Nixon and Roosevelt...Political Parties and Feminism
Masculist
on the changes in the political parties that has caused this
unfortuneate rise of female dominance (feminism).
Before FDR the dems were actually the conservative party which the old
pro slavery "states rights" supported. The repubs were the party of
government intervention (federalism) and increasingly supported
progressivism over the decades minus socialism.
FDR was the one who flipped things by taking the progressive stance
(feminism, civil rights anti-war) and advocating a socialist variety
of federalism. What this did was essentially what Nixon's "Southern
Strategy" did in national electoral politics, except that he had the
South anyway and was making inroads into the repub North and West. It
was his "Northern Strategy" essentially.
For decades, until Nixon, the repubs floundered, as we see them doing
now, advocating free markets, less government etc., all of which were
vague ideological advocacies that didn't appeal to the clueless
masses. Nixon's Southern strategy was holding back the legal tide of
civil rights using the busing issue and embracing the religious (billy
graham). None of it had much substance since the repubs still had a
progressive wing ("moderates"). All he had to do was fight busing and
kiss up to the evangelicals. The Vietnam War, and his hawkishness
about it, allowed him to do the major damage because the South and
some of the North were traditionally hawkish. That's why he kept the
war going as long as he could. It worked for his southern strategy.
The rest of it was window dressing.
Where he did the major and lasting damage, and this was something very
new to American politics, was help create the Left we see today. He
essentially neutered the Left by doing things legal (Vietnam) and
illegal (Watergate) to force them too far economically Left and by
helping the feminists take it over. This would inevitably end the
power of the union bosses and replace them with the Right's natural
allies...women. Identity groups were also easy for the Right to make
inroads into, control and serve their interests, ie immigration. But
what I think he knew this would do and why he was so smug during his
presidency was bury the young male rebels on the Left for good. He
said as much in a speech in '70..."They think they will be the leaders
of tomorrow but they won't lead anything". The rebels, who were in
his face angrily and constantly, represented a group he had been
fighting for decades, the snobbish intelligenstia who rose to power
under FDR. They had to be suppressed at any cost and for good. He
had pushed the envelope in using the government for his interests and
he pushed it to the max with the Watergate effort, which BTW was huge
and even involved funding and manipulating the Wallace and McCarthy
campaigns in '72. Watergate was a full press effort that was funded
by millions of dollars, involved CIA and some of it's officers, and a
small army of dirty tricksters. The only candidate that wasn't
tragetted was McGovern, who Nixon spoke of in later years fondly
(Nixon in Winter by Crowley). Even back then I thought there was
something fishy about McGovern. Maybe he was just a dupe, but I
wonder.
The anti-conspriatists out there should be reminded that if those
burglars weren't caught, or even if Nixon hadn't taped or been found
out about it, we may still have never heard of this conspiracy. In
fact it is still being covered up.
Happy 4th!
Tom
Society
Tom as "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47a2686d-7a2e-4f7c...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm reading Barone's "Our Country" and am getting a better
> perspective on the changes in the political parties that has
>
> Before FDR the dems were actually the conservative party
> which the old pro slavery "states rights" supported. The repubs
> were the party of government intervention (federalism) and
> increasingly supported progressivism over the decades minus
Gee, I never before realized that President Woodrow Wilson
was a Republican.
;-)
Also, I haven't read this book of Michael Barone's but knowing
something of him and his political expertise I would be surprised
to find that he used the term "federalism" to mean "government
intervention."
Perhaps the use of the word "progressivism" here is confusing me.
At its founding, the Republican Party was the party that supported
an active federal government; for example, the building of the first
transcontinental railroad was pushed through as a federally
supported project by President Lincoln and his backers. However,
like another political trend of the late 19th and early 20th century,
populism, progressivism is not another label for just any kind
of activist (or even interventionist) government. And, as the example
of Woodrow Wilson illustrates, progressivism was a movement
with a public that urged it upon both of America's mainstream
political parties of the day.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to
work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite
political action is about as useless as a miniskirt
in a convent.
Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
Masculist
> Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:47a2686d-7a2e-4f7c...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I'm reading Barone's "Our Country" and am getting a better
> > perspective on the changes in the political parties that has
> > caused this unfortunate rise of female dominance (feminism).
>
> > Before FDR the dems were actually the conservative party
> > which the old pro slavery "states rights" supported. The repubs
> > were the party of government intervention (federalism) and
> > increasingly supported progressivism over the decades minus
> > socialism. [...]
Oh great! Society responded to one of my novice political and
historical posts! Finally someone to tutor me! <smile> Seriously
Society, thanks for taking your valuable time for this.
> Gee, I never before realized that President Woodrow Wilson
> was a Republican.
>
> ;-)
It's true Society that Wilson was a democrat but in terms of what a
democrat and republican are today he would pass as more of a repub.
His international interventionism matches the repubs (now and not
then) but I agree that on feminism I have a problem <smile> The
sucker gave them the vote! What was he thinking? But let's not
forget that it was the progressive repubs who were pushing that crap
decades before Wilson. Alright, my next book reading will be on the
late 19th and early 20th
> Also, I haven't read this book of Michael Barone's but knowing
> something of him and his political expertise I would be surprised
> to find that he used the term "federalism" to mean "government
> intervention."
Very observant Society, it's true that I took some liberties there
<smile>
> Perhaps the use of the word "progressivism" here is confusing me.
You, me and everyone else.
> At its founding, the Republican Party was the party that supported
> an active federal government; for example, the building of the first
> transcontinental railroad was pushed through as a federally
> supported project by President Lincoln and his backers. However,
> like another political trend of the late 19th and early 20th century,
> populism, progressivism is not another label for just any kind
> of activist (or even interventionist) government. And, as the example
> of Woodrow Wilson illustrates, progressivism was a movement
> with a public that urged it upon both of America's mainstream
> political parties of the day.
Ahem, a "public"? How about a collection of fiesty bitches
(feminists) and their toy boys? The precursors of the Nixon coalition
for the "New Left". A small and obnoxious group that used feminine
wiles to beat up on the majority while clinging to the skirts of Big
Daddy Rightist...the powerful repubs of that time. The insurgent and
weak dems of that time were concentrating on the emerging union
movement and those poor Southerners who wanted Big Daddy in a Skirt to
stay out of there aparthied business using the conservative States
Rights approach. Jeffersonian democracy vs big government
federalism. Bad cause perhaps, but an approach you should
admire...and me too on some things.
> --
> America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to
> work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
> On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite
> political action is about as useless as a miniskirt
> in a convent.
>
> Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
Another great quote. I've been thinking the same thing. She wrote
that book in '99.
Thanks Society...you're a true friend.
Tom
Day Brown
> It's true Society that Wilson was a democrat but in terms of what a
> democrat and republican are today he would pass as more of a repub.
> His international interventionism matches the repubs (now and not
> then) but I agree that on feminism I have a problem <smile> The
> sucker gave them the vote! What was he thinking?
slaves rose to speak. Gibbon, referring to the chaos as the Romans tried
to invade Germany, noted a tribe that was run by women who, en mass, got
on boats and moved across the Baltic.
To become the ancestors of the Swedes. Women having the vote, political
and economic power, is not at all new in European history, altho, since
so much of it was written by scribes in the pay of the alpha male
warrior elites, they tried to hide that reality.
So far as we can tell, and indicated by the graves, up until the late
bronze age, European women were much more powerful than men. This was, I
note, in the era before the introduction of virulent STDs, and women
used their cunts very effectively to get men to go along. Now that they
have safe sex methods, they are at it again, especially since there is
no such thing as a safe nuke.
ray ray
> Masculist wrote:
> > It's true Society that Wilson was a democrat but in terms of what a
> > democrat and republican are today he would pass as more of a repub.
> > His international interventionism matches the repubs (now and not
> > then) but I agree that on feminism I have a problem <smile> The
> > sucker gave them the vote! What was he thinking?
>
> Tacitus, 'Germany' reports that at tribal meetings, even the women and
> slaves rose to speak. Gibbon, referring to the chaos as the Romans tried
> to invade Germany, noted a tribe that was run by women who, en mass, got
> on boats and moved across the Baltic.
>
> To become the ancestors of the Swedes. Women having the vote, political
> and economic power, is not at all new in European history, altho, since
> so much of it was written by scribes in the pay of the alpha male
> warrior elites, they tried to hide that reality.
>
> So far as we can tell, and indicated by the graves, up until the late
> bronze age, European women were much more powerful than men.
roughly, that's about right
most of the evidence is circumstantial, with most physical evidence
scarce, and largely in funerary scholarship (at which J.J. Bachofen
excelled)
there's no "historical defining point" for the shiift from primarily
matriarchy, to the mixed cultures of the late bronze age and forward
the fact that many of these language groups had males as frontmen
(chiefs etc) means nothing -- they were still effectively matriarchal
in operation, going back to the paleolithic
the u.s. and the West also utilize male frontmen, to give the
appearance that males are in charge, that males "make the laws," that
males "have the power," and that any failure in the culture (see
mancession) is traceable to male "leadership" (allowing the culture to
then rationalize further punishing the males, see mancession)
in reality, obviously, the preponderance of males as political
frontmen is just a deke . . . unless anybody besides the Mindwashed
still wants to argue that amerika is a "patriarchy"
amerika was navigated, settled, and founded by specific interests
(e.g., Henry the Navigator and the Order of Christ) with the sole
intention of establishing a Homeland for the Goddess -- a functional
matriarchy, in which the status of females would far supass that of
males (except for a small percentage of collaborative, sellout males
acting as "elites")
these plans succeeded, and the proof is before us today, every fucking
where
most MRAs are staunch right-wingers, tho, who are patriotic and
basically want things to Stay The Same, with a few system-tweaks
they can't face the truth of what Amerika is, and always has been,
clinging instead to the vision of the U.S. instilled in grade school,
as we pledged allegience, not to God, but to America . . . to Woman
and her matriarchy
> This was, I
> note, in the era before the introduction of virulent STDs, and women
> used their cunts very effectively to get men to go along.
they used their collectivist natures, and their collectivist tongues,
very effectively too
female power, esp in antiquity, does NOT show up in the fossil record,
with v few exceptions (e.g., Kurgan burials)
Day Brown
> On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Masculist wrote:
>>> It's true Society that Wilson was a democrat but in terms of what a
>>> democrat and republican are today he would pass as more of a repub.
>>> His international interventionism matches the repubs (now and not
>>> then) but I agree that on feminism I have a problem <smile> The
>>> sucker gave them the vote! What was he thinking?
>> Tacitus, 'Germany' reports that at tribal meetings, even the women and
>> slaves rose to speak. Gibbon, referring to the chaos as the Romans tried
>> to invade Germany, noted a tribe that was run by women who, en mass, got
>> on boats and moved across the Baltic.
>>
>> To become the ancestors of the Swedes. Women having the vote, political
>> and economic power, is not at all new in European history, altho, since
>> so much of it was written by scribes in the pay of the alpha male
>> warrior elites, they tried to hide that reality.
>>
>> So far as we can tell, and indicated by the graves, up until the late
>> bronze age, European women were much more powerful than men.
>
>
> roughly, that's about right
>
> most of the evidence is circumstantial, with most physical evidence
> scarce, and largely in funerary scholarship (at which J.J. Bachofen
> excelled)
>
> there's no "historical defining point" for the shiift from primarily
> matriarchy, to the mixed cultures of the late bronze age and forward
ago, they brought Anthrax, which made everyone leave. Then later, as
trade built up, so did STDs, and matriarchy had always depended on the
positive reinforcements of sexual services for cooperation. Some witches
I know today have picked up on this, and learning how to do it.
Agreed, but they also ran the world's first transnational capitalist
free market. The Silk Road.
> female power, esp in antiquity, does NOT show up in the fossil record,
> with v few exceptions (e.g., Kurgan burials)
Gimbutas notes that the alpha male Kurgans introduced horses to what is
now Romania. But after they did that, Kurgan building stopped for 1000
years. JP Mallory mentions these horses were only 137 cm at the withers.
A classic Kurgan, 100kg warrior on what looks like a donkey? I dont
think so. but http://www.daybrown.org/artifax/artifax.htm shows us what
happened. A light framed Cucuteni girl on a small horse- The Amazons.
Who then spread out across the Steppes, all the way to China, where they
found the original Silk Road cities. And in the documents, which were
preserved by the cold dry climate, we see the female hand at work. They
ran the shipping offices while the men did the leg work. And they, as
you say, also put up a front man as king, who was sometimes taken as
hostage by the Chinese to Xian. Who just didnt get it.
The girl's just pick out another front man, and go on with business as
they always had. ANd, they'll do that again.
George Orwell
On Jul 11, 4:33 pm, Gay Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> gay ray wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Shit Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mascara wrote:
> >>> It's true Society that Wilson was a democrat but in terms of what a
> >>> democrat and republican are today he would pass as more of a repub.
> >>> His international interventionism matches the repubs (now and not
> >>> then) but I agree that on feminism I have a problem <smile> The
> >>> sucker gave them the vote! What was he thinking?
> >> Tacitus, 'Germany' reports that at tribal meetings, even the women and
> >> slaves rose to speak. Gibbon, referring to the chaos as the Romans tried
> >> to invade Germany, noted a tribe that was run by women who, en mass, got
> >> on boats and moved across the Baltic.
>
> >> To become the ancestors of the Swedes. Women having the vote, political
> >> and economic power, is not at all new in European history, altho, since
> >> so much of it was written by scribes in the pay of the alpha male
> >> warrior elites, they tried to hide that reality.
>
> >> So far as we can tell, and indicated by the graves, up until the late
> >> bronze age, European women were much more powerful than men.
>
> > roughly, that's about right
>
> polite discourse appreciated. Agreement a rare gift.
FUCK. YOU.
NO ONE is going to kiss your ass, or be subjected to the "privilege" of some diseased food and friends ambiance, for the utilitarian purpose of getting a few words of twisted logic out of some wounded sociopath's screwed up world view. You pussy ass little rejects will get about as much courtesy as the mother-in-laws that your bitch asses sneak around for.
> > most of the evidence is circumstantial, with most physical evidence
> > scarce, and largely in funerary scholarship (at which J.J. Bachofen
> > excelled)
>
> > there's no "historical defining point" for the shiift from primarily
> > matriarchy, to the mixed cultures of the late bronze age and forward
>
> When the Kurgan horses came in to matriarchic SE Europe 6000 years
> ago, they brought Anthrax, which made everyone leave. Then later, as
> trade built up, so did STDs, and matriarchy had always depended on the
> positive reinforcements of sexual services for cooperation. Some witches
> I know today have picked up on this, and learning how to do it.
Nothing Malleus Maleficarum couldn't handle, then ...or now. You can pretend, all you like, but the witch's familiar isn't your typical male. Only the unwanted pariah enslaved by his rejection.
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to kick the crutch out from under your esteem, like that. I understand that's the sole perogative of your fat ass ugly mistress. ;)
Bullshit.
> > female power, esp in antiquity, does NOT show up in the fossil record,
> > with v few exceptions (e.g., Kurgan burials)
>
> Gimbutas notes that the alpha male Kurgans
Of course you'd quote a feminist witch, following in the discredited tradition of Margaret Murray. All of those posts about sugar cereals not exactly turning men into passive work mules, have to be going somewhere; besides, letting you pose as anything other than a sissy.
They must be going toward restructuring the organizational flowchart of society to running along a social model. Not the Marxist model, no. A literal social model that is centralized from home and hearth, family and gossip, instead of office and hierarchy, stranger and formality.
> introduced horses to what is
> now Romania. But after they did that, Kurgan building stopped for 1000
> years. JP Mallory mentions these horses were only 137 cm at the withers.
Which is also right about your height.
Whatever it takes to squeeze it all into place, cocksucker.
> A classic Kurgan, 100kg warrior on what looks like a donkey? I dont
> think so.
Of course not. You'd much rather have him on you.
> buthttp://www.daybrown.org/artifax/artifax.htmshows us what
> happened. A light framed Cucuteni girl on a small horse- The Amazons.
>
> Who then spread out across the Steppes, all the way to China, where they
> found the original Silk Road cities. And in the documents, which were
> preserved by the cold dry climate, we see the female hand at work. They
> ran the shipping offices while the men did the leg work. And they, as
> you say, also put up a front man as king, who was sometimes taken as
> hostage by the Chinese to Xian. Who just didnt get it.
You are so full of ignorant pop-feminism. Your illiterate pagan cultures were shit. One cannot merely take trade, per se, as the defining characteristic of a true civilization. In a legitimately developed civilization, the only "preserved" female hand at work was the one that stroked the cock of her Husband-Master, until he was ready to take her, and shove it up her until her belly became large with the future men who would leave the preserved records.
Save your modern shipping office analogy for your forgotten small town Amer'ca of smelly farmers and miners with fourth grade educations and witch wives, Asshole. All that was run by men, too.
> The girl's just pick out another front man, and go on with business as
> they always had. ANd, they'll do that again.
Yeah, yeah. And, they'll get burned the fuck alive again. :)
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it