Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2013

I would like to point out a few “coincidences” in this post. Readers will please dot their own I’s and cross their own t’s.

We need to remind ourselves that what is happening in America today is not some untraceable evil perpetrated by some secret evil cult that controls us against our collective will. The evil is very traceable and the people who have foisted it on the rest of us are a matter of public record.

During the Civil War era two major initiatives were in the public eye that were to shape American society and politics for the next hundred and fifty years.

#1. During this era, the first attempts were made to institute an income tax. In the time leading up to and during the first World War, these attempts found their fruition in the  alleged passing of a federal income tax. Appearances have in this case really proved to be deceiving. I refer readers to the book, “The Law That Never Was” by a fellow named Benson.

#2. Women’s Suffrage used the upheaval of the war between the states to market it’s own agenda.

Please note a couple of major things here–

#1. The income tax initiatives were calculated to be pressed at those times when most of the men were involved in, and away at, a major military conflict.

#2. Women’s Suffrage was also pressed it’s hardest during times of major military conflict, and was allegedly passed in 1919—during the first World War. In fact, suffrage and the income tax in America went along hand in hand in our country’s development. Coincidence?

With the alleged passing of the federal income tax, Washington D. C. became the de facto, autocratic ruler of a supposedly free republic of free citizenry, moving government away from the states. At the same time, women moved into the public arena in the telecommunications industry, banking jobs and politics, federally entitled welfare programs were introduced and private businesses were steadily crowded out in favor of multinational corporations. Coincidence? Between the Civil War era and the second World War, women moved into the military in America. First as nurses, then as regular commissioned officers. The Liberal Movement that began to over take our major colleges and universities after WWI kept pace with the entrance of women into the public arena and formed the basis of the Gay Liberation movement which is predominantly championed by females. Most of our major news agencies now have a liberal gay spin to all their stories and we now have increasing accusations of the rape of female military personnel published by these agencies. Coincidence?

The biggest names in Women’s Suffrage were also to be found among the leading families of the state of Maine. Bigelow, Warren and Clark to name just a few. I find that a most curious coincidence. Maine is strategically important to the defense of North America. The Rumsfeld/Cheney duo led military policy into abandoning the Northeast as a station for fighting units–they did however, leave control of military money in Limestone, Maine, in an office run by women. Coincidence? Cheney is an open supporter of the homosexual lifestyle. Maine is now leading the fight for homosexuality in America, against the stated will of it’s voters. There has been the same kind of political skullduggery in the state about this issue that Knox (also an old Maine name) used on the income tax question. Coincidence?

I have to quote Jethro Gibbs here— “I don’t believe in coincidence.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I have had a lot to say about petticoat government lately. I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the methods, aims, leadership, and so-called “accomplishments” of both the Women’s Suffrage Movement and it’s granddaughter, Women’s Liberation. I think that for clarity’s sake, I need to develop this theme just a little more.

Back in the day, before the suffrage movement was just getting under way, there was a genuine need for reform on several levels. The women in most upper class western societies  had no effective legal redress against abusive fathers or husbands. If they left them, the man in question could just hunt them down and bring them back. That was the law, very like that which governed runaway slaves. Women had no real property rights in many instances and as they were barred from pursuing a lucrative profession their only option was to try and get a job as a chambermaid, governess, or some other minimum wage job where they would be exposed to the predations of any male in their sphere. This really amounted to no choice at all and then it only worked if they were not pursued by the law. Middle and upper class females were raised to be dependent on their men and if these men happened to be drunken a-holes, well, the poor things were basically stuck. A well bred lady didn’t make a public scene about family troubles.

Notice that I specified upper class here. The females who were born into less affluent families did not have the same problems. The accepted standard of behavior was far different in the working class. If dad or hubby got drunk and tried to be abusive, young Nell or Daisy was as apt to brain him with the fry pan as not and let the chips fall where they would, and dad and hubby knew that. The working class families lived their lives in the kitchen where fry pans were close at hand. The ladies of the upper class lived in the drawing room and had no such domestic weaponry at their disposal. I suppose they could have brained their domestic brute with a Dresden china shepardess but somehow that would not have been the same.

It was also understood by the men of the working class that women sometimes needed to defend themselves at home and a man that brought such retribution down on himself was perceived as getting his just desserts, by the other men. In the working class, there were no servants to hide behind, no public perceptions of lady like behavior that hindered the women from doing what they needed to do if self defense became a survival issue in the home.  Everyone understood that domestic relationships were sometimes violent and ugly and this class of people were prepared to acknowledge and deal with it. This was by no means the case in the upper classes. And here you come to the real crux of the matter. The unwritten but highly effective codes of behavior that really govern our society, laws and legislation not withstanding.

Again we are back in the day. Upper class men were expected to conduct themselves as gentlemen in public. They were expected to be honest and competent in their business, to refrain from public drunkenness at social events and to pay their gambling debts, if any. This last was as big item. Social gambling was a very popular pastime in the upper reaches of society. Games of whist and other card games were a regular feature at balls, gatherings, and gentlemen’s clubs. This was socially acceptable. Men were expected not to gamble more than they could afford to lose. If a ‘gentleman’ lost more than he could afford he was black listed by his club(s) and ostracized from society. This was as low as a ‘gentleman’ could fall and once there, he was not allowed back. This was a very severe thing back then and the thought of it was a deterrent to many.

There were also places called ‘gaming hells’ that were run by professional gamblers where any ‘gentleman’ was free to gamble away the family estates and fortunes upon which his dependents counted for their support as well. No social pressures were brought to bear in such cases. The rest of ‘Society’ thought it a great shame of course, and gossiped freely about the recreants but– a ‘gentleman’ had a god given right to mind his own business and if he did not do so very well, that was just too bad. It was not an unusual story back then for ladies of means, raised to be ornaments to society, to find themselves on the street with small children to support and no means whatever of doing that. I will again point out here that this situation was inherently upper class. Women from working class families had saleable job skills, they were expected to have them, they did use them, so if a domestic problem arose, they were not nearly as bad off as their upper class sisters.

I have created this post here to point out two things:

#1.) Social pressure from a peer group is very effective in moderating excessive or selfish behaviors and the men of that day were well aware of it’s finer points and practiced in it’s applications so they had absolutely no excuse for not applying the same methods to those ‘gentlemen’ among them who were well known to be compulsive gamblers or abusive drunks at home. Those men did not do this.

#2.) Women’s Suffrage and it’s granddaughter, Women’s Liberation were not conceived for the empowerment of all women. They were generated by a miniscule group of nobly born ladies to correct the misbehavior of an equally miniscule group of nobly born “Gentlemen.” There were no “Universal Wrongs” against women at issue.

These social issues, domestic violence, drunkenness, and gambling, were three of the major motivations behind the Suffrage movement and it was a black shame to the upper class men of the western world that some of their women were forced to resort to such measures as public protests in order to defend themselves—from their own.

Our present governmental problems have arisen from this social background, this tiny percentage of upper class male misbehaviors and the lack of effective deterrents to it that were available to the rest of the upper class males and— were not used.

I hope I have kept this simple enough for my friends and followers. Since this issue is still causing such public outcry’s today. I will develop this theme by degrees, in a few more of my posts.

In conclusion, I will emphasize my sympathy for the issues of domestic violence and financial dependency that gave birth to the Suffrage Movement. I will also explain why I have no sympathy with the methods that were adopted to combat them. It should be obvious by now that they are not only ineffective but they are causing even more trouble, and these issues are too important to the survival of our society as a whole to be left in legislative and social limbo.

A. Farwell

Read Full Post »

In order to continue with my adult sensitivity training we will first need some historical background. My specialty.

What we are dealing with here is a mind-set. People emigrated to America looking for a better future for themselves and their families. Basically, this means money, ergo, financial prosperity. Nothing wrong with wanting that. The tenth commandment says thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house etc.. It does not say thou shalt not covet a house of your own.

So most of the early immigrants were not prosperous home owners in the old country, which ever that was. The largest part of them were from comparatively poor backgrounds and that means they had an underdog mentality. They viewed themselves as less than their more prosperous neighbors and all their efforts in life in the New World were directed to eradicating this difference. This mentality became the American Dream.

These lower class immigrants saw that their more prosperous neighbors owned their own homes and sent their sons to college and they felt socially intimidated by them.  They also told themselves that since these more prosperous neighbors did not work mainly with their hands, they really did not work at all. This is not true of course. Having to work with your head is even more difficult than having to labor with your hands, but those who had to work with their hands bolstered their self-respect mainly by ignoring this fact of life. So the American Dream became a muddled mix of these three lower class ideas—if you work hard and go to college, you will be able to own your own home, thus you will become upper class yourself. This notion is based on a lack of self-respect and represents the very muddled thinking of the have-nots’. Any man or woman who lives decently with their families and neighbors and has consideration for the needs of others is a wealthy person—regardless of their income.

You see, poverty is not really about money. It is about emotional destitution. Emotional destitution cannot be cured with either money or college. People are poor because they have no self-respect, not because they do not have a six figure income and a diversified stock portfolio. Slopping four years of college over such people will not eradicate their poverty-stricken mentality and standing by while they ram college down their children’s throats has not produced a stable, wealthy, upper class population. Almost all of you who may happen to read this are victims of this muddled have-not agenda.  It won’t do any good to find fault with your parents at this late date but it will help you enormously to admit this to yourself. Here is what your parents should have done for you. If they did not do these things, you will know why your adult years have been so hard even if you did graduate from college.

It is a responsibility of parents to provide for their children and to do what they can to give them a good start in life. It is also their responsibility to tell their children what they are doing for them and why, especially when they are old enough to understand some of the work involved. This is how you teach children to be good parents themselves. Telling children the what and why of how you have provided for them is far more important than the amount of the provision itself. It is not necessary to leave them independently wealthy. It is necessary that they understand you have done what you could. This is solid proof that you love and care for them. This more than anything else will send them into their adult responsibilities with a sense of wealth behind them, irrespective of material things.

It is also a parental responsibility to aid you in selecting a partner in life. Did your parents do any entertaining for you when you were in your teen years or did they just send you out, alone, on “dates” where all the responsibility fell on you? Did your parents have a nest egg saved for you so you would have something to start your adult life with? Or did they just yak about going to college and expect you to go into debt for it yourself? Did they leave you the family home when they passed on so that you would not have to pay a mortgage yourself? Did they even consider doing so? Did they ever discuss with you in your later teen years what they had put by and how they hoped it would make your life a little easier? Did they explain to you why it was usual for the husband to be the wage earner for the family and the wife to devote her time to caring for the home and children? Did they tell you why the wife was to be respected and acknowledged for her efforts and the husband for his? The family is the major source of emotional fulfillment in our lives, not marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship, an adult responsibility and although it has a fulfillment of it’s own to offer, it is also a chore. If your family did not provide you with any sense of loving care as a child, you will be ill prepared to support a marriage emotionally. How well did your family provide for you so that you could go into a marriage with something to offer your spouse? This is what parenting is all about. And as strange as this may sound, acknowledging these things now will provide you with a sense of emotional wealth although your parents did none of them for you. You can start with your own children. Even if they are adults.

The reason I have called this Adult Sensitivity Training is because as adults you need to be sensitive to the fact that most of you were left totally alone as children. Emotionally, financially alone. This is the reason for the divorces, the multiple “relationships” that “didn’t work out,” the fear of commitment that so many of you have.  Your parents did not even dimly consider their responsibility to you and this set up a legacy of emotional poverty. That hurt you back then but because you were just children, you could not articulate that hurt. The healing process will begin when you acknowledge the reason for the big black hole of your childhood years.

Now that you are adults, you need someone to be sensitive about your needs and to understand how hard your adult lives have been because of that parental lack and even though there are literally millions of you and only one of me—I’ve got you covered.

A. Farwell

Read Full Post »

This blog is published to LinkedIn so I am adding this special post just as a reminder to my contacts and followers. The media today wants to give the population of this planet as a whole the impression that homosexuals are gaining ground and that we are all about to usher in a homosexual haven of tolerance and world peace. This is not true. The homosexual “lifestyle” is characterized by domestic violence, drug abuse, child molestation, and white collar crime. These people are not “tolerant” of decent, normal people and DO NOT EVER THINK DIFFERENTLY.

Where homosexuality is not tolerated, there are no child predators. This is a fact that the LGBT does not want published in the public media here. Most of you do not support a perverted “lifestyle” in spite of media propaganda so stand by your posts and stick to your guns. We are winning here.

A. Farwell

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: