have been ratified if the States hadn’t thought they could leave if they needed to. Lincoln saw to it that 10% of the military-age male population was killed or wounded preventing that in an extra-Constitutional debacle unequaled in the Republic’s history. Along the way, he suspended Habeas Corpus, instituted the first ever draft on these shores, and jailed political opponents as he saw fit. Needless to say, Progressives adore him.
[Edit: Also instituted the first income tax]
So happy President’s Day. Thankfully, the recent occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue haven’t gotten this bad. Yet.
Been wanting to combine these to one post for viewing them together.
The 10 points laid out by Marx:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
From: Flunking Fascism
Posted: June 28, 2004 1:00 am Eastern By Vox Day © 2011 WND
Mussolini – For the political problem: We demand:
a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.
b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.
c) The abolition of the Senate.
d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.
e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
For the social problems: We demand:
a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.
b) A minimum wage.
c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions.
d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.
e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.
f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.
For the military problem: We demand:
a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.
b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.
For the financial problem: We demand:
a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
As with National Socialism and Communism, it is easy to see that far from being a right-wing ideology, fascism is simply another variant of leftist worship of the State.
In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a memorable phrase:
Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. This means “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Now
War Between the States Sesquicentennial
All pages in the history book – Jenkins – NewsObserver.com
Your article was passed on to me and it deserves reasoned comment.
First, there are many flags which can be called American — the flags of the Confederacy are considered such just as the Gadsen, Burlington and Betsy Ross flags are. They are part of American history and all American, and undeniably so.
The withdrawal of several States from the fraternal and voluntary union in 1861 was well-conceived and done so in a similar manner as was done in acceding to the union in 1787; in convention by the States. We know that in ratifying the Constitution the States delegated specific authority to the federal agent in Washington, all else was (and is today) retained by the States. President James Buchanan publicly stated that he did not agree with the concept of secession, but admitted he had no constitutional authority to wage war upon a State which no longer wished to belong to the voluntary union. His successor decided to wage war upon his own people, and without the authority of Congress.
As for slavery, the facts do not support the claim that North Carolina seceded over slavery – the May 20th secession ordinance came as a result of Lincoln’s war upon South Carolina, and demanding troops from North Carolina to do it with. Governor Ellis, the chief magistrate of North Carolina, understood the US Constitution and told Lincoln, “no.” This was no “internal rebellion,” and to believe such is show a lack of common knowledge and is promoting revisionist history.
As you suggest, those descended from slaves certainly need to learn of their ancestors participation in North Carolina’s defense, though some of them chose to adhere to the enemy of North Carolina and commit treason. The war of 1861-1865 was not the first time this occurred as Lord Dunmore, Royal Governor of Virginia issued an emancipation proclamation in 1775 which incited race war and freed slaves to fight against American independence (many North Carolina slaves fled to British arms); and again in 1814 when Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane issued the same to rob the American South of its agricultural labor. Lincoln’s intent was the same as he wanted more troops (Northern enlistments lagged) and to incite murderous race war in the South. No peaceful solution to the conflict came from this man or his abolitionist followers, only bloodshed and war.
Nonetheless, free blacks from Greensboro offered their assistance to the State, slaves produced foodstuffs and materiel for North Carolina troops away at war, and fought alongside their white neighbors in integrate units – Northerners segregated their colored soldiers. The Dempsey brothers for example, Charles and Henry, surrendered at Fort Fisher along with their white compatriots in Company F, 36th NC, as did Daniel Herring of the same company; also Arthur and Miles Reed of Company D, 40th NC, and James Doyle of Company E; plus Everett Hayes of Company F, 10th NC. You are right, black North Carolinians should be made aware of these patriotic contributions to our struggle for independence 1861-1865.
In closing, your editorial should have mentioned that the true representation of “the torture and murder of their ancestors” was the age-old practice of slavery in African, and it being brought to our shores by Dutch, Spanish, French, British, and New England ships. The colony of Rhode Island had, by 1750, surpassed Liverpool as the center of the transatlantic slave trade that helped populate North Carolina with African slaves. And it was the rapacious mills of New England, hungry for raw cotton from the South, that perpetuated slavery with the invention of Massachusetts inventor, Eli Whitney. No slavers flying the Confederate flag plied the coast of West Africa.
I invite you to visit our Sesquicentennial website (below) to read of North Carolina patriots whose valor, sacrifice and devotion to The Old North State is legendary.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
“The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial”