ThePilgrim added a topic in The LoungeSo-called Conservatives of today have not changed.R.L. Dabney on Northern conservatives in 1870:
"And last: the State has committed the crowning outrage and inconsistency of not letting her be a man because God made her a woman! What an outrage this to be committed on so frivolous a pretext!
Has not the Radical version of the political gospel said, "All men are by nature mechanically equal?" And "man", Mistress Amazona ( as you will know when you acquire the virile right of learning Latin ) here means, not vir, but homo; the species irrespective of sex. It means that a woman has a natural right to do all the particular things that a man does ( if she can ), to sit on juries and shave her beard, to serve in the army and ride astraddle, to preach sermons and sing bass.
He cannot consistently oppose it; he has himself naturalized the false principles from which that 'reform' will flow. The true principles from which its folly might have been evinced, the principles held by us "Rebels", he has trampled down with the armed heel, and drowned in blood and buried under mountains of obloquoy and odium and slander. He cannot resort to those sound premisses. To meet the argument of these aspiring Amazons fairly, one must teach , with Moses, the Apostle Paul, John Hampden, Washington, George Mason, John C. Calhoun and all that contemptible rabble of 'old fogies', that political society is composed of "superiors, inferiors and equals"; that while all these bear an equitable moral relation to each other, they have very different natural rights and duties; that just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualification to use it for the good of the whole; that the integers out of which the State is constituted are not individuals, but families represented in their parental heads; that every human being is born under authority ( parental and civic ) instead of being born "free" in the licentious sense that liberty is each one's privilege of doing what he chooses;
It may be inferred again that the present movement for women's rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. It's history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save it's credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon it's timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in it's turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near it's leader."
Robert Lewis Dabney was an American Christian theologian, Southern Presbyterian pastor, Confederate States Army chaplain, and architect. He was also chief of staff and biographer to Stonewall Jackson. His biography of Jackson remains in print today.
- 1 reply
- 39 views
ThePilgrim added a topic in The LoungeU.S and the ProphetsHave been doing a study of the minor prophets the last week or so, and it strikes me that, though no other nation on earth ever enjoyed the favor of being the Chosen of God, America has been a prime example of what a nation of mostly Believers can accomplish. Which means it is also a prime example of what can happen to a nation that rejects God in favor of the world.
Though the prophets were speaking directly to Israel and Judah, their warnings to wicked, godless nations carries through the ages. Knowledge of God decreasing steadily by the generation? Rejection of God to worship the baalim? Attacks on and mockery of the righteous? Decadence and entertainment attained at the expense of the poor? Political prostitution, lying, and underhandedness with allies? Weak, impotent, and evil rulers? A corrupt legal system? The embracing of sexual deviation through cult behavior? A whole lot of "religion", but no piety or true repentance? A slow culling via infertility? Invasion and degradation at the hands of outsiders? It all sounds too familiar.
- 3 replies
- 103 views
ThePilgrim added a topic in HumorWarning . . . . Blond JokeWarning! People with blond hair should not read this joke! If people with blond hair do read this joke don't say I didn't warn you!
“Hey guys who wants to hear a blonde joke?” Said a blind old man after settling himself down at the coffee shop. The question was met with dead silence. After a few second pause, the waitress walked up to the blind fella and put her face right up to his nose and said in a menacing voice. “I’m blond and I don’t appreciate blonde jokes! My husband is right next to me, he’s blonde and he doesn’t appreciate blonde jokes either. And best of all, on your right is a blond bodybuilder who I’m pretty sure doesn’t like blonde jokes either! Would you still like to say that joke?” “Nah forget it!” Said the blind fella, “Not if I'm gonna' have to explain the darn joke that many times"!
- 13 replies
- 176 views
ThePilgrim added a topic in Current Events / NewsWho will blink first?Pat Buchanan is not sure. Because I love my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I hope we will.
NATO-Russia Collision Ahead?
Tuesday - June 23, 2015 at 12:26 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“U.S. Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in East Europe: A Message to Russia,” ran the headline in The New York Times.
“In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries,” said the Times. The sources cited were “American and allied officials.”
The Pentagon’s message received a reply June 16. Russian Gen. Yuri Yakubov called the U.S. move “the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War.” When Moscow detects U.S. heavy weapons moving into the Baltic, said Yakubov, Russia will “bolster its forces and resources on the western strategic theater of operations.”
Specifically, Moscow will outfit its missile brigade in Kaliningrad, bordering Lithuania and Poland, “with new Iskander tactical missile systems.” The Iskander can fire nuclear warheads.
The Pentagon and Congress apparently think Vladimir Putin is a bluffer and, faced by U.S. toughness, will back down.
For the House has passed and Sen. John McCain is moving a bill to provide Ukraine with anti-armor weapons, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition. The administration could not spend more than half of the $300 million budgeted, unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons.
Congress is voting to give Kiev a green light and the weaponry to attempt a recapture of Donetsk and Luhansk from pro-Russian rebels, who have split off from Ukraine, and Crimea, annexed by Moscow.
If the Pentagon is indeed moving U.S. troops and heavy weapons into Poland and the Baltic States, and is about to provide arms to Kiev to attack the rebels in East Ukraine, we are headed for a U.S.-Russian confrontation unlike any seen since the Cold War.
And reconsider the outcome of those confrontations.
Lest we forget, while it was Khrushchev who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis, President Eisenhower did nothing to halt the crushing of the Hungarian rebels, Kennedy accepted the Berlin Wall, and Lyndon Johnson refused to lift a finger to save the Czechs when their “Prague Spring” was snuffed out by Warsaw Pact tank armies.
Even Reagan’s response to the crushing of Solidarity was with words not military action.
None of these presidents was an appeaser, but all respected the geostrategic reality that any military challenge to Moscow on the other side of NATO’s Red Line in Germany carried the risk of a calamitous war for causes not justifying such a risk.
Yet we are today risking a collision with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, where no vital U.S.
interest has ever existed and where our adversary enjoys military superiority.
As Les Gelb writes in The National Interest, “the West’s limp hand” in the Baltic and “Russia’s military superiority over NATO on its Western borders,” is “painfully evident to all.”
“If NATO ups the military ante, Moscow can readily trump it. Moscow has significant advantages in conventional forces — backed by potent tactical nuclear weapons and a stated willingness to use them to sustain advantages or avoid defeat. The last thing NATO wants is to look weak or lose a confrontation.”
And NATO losing any such confrontation is the likely outcome of the collision provoked by the Pentagon and John McCain.
For if Kiev moves with U.S. arms against the rebels in the east, and Moscow sends planes, tanks and artillery to annihilate them, Kiev will be routed. And what we do then?
Send carriers into the Black Sea to attack the Russian fleet at Sevastopol, and battle Russian missiles and air attacks?
Before we schedule a NATO confrontation with Russia, we had best look behind us to see who is following America’s lead.
According to a new survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, fewer than half of the respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain thought NATO should fight if its Baltic allies were attacked by Russia. Germans, by a 58-38 margin, did not think military force should be used by NATO to defend Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, though that is what Article 5 of the NATO charter requires of Germany.
Americans, by 56-37, favor using force to defend the Baltic States. On military aid to Ukraine, America is divided, 46 percent in favor, 43 percent opposed. However, only 1 in 5 Germans and Italians favor arming Ukraine, and in not a single major NATO nation does the arming of Ukraine enjoy clear majority support.
In Washington, Congressional hawks are primed to show Putin who is truly tough. But in shipping weapons to Ukraine and sending U.S. troops and armor into the Baltic States, they have behind them a divided nation and a NATO alliance that wants no part of this confrontation.
Unlike the Cuban missile crisis, it is Russia that has regional military superiority here, and a leader seemingly prepared to ride the escalator up right alongside us.
Are we sure it will be the Russians who blink this time?
- 7 replies
- 97 views