Putting The Hard Word On The Hardcore – The Logos I Will Not Live By
7 April 2007 by KA
“You know I feel there’s something ’bout to break now,
You know I feel there’s a city here to take now.
And it’s not so tough for these ordinary hands,
When we trust someone with extraordinary plans.You know I feel this heart’s about to break now,
Cos I can see what the devil’s trying to take now.
We’ve got this leather backed book and a freedom cry,
And we’re an army of God who are ready to die.You give us hope where hope is gone,
You fill the streets with a holy song,
We’re gonna paint this big old town red.Oh, Here we come, here we come
Oh, Here we come, here we comeYou know I feel this sky’s about to break now.
You know I feel our city’s gonna shake now.
And we hear you call every woman and man,
“Ring the mission bell” and storm the gates of hell.Miracles run from street to street,
Rise up Church for a holy meet,
We’re gonna paint this big old town red
We’re gonna paint this big old town red
With the blood of Jesus!”
- Delirious, Paint the Town Red
They believe they have received the word from On High. They believe they do the work of the angels, that the sweet nothings whispered in their ears from old ghosts that hie back the Iron Age is the final word, and any opposition is the murmurings of evil.
I speak of course, of the Dominionists, those thick-skulled Theonomists who know what is right for the rest of us, and will willingly violate all the precepts of their precious ‘free will’ in order to bring our country and the world under the harsh rules of the Old Testament, and, in the words of their own book of fables:
“10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.”
It becomes blaringly obvious that the only real choice any of us would be allowed under this divine dictatorship, is that either/or choice: accept their savior, or not. But if not, that is all. And given that, the options that stem from the latter would be silent disapproval. No dissension allowed.
There are those among the religious who will proclaim this a tempest in a teapot, that such claims are the result of conspiracy theorists (substitute whackos for that last word). Sadly, this is not the case.
“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.” – D. James Kennedy
“The world is in rebellion against that [Christ's] government. From these rebels and revolutionists, we hear much talk about “peace” [...] and a great deal of hostility to government. But Isaiah tied the two together: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end”. True peace, in other words, is a product of true government. When there is true law and order, then there is also true peace. Abolish law and order, and you abolish peace and create a situation of revolutionary warfare and anarchy. By abandoning Christ as Savior and King, by abandoning His government and peace, we are moving into a world of perpetual warfare. We are engaged in “perpetual warfare for perpetual peace” because we are seeking it without Christ” (Dec. 16, 1967). – Rushdoony
“America and other nations can be Christian if they adopt biblical laws in state, church, family, and all other entities and associations. We cannot trust man (individually or collectively); we must trust God and His immutable law. If civil magistrates will not apply the Old Testament law, then what will they apply? The law of man. If we will not be ruled by God, we will be ruled by tyrants.” (see p. 67, God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary Scott Smith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989). – Kevin Clauson of the National Reform Association.
I am not given to fear easily: I have walked away from car crashes and faced more than one one-eyed stare in my day, my pulse steady and my hands untrembling: but these people frighten me.
What follows is a 25 minute film, narrated by Burt Lancaster, that illustrates how long these people have been at it (since the 70’s: note how young Falwell and the rest of the fanatics are).
From the Federal Marriage Amendment (an effort to codify an ‘institution’ they feel is completely theirs) to the invasion of Iraq (which was once Babylon, something not lost on those of us who have some idea as to how these people think), from the Faith-Based Initiatives the Chimp-in-Chief has put in place (in clear violation of the Establishment Clause) to the obvious political clout that these wild woosters of wee-hee-hee (paraphrased from Firesign Theater) wield, from the revisionism of American history to the invasion of Creationism into our school systems, it is painfully evident that a theocracy is not only being plotted, but subtle mechanisms have been planted over the last few decades.
And there is no being rational with the irrational, no reasoning with the unreasonable. My firmest hope is that we can do battle with words and paper, and if enough of us raise our fists and bellow to the skies our discontent, it will be heard: that the bleeding wounds of fanaticism can be staunched with logic.
But if these madmen, beards bespeckled with foam, manage to bring our country under their thumbs (and under the thumbscrews, an inevitable consequence), then it will be time to join battle. For I should rather die free fighting with my lips skinned back on bloody teeth, than live comfortably as political slave and ideological eunuch.
I shall not kiss the boot nor bless the whip, but curse them both with my last breath. Or, as old Billy the Bard stated so aptly:
And by opposing end them?
Caveat cultus!
7 April 2007, on 5:42 am
Frightening video, which I watched with the same fascinated horror as that I experienced watching the Nuremberg rallies of Hitler’s and the Nazis and their orchestrated campaign to turn the world into a bloodbath.
I am at a loss for words, but those of the Rev Weyrich come to mind: “Everything can ultimately be reduced to right and wrong!” In that case, everything which he and his sort stand for is WRONG!
Oh, and BTW, Weyrich, your statement is patently false per se, but then you knew that yourself, didn’t you?
My final piece of advice to my friends in America: leave now!
7 April 2007, on 11:09 am
ToG:
As I’ve said before: I don’t do fear well.
My experience w/bullies of any sort – you run, you will always run. & they will chase.
7 April 2007, on 12:28 pm
KA,
My experience w/bullies of any sort – you run, you will always run. & they will chase.
That’s sound advice for someone who is good at ‘measured response, but not me.I can only over-respond: raze everything they own to the ground, and kill them and all their relatives on either side for 3 generations, up and down.
That comes from being a Scot, as the motto of Scotland is “Nemo me impugne lacessit”, which in Braid Scots becomes “Wha daur meddle wi’ me!”
Or as medieval knights used to say when they entered mortal combat, “A l’outrance!” (no quarter).
But as my Roshi used to say to me, “A glorious death brings the campaign to an end. Sometimes a strategic withdrawal can reap greater rewards.”
7 April 2007, on 12:29 pm
Oh no ToG, if they run it would leave us in Canada even more vulnerable. The Fundies already have their own TV station up here. They must stay and, fight on the beaches…never give up, etc.
7 April 2007, on 12:42 pm
Thanks for posting that video. Along with that, I was reading an article in Slate today about Pat Robertson’s law school and several other articles. Something went off in my amigdala or some other emotional center of my brain. I suddenly feel sick to my stomach. I have been out of the US for close to 7 years now. I left at the end of the Clinton adminitsration, but not (as someone once tried to suggest on Daily Kos) to escape Bush and run away from my responsibilities, but because of serious and incapacitating health problems.
Make no mistake: I’M VERY ANGRY AT WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN TO THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE IN MY SHORT ABSENCE!!!!!!!!! “Oh, that this too, too solid flesh could melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew……”
You do not want to end up like Italy or worse, but that seems to be the direction that the US is taking, whether voluntarily or because of the gradual process of control used by these totalitarian psychopaths. I will be back there to fight one day, if necessary, until the last drop of blood has been drained from my body, I can promise you that.
7 April 2007, on 12:43 pm
Now if only Pelosi and the Dems could glimpse the same frightening spectacle we might have a slim chance. Any chance at all?
7 April 2007, on 12:47 pm
You know, I can’t help but feel that this wouldnt be happening if the liberal and moderate christians hadn’t allowed it.
My husbands extremely liberal christian aunt still believes we should have some kind of prayer in schools or a moment of silence where kids are incouraged to pray to whatever gawd. And that creationism should be taught along side evolution. She believes that evolution is part of gords plan. I think we really need to re-evaluate just how much the liberals and moderates have played a part in this.
I also couldn’t agree more about standing up to the fight. In my profession you don’t back down when a dog bites you. If you do that means he wins and gets to be pack leader.
Amy
7 April 2007, on 12:54 pm
No, I’M an AMERICAN!! That bullshit is the opposite. It’s European fascism in another disguise. Not even theocracy. Worse.
BTW, I do not frighten at all. But I do get VERY, VERY ANGRY.
7 April 2007, on 1:01 pm
extremely liberal christian aunt still believes we should have some kind of prayer in schools or a moment of silence where kids are incouraged to pray to whatever gawd. And that creationism should be taught along side evolution.
Yes, some of them do and some, that I know, are strongly opposed. In all fairness, Christianity and religion have always been around in some form or another in American history. This is something quite new: fascism disguised as religion.
7 April 2007, on 1:40 pm
francesco said: “In all fairness, Christianity and religion have always been around in some form or another in American history. This is something quite new: fascism disguised as religion.”
I would agree with you on that and American history has been quite gruesome because of it. Chrisitanity is a patriarchal ideology and patriarchal ideologies are always fascist. You may not be able to see it cos of our christianized history, but when you really dig deep into history the real story comes out.
Amy
7 April 2007, on 2:34 pm
Remy, I have some news for you – the piccie says it all.
7 April 2007, on 2:34 pm
Well, I disagree about fascism; basically agree about the history of the US. But, then, the history of mankind is thoroughly and irremediably horrible in that sense, for the most part.
In my experience, the US has been, and still is, better than most (certainly better than Italy!!).
I “see” very well indeed, and I think religion is generally a harmful and destructive phenomenon which, if even eliminated, would be replaced by something equally destructive because homo sapiens is a destructive beast. However, I can still consistently maintain that something new and potentially more destructive than, let’s say, “regular” American religiousity is represented in the recent fundamentalist ascent, though.
It’s a long discussion, though, and it’s late over here.
7 April 2007, on 2:36 pm
7 April 2007, on 3:54 pm
ToG:
Or, as Sun Tzu put it, “Don’t put your enemy on death ground”.
Amy:
I think that goes to ‘oh, they’re on our side, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.’
Your aunt doesn’t sound very liberal at all, if I might say so.
Sometimes, we need to go nose-to-nose w/these people.
I’ve had the occasional shouting match w/Neocons: most of whom are shocked when I don’t fold up & cry.
I guess I’m 1 of those ‘brawling philosophers’ that Feuerbach disliked (hehehehe).
7 April 2007, on 4:58 pm
Ka said:”I think that goes to ‘oh, they’re on our side, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.’
Your aunt doesn’t sound very liberal at all, if I might say so.”
———
I agree, but she is pro-choice and for stem cell.
7 April 2007, on 4:59 pm
Man shit I lost a post! Ahh and I don’t have timme to repost! Grrrr
7 April 2007, on 5:25 pm
I have to stand with The Old Git, be ready for what comes, and don’t pull any punches. These people certainly won’t.
I live in central Pennsylvania and there are quite a few independent/small case xian outfits who are very militant about what they want and expect, and as a musician I play in a lot of churches. I’ll never fell warm and fuzzy about churches because when you hear what they say behind their own doors isn’t filtered for public consumption. And what they say out loud is belligerent enough. Most of these people feel hard done by by mainstream religion, and in some cases it’s quite true, so they start their own churches where corperate types aren’t running the show and the it’s not religio-business at the upper levels. And they’re really interested in revenge. None of this beatitude or golden rule horseshit for THEM.
I am a member of civil air patrol, involved in the cadet program. A lot of kids start this program, and many of them are fundies. They make great followers but when they get to leadership positions you really have to watch them very closely, be ready to step in at a moments notice because it’s Stalin City if you don’t look out. They are mirroring what they see in their homes and school (the christian academies) and there’s a lot of anger in both places, a lot of bullying. That’s why you get authority, so that you can do it to others and they can’t do it to you. They are numb to the idea of compassion, caring. But, we go on a search mission, come back after two or three days to where parents are to pick up the kids, and nine times out of ten the parents are yelling at the kids before they even get their car doors open. Kid’s have been away for days, can’t possibly have done ANYTHING, and they’re being screamed at. You see Dad pull up in the car, kid’s face lights up, Dad (or Mom)’s face is a mask of anger, kids shoulders slump, the face goes dead pan. These kids always at some point will ask me what it feels like to shoot someone. Is the taking of a life satisfying. They look forward to the day they can do this.
Most of them leave the program when they find out that females have positions of authority, and that they’re held to certain standards of courtesy and conduct.
There’s a lot of anger and resentment, and enforced immaturity. Emotion is emphasised, encouraged, thought, consideration are not. They are suspect, weakness.
My father-inlaw used to say that if you had kids around half assed adults, the kids would turn out quarter assed. In some cases I think I’ve seen one sixty fourth assed ones. But you can’t blame the kids. Just be ready.
7 April 2007, on 7:01 pm
Ok, I’ll try this one more time. Cross my fingers and hope it works….
Francesco said: “I “see” very well indeed, and I think religion is generally a harmful and destructive phenomenon which, if even eliminated, would be replaced by something equally destructive because homo sapiens is a destructive beast. However, I can still consistently maintain that something new and potentially more destructive than, let’s say, “regular” American religiousity is represented in the recent fundamentalist ascent, though.”
———-
I have to disagree with you that humans are naturally destructive. If you really dig up the human history through archaeology, mythology, anthropology, and psychological history, you will find that humans have only been destructive for about 6000 years, before that there is no evidence for war. And 6000 years is quite a short span in the course of human history.Which also coincides with the rise of patriarchy, which also coincides with the rise of a male diety. That means humans were much more peaceful for a much longer period of time and they were most likely matriarchal as well. There are also matriarchal societies that still exist to this day and function in a much more peaceful way. If humans are just naturally destructive, then it would be universal and not linked to cultural beliefs.
http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/
Also, with a closer look at American history you find that Americas humane progression was not because of christianity, but inspite of it. Our christianized history wants to take all the credit for its humane progress when in reality it was the Native Americans influences, who were matriarchal and autonomous. They were the biggest influence on the early American thinkers of their time and many became members of the Natives tribes.
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/gage/features/untold.html
Man, my original post was much better, but a trip to target the day before easter will fuck up any ones trian of thought! lol
Amy
Amy
8 April 2007, on 4:53 am
Also, with a closer look at American history you find that Americas humane progression was not because of christianity, but inspite of it. Our christianized history wants to take all the credit for its humane progress when in reality it was the Native Americans influences, who were matriarchal and autonomous. They were the biggest influence on the early American thinkers of their time and many became members of the Natives tribes.
Strawman. Sorry, but if you had read what I wrote carefully, you would have seen that I never even so much as implied that whatever progress in humanization, lessening of violence and so on (such as it is, the US is still one of the violent societies ion earth), human rights progress (this is clear and undeniable I think)…I never suggested that ANY of this was because of Christianity. I agree with you that it is almost surely in spite of Christianity, just as it is in spite of Christianity that Europe has become more liberal, democratic, secular, open, tolerant and so on. Indeed, this latter seems very close to a tautology. Don’t make up fights and disagreements where there are none!! I would just add, beside the native American tradition, not to underestimate the effects of the European enlightenment, the Renaissance, even the Protestant reformation insofar as it was a move away from complete centralization in one Church. The process has been long and extraordinarily gradual. What gains have been made have not been inevitable (there is no teleological tendency toward progress or perfection in history) and they can easily be reversed.
The nature of human nature question. I’m basically a pessimist/nihilist about the species. I know you blame the patriarchy for all the problems of humanity (I used to as well), but I think it’s way too simplistic and reductive. The anthropological evidence, though I’m not an expert, does not come close to showing to my satisfaction that, in Rousseau’s famous vision, man was originally good and has been corrupted by society. I think the prevailing current view, indeed, is that most primitive societies were only matrilineal but fundamentally patriarchal. Most of the so-called “primitive” societies that still exist today are failed societies, by definition and are not representative of what the man in his “original state” was like. All we have, at any rate, are a bunch of competing hypotheses about the behavior of man at the beginnings.
You’ve also omitted to define “war”. Yes, war defined as nation versus nation or clan versus clan violence, may well have been rare. Especially as the very origin when there not enough humans to form clans or tribes to speak of as such. Thus is not evidence that there was no (or much less) violence!! Undoubtedly, much less fragmentation and group-consciousness would explain why there may have even been much less violence. Another factor is simply that there were much fewer people to commit violence. So, if it were possible to remove all of these confounding factors, then it might possible to take the thesis that patraicahialims is responsible for all the problems of the world seriously. As it is, I sincerely doubt it.
Does this mean that partriachalism (or matriarchalism, for that matter) shouldn’t be opposed in favor of more egalitarian societies. Of course not. I just don’t think that even such an accomplishment, were it ever to happen, would lead to utopia. Women are just as prone to evil as men. In my mind, it is morally irresponsible and sexist to suggest otherwise.
I don’t have the time, nor the desire, to go too far with this. Our only real difference seems to be that I’m much more pessimistic than you about human nature, the prospects for an egalitarian future and so on. However, lest one fall into the is/ought fallacy, it really doesn’t matter how the world was at the beginnings. What matters is how we, as a civilization, want it to be and how to get there. I see life as a constant struggle, precisly, against nature (human or otherwise), through tehcnological, scientific, social and other means.
This is a long topic and I have to go.
8 April 2007, on 5:05 am
Here are some solid references about the myth of matriarchy at the origins of man. Even Margaret Mead rejected the idea!!
# Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, (William Morrow & Company, 1973).
# ^ Joan Bamberger,’The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society’, in M Rosaldo and L Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263-280.
# ^ Robert Brown, Human Universals, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 1991.
# ^ Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule, (Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993).
# ^ Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won’t Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).
# ^ Jonathan Marks, ‘Essay 8: Primate Behavior’, in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.
# ^ ‘Matriarchy’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.
8 April 2007, on 5:30 am
Umm…”just say no to christ…or Amy”?…[or any interested GifSters!]
Just a suggestion, of course…[You may all know the following..HOWEVER, here goes...?]
I use the Window’s “Notepad” to compose most of my comments. [I don't know what Mac users use.]
That way if your browser crashes or the comment gets lost on GifS…you still have your original.
I don’t know what’s more frustrating than losing a fairly ‘well crafted’ comment!
If you make any edit changes in the GifS comment space…be sure to copy/paste it back into the Notepad. I suggest, also, saving to a GifS file?…”as you go” for any other possible crash. Keep the Notepad open [albeit minimized], too…for a new/different comment: ‘Select all’ and use space bar to erase, when done. ALWAYS use “Save As” for the FIRST backup save of the ‘new’, re-titled, comment.
It’s well worth the effort to use this simple technique. Once you get the hang of it; it becomes second nature. It’s also handy for copying Site addresses for sharing, etc.
I lost a lot of effort, recently, because of a ComEd power out…the power went out JUST before I was going to save my Notepad..AARGH!…i.e…nothing is 100% sure.
My suggested ‘ploy’ has saved me a lot of frustration..quite a number of times…I even use it for my email composing.
I’ve had crashes there too.
Sooooo…What!…”Good luck”? “Happy Keester”?
Whateva!
9 April 2007, on 12:54 pm
TOG, is it really any better in England? I have a friend in the Herts-Beds region of the UK who insists that it’s the wrong place for me to move if I’m seeking a better climate in which to be an atheist. He’s moving to Canada. My husband and I have been considering the same. I was just curious what your view is on the atheist-friendliness of England (compared to the US).
And if we all run from the US (to Canada, for instance) and gain a controlling vote in our chosen asylum, wouldn’t the US just annhialate us later? Hm. Perhaps if a wealthy atheist purchased an island large enough for all of the world’s atheists and agnostics (they’re an okay bunch for the most part) to live on. We could declare war on the US and England, then surrender and request relief aid in the form of food drops. Plus, since our numbers are small (relatively), we could claim to be an endangered culture in need of protection from the outside world, thus saving us from missionaries and the like.
As for the video, I can’t watch it at work, so that will have to wait until tonight. The fact that it inspired any amount of fear in you guys, particularly KA, is indicative of the seriousness with which I should view it.
9 April 2007, on 3:25 pm
Bean,
I can’t speak for your friend, but I am surprised by his claim, since I have lived in most parts of the UK over the years, and I can truthfully say that atheism is alive and well – so much so, that the churches here are becoming so worried about it that they are burying their old enmities and forging alliances to fight back. However, as you will see from my recent thread-starter, churchgoing is one the wane here, and the number who do not attend is in the majority.
Furthermore, from what I know of Canada, anyone moving from the UK to there is a complete idiot given the problems they have, and even given our own imbecilic leader, El Presidente Tony ‘God will judge me’ Blair and his proposed successor, Gordon ‘I’m a Dour Presbyterian Stalinist’ Brown.
Admittedly, the UK has major problems – we have the most right-wing government we’ve ever had (despite it being socialist, allegedly), we have fewer and fewer civil liberties, we are the most surveilled in the entire world, property prices are ridiculously high, infrastructure is crumbling – no, collapsing – the National Health Service is a sick joke, education is failing – everyone gets umpteen A levels just for being at school, yet structural illiteracy and innumeracy is increasing exponentially – and those subsisting on the State pension are officially living below the poverty line. Having said that, the only thing that keeps me here (in England)is the fact that it is one of the few countries in the world where I can dispose of my assets on death as I see fit, and not have to give them to ‘reserved inheritors, as in Scotland, mainland Europe, Greece etc., and Ireland’s out, the church runs everything there, the corrupt bastards, and New Zealand is too far away – as for Oz, I’ve been there – no thanks, and that goes for good ol’ Amerikay too!
9 April 2007, on 3:52 pm
Francesco
I think I may have misread some of your comments about America and christianity.
But, to say that patriachy is not the major over all problem, to me would be a mistake. Patriarchy suvrvives and thrives on the oppression of women. And the oppression of women has been the biggest problems in humanity. The oppression of women interupts womens ability to properly protect our children and ourselves.
I think what bothers me most is the lack of credit most people give women for human progression. Had it not been for some women that managed to overcome patriarchy we wouldn’t have abolished slavery, we wouldn’t have more humane treatment of workers, more humane treatment to children(which btw, used to be considered the soul property of men to treat however they wanted and the records show they did!), more humane treatment to the sick and elderly.
Carl Jung and Wilhelm Reich(some forefathers of psychology) believed all of humanity suffered from neurosis and that the problem lied in our surpression of our female side and females in general. Man can not do it alone nor is he biologically equipt to do so in the first place. While some might feel that this is sexist, I do not. It is just accepting the natural reality for what it really is. Man is not biologically equipt to lead our children into the future and the records show that as well.
Now, dont get me wrong I do NOT hate men. I am happily married, but I’m not going to live in denile about the role men, a male god and patriarchal religious ideologies, have played in the destruction of our world and humanity.
At some point we all have to take responsibility for the part we all played in this mess. Men for doing what they have done and women for allowing it.
And why does everyone think that a world with out war and violence torwards women is at utopia?? A world with less violence doesnt mean that humans arent going to have their share of hard times, for fucksake. Why should we have to fear our own? I guess being around dogs the majority of my time has distorted my way of seeing things, even they are more balanced and civilized than humans. You know dogs in the wild have TWO pack leaders not one and the female is usually more dominate. It seems the natural world has always know this, when are we going to wake up to it???
Amy
9 April 2007, on 5:56 pm
Had it not been for some women that managed to overcome patriarchy we wouldn’t have abolished slavery
Really? When slave-trading and slavery were abolished by in Britain and its Empire, and on all the seas we controlled, women didn’t have the vote here, so they played no part in the abolition. Was it different in America then?
Incidentally, I ask this not to reinforce patriarchy, but simply to ascertain what evidence you have for your claim out of interests sake.
And as for your subsequent claims, “…[that women were responsible for] more humane treatment of workers, more humane treatment to children(which btw, used to be considered the soul property of men to treat however they wanted and the records show they did!), more humane treatment to the sick and elderly.”, once again I would like to see your evidence, since in the UK, at least, it was men who introduced the relevant legislation, as women didn’t have the vote.
PS: The Act to abolish slavery was introduced in the UK on the 25th March 1807, and we have just celebrated its bicentenary.
9 April 2007, on 6:21 pm
Furthermore, it was slave-trading that was abolished here in 1807 – the abolition of slavery itself did not happen until 1833. And once again women played no part in the passing of the legislation, though there were some notables who were part of the movement.
Forgive me, for it is late, and I’m a geriatric.
10 April 2007, on 12:17 am
TOG said:”Really? When slave-trading and slavery were abolished by in Britain and its Empire, and on all the seas we controlled, women didn’t have the vote here, so they played no part in the abolition. Was it different in America then?”
Yes, it was. The story behind the slavery abolishment movement here in America ( I should have made that more clear) is a great story of free thinking women and men(I better add that) pulling together through the influence of the Iroquois nation. Which was matriarchal and that doesn’t mean that women alone controlled every thing, there is another word for that, gyno something or another(and that doesnt exist anywhere cos that isnt how women do things, women naturally don’t want to dominate and control). But the Iroquois women had a lot of political power, in fact it was women who decided whether or not to go to war and it was women who chose the cheifs.
Here in America the women’s movement and slavery abolishment movements were started at the same time with the same women leading the movement. While they didn’t get to vote they still were the main voices who were pushing for the rights of women as well as slavery abolishment.
http://www.awakenedwoman.com/iroquois_women.htm
Also here in America it was women who created the workers union or at least got the ball rolling.(I’m not sure if that is good or bad, I have heard bad things about them now)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ladies‘_Garment_Workers’_Union
I was only trying to point out that humans are not destructive by nature, while they do have the potential for it, it doesn’t have to be. Humans also have a long history of not being destructive, that we all need to take into consideration as well. If you just give in to believing the worst of humans, than that is all humans will ever be. I personally don’t think humans are just bad by nature. I don’t even believe that men are naturally bad. We have enough data in to tell us otherwise and that destructive behaviors are linked to cultural beliefs and religious beliefs are what form our cultural beliefs and our cultural beliefs, here in America and many other more war like countries, are centered around patriarchal religious beliefs.
I was not trying to “pick a fight” I was just trying to raise awarness. Because if we all just believe humans are naturally destructive, then humans will be destrustive.
And I know when I am PMSing I can sound a bit sharp and if I did I am sorry, I wasn’t meaning to. I will set my PMS alarm button from now on.
Amy
10 April 2007, on 4:05 am
Amy,
I’m not trying to ‘pick a fight’ either, and I don’t think that you were being ‘a bit sharp’, but I was just interested in the situation in America.
Speaking as a man, I have always advocated equality for women, even before the ‘women’s movement’ was heard of here. My reasons were simple: empowering women and granting them the equality they were entitled to as a birthright actually removed some of the onerous burdens that (male-dominated) society had placed on me, and that, in turn, empowered me and gave me equality.
Unfortunately there is still a great deal of inequality, despite laws in this country, at least, forbidding discrimination. But perhaps some of the blame for this comes from women themselves, many of whom seem remarkably selective about the equality they want. For example, even in a professional work situation, I would often observe women colleagues resort to tears when they did not get their way, but if a man did that he would be given short shrift – the women always got their way, however, except with me.
Even recently, with the 15 British naval personnel who allowed themselves to be captured by the Iranians without so much as a struggle, and then collaborated in their propaganda. One of them was a woman naval rating, and the press here have paid her a six-figure sum to tell her story, whilst the men, who suffered just as much, have either not been offered any money for their stories, or refused payment if they were. Naturally the woman’s story centres on how she, a woman and a mother, coped with this horrible treatment – which incidentally was a direct result of their cowardice in not fighting back in the first place – but we are supposed to forget that she was a front-line combatant who, in other circumstances, demands to be treated like her male colleagues, many of whom were husbands and fathers.
Frankly, the roles that society has historically enforced on men and women are largely artificial and a nonsense, and the sooner that people truly break free from them, the better for all.
10 April 2007, on 4:16 am
[...] In the comments at Putting The Hard Word On The Hardcore – The Logos I Will Not Live By, by KA, between The Old Git and Say No to Christ (hereinafter known as TOG and Amy), the subject came up about who did the most to abolish the slave trade: men or women? [...]
10 April 2007, on 9:11 am
was not trying to “pick a fight” I was just trying to raise awarness. Because if we all just believe humans are naturally destructive, then humans will be destrustive.
No, as I noted before, to say that human nature IS a certain way— and there is overwhelming evidence from the neurosciences, genetics, etc. to the effect that violence is a a human universal— is not to suggest that it OUGHT to be that way. There is not one single example of a matriarchy that is not hypothetical in all of modern anthropology. Period!! This is just a fact.Can anyone be so naive as to believe that men would ever have allowed women to make the major social decisions given the extraordinary handicap of having to carry and nurture children for nine months and so on. It’s just utopian, and I must say this, simplistic Christian-inspired ideological blindness, to believe that humanity actually makes progress towards some transcendental future in any case. You will NOT find such ideas in the Eastern civilizations. Cyclic versions of history dominate, as they dominated in the thought of the Greeks and Romans.
Since there is no empirical evidence that humanity has ever existed without violence (the native Americans, for heaven’s sake?? you mean the ones who ate their enemy’s hearts? or the racist myth of the noble savage which Mark Twain was among the first to debunk?), in any society at any time, in any culture, it is simply a utopian article of faith on your part to believe that the species homo sapiens can continue to exist without violence and other forms of barbarism.
The one possibility I see lies in the neurosciences, obviously. If it can be found out what synaptic network patterns of the brain go “haywire” during violent behavior, this problem might eventually be controlled. This is, of course, assuming the non-existence of any kind of free-will (including compatibilist versions). In any case, there may be great cost indeed. In the case that science begins eliminating all of the “undesirable” traits from humanity, the problem will arise of when, where and how to stop this process. It is the horrifying scenario described first by Bertrand Russell in “The Scientific Vision of the World” and then, later, dramatized by Huxley in “Brave New World”.
I can’t go on anymore. I’m tired. I hope that you are right and that I am wrong. But there is no evidence or the evidence is extremely contradictory, controversial and confusing.
Why should I have hope in future? Isn’t that just a weakened form of faith? There is no progress; there is no future; there’s only you and me and we just disagree.
10 April 2007, on 9:27 am
From the Columbia Encyclopedia (not the Wackipedia,please):
Let’s at least get the terms of the discussion straight. Gynocentrism is a psychological state (like egocentrism or fallocentrism) and has nothing to do with anything.
10 April 2007, on 12:51 pm
FF, I like your fallocentric but I think I’ll still use penis-centric — it’s rude, crude and Christically unacceptable!
10 April 2007, on 2:37 pm
I’m used to it being spelled phallocentric.
10 April 2007, on 5:17 pm
Look there are two sides to the argument. Some anthropologists and mythologists, archeaologists are for a prehistoric matriarch and some arent. From my understanding from a feminist anthropologist I know and other books on archeaology and psychology, a more female centered(whateve the fuck you want to call it) society was the original and most functional. I have already agreed that there is no and never has been societies dominated by solely by women, because that is not how women work. All I can say is look into the origins of warfare, child abuse, womens oppression and sexual repression and you will find a much different picture than what our male dominated society wants us to see.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xdemeo.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xdemeo.htm
Second link is responses and rebuttles.
And please don’t get hung up on some of the authors work in physics,(although they are not much different from the “shoe string’ and ‘dark energy’ theories)They are not as important. Focus on the psychoanalysis and the archeaological evidences.
I just don’t have the energy nor the time to “fight” this out, but not so long ago scientist also believed that the animal kindom was patriarchal, now with more unbias research, scientist are now saying the animal kingdom isnt really a kingdom at all, but a queendom instead. It is females that are leading the families, I don’t see why humans are any different and neither do many scientists in animal studies.
Amy
10 April 2007, on 5:26 pm
Here is a better review of the book I mentioned
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/saharasian.html
Peace
10 April 2007, on 7:06 pm
Amy, love, take a deep breath. Not that they’re yanking your chain but there is a reflexive quality to men we need to watch for. Even our wonderfully advanced atheist men may have blindspots…
11 April 2007, on 3:46 am
just don’t have the energy nor the time to “fight” this out, but not so long ago scientist also believed that the animal kindom was patriarchal, now with more unbias research, scientist are now saying the animal kingdom isnt really a kingdom at all, but a queendom instead.
It is females that are leading the families, I don’t see why humans are any different and neither do many scientists in animal studies.
Three brief observations: you see, it’s just as I though, you women always have to have the last word!! I love you creatures to death, but you are so dictatorial. You are just like my ninety-odd female cousins over here, except they are religious. Calm down. Non-competitive and non-hierarchical, my tail. Perhaps those are the real myths.
2) I agreed before that the evidence about early humanity is controversial and unclear. So what? The goal is the same. Let’s work for a more egalitarian future, in spite of nature or culture.
3) You statement above would seem to suggest that mankind is already something like matriarchal but we just misunderstand what’s going on, as in the case of the rest of the animal kingdom. But, then, it follows that martiarchay is responsible for the violence, wars and so on. (;
4) I’m not pulling anyone’s chain, I just like to challenge people to defend their position sometimes. I like to argue. Sorry. Geeshhhhh!!
12 April 2007, on 3:53 am
Oh, I got the last word, eh? Well, but then I’m actually a transgender/transvestite, etc.. LOL!!
12 April 2007, on 6:04 pm
Francesco: I can’t access your blog! The only way I could be sure it was you was to google via cache. You posted last on April 6, 2007 (via cached snapshot) but the link there doesn’t work either!
Whassup wit yo blog?
And now I’ve had the last word! Heh…