The wheels of justice grind slow...

Amy Bishop is a product of progressive/socialism and its games with our lives. in another time and place, she would have not been made into an unpaid social tool of others who only cared what they could get out of her as long as she was what they needed.

I feel sad for her, because to reach where she ended up and her opinions and to be such a pawn, required both progressives games, and her genetic higher susceptibility (her fringe class and lower mental state).

anyone remember that she was steeped in, if it feels good do it, if a woman wants it it must be right, men are all animals, kill your parents and family, attack the establishment, woman’s studies and other ideological hate games, and so on and so forth…

Stable people put the breaks on, unstable people go with it, and the sadistic think its a great way to hide their responsibility and mine it for pleasure in pain.

if you read the following you would get a big idea of how we forgot, were remolded, and so on and so forth. I bring the work up for one to consider how the progressives (who created this crazy woman!!!) were understood and regarded… and how we used to think… and what we knew…

Social Reform versus Birth Control
1927 G K Chesterton…

The real history of the world is full of the queerest cases of notions that have turned clean head-over-heels and completely contradicted themselves. The last example is an extraordinary notion that what is called Birth Control is a social reform that goes along with other social reforms favored by progressive people.

when you read the following remember one thing. he hasn’t been taught to only think in terms of himself, and so he can think in terms of the successes failures benefits and promises of the people doing things, which is very different.

we only have our perspective today, how i feel here, how it affects me, how if i was them i would do this, etc.

The only difference is this: that the old capitalists were more sincere and more scientific, while the modem capitalists are more hypocritical and more hazy. The rich man of l850 used it in theory for the oppression of the poor. The rich man of 1927 will only use it in practice for the oppression of the poor. Being incapable of theory, being indeed incapable of thought, he can only deal in two things: what he calls practicality and what I call sentimentality. Not being so much of a man as Malthus, he cannot bear to be a pessimist, so he becomes a sentimentalist. He mixes up this old plain brutal idea (that the poor must be forbidden to breed) with a lot of slipshod and sickly social ideals and promises which are flatly incompatible with it. But he is after all a practical man, and he will be quite as brutal as his forbears when it comes to practice. And the practical upshot of the whole thing is plain enough. If he can prevent his servants from having families, he need not support those families Why the devil should he?

he also knows if he can get women out of the home, and loosen them up, he don’t have to pay for a harem and he doesn’t have to pay for wanting kids just the kids he has and wants, and the harem supports itself… as its taxes support him!

If anybody doubts that this is the very simple motive, let him test it by the very simple statements made by the various Birth-Controllers like the Dean of St. Paul’s. They never do say that we suffer from a too bountiful supply of bankers or that cosmopolitan financiers must not have such large families. They do not say that the fashionable throng at Ascot wants thinning, or that it is desirable to decimate the people dining at the Ritz or the Savoy. Though, Lord knows, if ever a thing human could look like a sub-human jungle, with tropical flowers and very poisonous weeds, it is the rich crowd that assembles in a modern Americanized hotel.

But the Birth-Controllers have not the smallest desire to control that jungle. It is much too dangerous a jungle to touch. It contains tigers. They never do talk about a danger from the comfortable classes, even from a more respectable section of the comfortable classes. The Gloomy Dean is not gloomy about there being too many Dukes; and naturally not about there being too many Deans. He is not primarily annoyed with a politician for having a whole population of poor relations, though places and public salaries have to be found for all the relations. Political Economy means that everybody except politicians must be economical.

The Birth-Controller does not bother about all these things, for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is “Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?” His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: “You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children.”

he could think through things and know the ends because feminists had not gained power to shut up such things. hide Sangers work on exterminating races, and poor… and so on.

[the scary part is that you can also find duplicates. which make things so weird. that is, there are copies in each major country… and each country knows their own and doesn’t know the others. So Sanger is i for the US, and you can look up the copy in the UK.

this is also not just women and feminism.

Amy was deep into this stuff.. but she wasn’t stable, and she wasn’t a fellow traveler. she was a passionate and suggestible useful idiot who went farther than they needed.

her pain was what all people who are a part of this (other than the very elite top), and never realize why their advice doesnt work, why things arent the way they said, why when i changed and did what they say and so on, its how it is.

trapped between an ideology that gave her a way to live and the failure of that way, where could she go?

she could not reform her own life and rebuild a mental state that was formed from childhood within the confines of that religion. she could not change her ideas and opinions, and she never got the reward for abandoning who she was without ideology to be what she is with ideology.

she wanted pay back…

but look around…
read the Chesterton piece.

the spread from what it honestly can say and what we can even think today should inform you of the prison that was constructed by amys mind around her with the bricks handed to her by them.

notice that nothing they teach or do, or force outcomes, and change lives is ever their responsibility.

they gave her ideas, she paid for getting so wrapped up in them that she had no out or alternative.

What I cannot get my opponents in this matter to see, in the strange mental confusion that covers the question, is the perfectly simple fact that these two claims, whatever else they are, are contrary claims.
-==-=-=-=-=—=—=-=-
I am talking now about the primary logical contradiction. If the two methods can be carried out, they can be carried out so as to contradict and exclude each other. One has no need of the other; one can dispense with or destroy the other. If you can make the wage larger, there is no need to make the family smaller. If you can make the family small, there is no need to make the wage larger.

and so what he is pointing out is the chaotic mental contradictions that following them accomplishes. we now think these contradictions are normal,and are inured to their obvious signal.

I doubt whether mothers could escape from motherhood into Socialism. But the advocates of Birth Control seem to want some of them to escape from it into capitalism. They seem to express a sympathy with those who prefer “the right to earn outside the home” or (in other words) the right to be a wage-slave and work under the orders of a total stranger because he happens to be a richer man. By what conceivable contortions of twisted thought this ever came to be considered a freer condition than that of companionship with the man she has herself freely accepted, I never could for the life of me make out. The only sense I can make of it is that the proletarian work, though obviously more senile and subordinate than the parental, is so far safer and more irresponsible because it is not parental. I can easily believe that there are some people who do prefer working in a factory to working in a family; for there are always some people who prefer slavery to freedom, and who especially prefer being governed to governing someone else. But I think their quarrel with motherhood is not like mine, a quarrel with inhuman conditions, but simply a quarrel with life. Given an attempt to escape from the nature of things, and I can well believe that it might lead at last to something like “the nursery school for our children staffed by other mothers and single women of expert training.”

of course, i expect that neo will tell me that that is not how it is, that is not how the feminists taught us to regard what we see… the progressives made sure to give us the right knowledge, not give us the ability to think.

chesterson can think on his own

his clarity of the contortions of the progressives and what they did and are doing to women, family and society… show a clarity we no longer can reach, for if we try, we are shunted and told that isnt it forgetting that every time we do that, it was those in question that told us what the answer was.

when someone told another that maddoff was a con man, they would say, no he isnt, he told me.

when someone shows the history, missives, constant direction, never swaying stuff almost 200 years of stuff all in alignment. they attempt to prove the con to the victim, but the victim always says, no thats not it, they told me that your wrong. the same people made sure my classes woudl teach that too. and those same people said i couldnt qeustion those doctrines.

is it any wonder that if your not smart enough to get the whole thing and join, but are in the thing and trying to be good and follow it, that the latter leads to mental instabilities that serve the purpose of destabilizing the common little people?

such people are too off balance to have lots of kids, build companies, coalitions and succeed as they move in the world. and the worst of them end up mental like amy, between a rock and a hard place and no out..

Comments

The wheels of justice grind slow… — 7 Comments

Geoffrey Britain on June 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm said:

I’m all for Justice but wonder; in a case as old as this, will there be sufficient evidence to find a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Presumably there is but we have seen grandstanding by politically motivated prosecutors before…
Artfldgr on June 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm said:

This slowness is used by the left as the condition that things cant change.

which then in our eyes is used to justify an end round of the system, its checks and balances, and makes protest the seeming only way to change things, when protest in such a system is how you break it.

in this way, not only do they get to break the normal operation of the system as designed by denying its ability to evolve…

but they also get to set the people up as a few people on welfare can cause disproportionate terrorism and force compliance.

AND they also get to pretend to be teh force that created the end! that is, they see a trend thats a given… say, womens voting. they then claim that the system isnt changing, when it IS changing and has been changing and has only been prudent in its course.

then they protest and bomb places (femniists were terrorists), to which the people in state who are working, rush through what was evolving.

they then claim that the system would never have changed if it wasnt for their protests, and that everyone who benifits owes everythign to them. ie, they take credit for something that they only pretended to make happen.

its a sham that most are suckers for
and women are even bigger suckers for!
which is why marx, engels, hitler and others specificaly target them to change things, as they have equal power but not equal ability to resist.

[dont believe me? then look at mens bankruptcy vs womens. if they had an equal ability to resist temptation, then their bankruptcy numbers would have more parity, and poverty does not explain it]
Artfldgr on June 18, 2010 at 4:56 pm said:

Amy Bishop is a product of progressive/socialism and its games with our lives. in another time and place, she would have not been made into an unpaid social tool of others who only cared what they could get out of her as long as she was what they needed.

I feel sad for her, because to reach where she ended up and her opinions and to be such a pawn, required both progressives games, and her genetic higher susceptibility (her fringe class and lower mental state).

anyone remember that she was steeped in, if it feels good do it, if a woman wants it it must be right, men are all animals, kill your parents and family, attack the establishment, woman’s studies and other ideological hate games, and so on and so forth…

Stable people put the breaks on, unstable people go with it, and the sadistic think its a great way to hide their responsibility and mine it for pleasure in pain.

if you read the following you would get a big idea of how we forgot, were remolded, and so on and so forth. I bring the work up for one to consider how the progressives (who created this crazy woman!!!) were understood and regarded… and how we used to think… and what we knew…

Social Reform versus Birth Control
1927 G K Chesterton…

The real history of the world is full of the queerest cases of notions that have turned clean head-over-heels and completely contradicted themselves. The last example is an extraordinary notion that what is called Birth Control is a social reform that goes along with other social reforms favored by progressive people.

when you read the following remember one thing. he hasn’t been taught to only think in terms of himself, and so he can think in terms of the successes failures benefits and promises of the people doing things, which is very different.

we only have our perspective today, how i feel here, how it affects me, how if i was them i would do this, etc.

The only difference is this: that the old capitalists were more sincere and more scientific, while the modem capitalists are more hypocritical and more hazy. The rich man of l850 used it in theory for the oppression of the poor. The rich man of 1927 will only use it in practice for the oppression of the poor. Being incapable of theory, being indeed incapable of thought, he can only deal in two things: what he calls practicality and what I call sentimentality. Not being so much of a man as Malthus, he cannot bear to be a pessimist, so he becomes a sentimentalist. He mixes up this old plain brutal idea (that the poor must be forbidden to breed) with a lot of slipshod and sickly social ideals and promises which are flatly incompatible with it. But he is after all a practical man, and he will be quite as brutal as his forbears when it comes to practice. And the practical upshot of the whole thing is plain enough. If he can prevent his servants from having families, he need not support those families Why the devil should he?

he also knows if he can get women out of the home, and loosen them up, he don’t have to pay for a harem and he doesn’t have to pay for wanting kids just the kids he has and wants, and the harem supports itself… as its taxes support him!

If anybody doubts that this is the very simple motive, let him test it by the very simple statements made by the various Birth-Controllers like the Dean of St. Paul’s. They never do say that we suffer from a too bountiful supply of bankers or that cosmopolitan financiers must not have such large families. They do not say that the fashionable throng at Ascot wants thinning, or that it is desirable to decimate the people dining at the Ritz or the Savoy. Though, Lord knows, if ever a thing human could look like a sub-human jungle, with tropical flowers and very poisonous weeds, it is the rich crowd that assembles in a modern Americanized hotel.

But the Birth-Controllers have not the smallest desire to control that jungle. It is much too dangerous a jungle to touch. It contains tigers. They never do talk about a danger from the comfortable classes, even from a more respectable section of the comfortable classes. The Gloomy Dean is not gloomy about there being too many Dukes; and naturally not about there being too many Deans. He is not primarily annoyed with a politician for having a whole population of poor relations, though places and public salaries have to be found for all the relations. Political Economy means that everybody except politicians must be economical.

The Birth-Controller does not bother about all these things, for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is “Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?” His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: “You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children.”

he could think through things and know the ends because feminists had not gained power to shut up such things. hide Sangers work on exterminating races, and poor… and so on.

[the scary part is that you can also find duplicates. which make things so weird. that is, there are copies in each major country… and each country knows their own and doesn’t know the others. So Sanger is i for the US, and you can look up the copy in the UK.

this is also not just women and feminism.

Amy was deep into this stuff.. but she wasn’t stable, and she wasn’t a fellow traveler. she was a passionate and suggestible useful idiot who went farther than they needed.

her pain was what all people who are a part of this (other than the very elite top), and never realize why their advice doesnt work, why things arent the way they said, why when i changed and did what they say and so on, its how it is.

trapped between an ideology that gave her a way to live and the failure of that way, where could she go?

she could not reform her own life and rebuild a mental state that was formed from childhood within the confines of that religion. she could not change her ideas and opinions, and she never got the reward for abandoning who she was without ideology to be what she is with ideology.

she wanted pay back…

but look around…
read the Chesterton piece.

the spread from what it honestly can say and what we can even think today should inform you of the prison that was constructed by amys mind around her with the bricks handed to her by them.

notice that nothing they teach or do, or force outcomes, and change lives is ever their responsibility.

they gave her ideas, she paid for getting so wrapped up in them that she had no out or alternative.

What I cannot get my opponents in this matter to see, in the strange mental confusion that covers the question, is the perfectly simple fact that these two claims, whatever else they are, are contrary claims.
-==-=-=-=-=—=—=-=-
I am talking now about the primary logical contradiction. If the two methods can be carried out, they can be carried out so as to contradict and exclude each other. One has no need of the other; one can dispense with or destroy the other. If you can make the wage larger, there is no need to make the family smaller. If you can make the family small, there is no need to make the wage larger.

and so what he is pointing out is the chaotic mental contradictions that following them accomplishes. we now think these contradictions are normal,and are inured to their obvious signal.

I doubt whether mothers could escape from motherhood into Socialism. But the advocates of Birth Control seem to want some of them to escape from it into capitalism. They seem to express a sympathy with those who prefer “the right to earn outside the home” or (in other words) the right to be a wage-slave and work under the orders of a total stranger because he happens to be a richer man. By what conceivable contortions of twisted thought this ever came to be considered a freer condition than that of companionship with the man she has herself freely accepted, I never could for the life of me make out. The only sense I can make of it is that the proletarian work, though obviously more senile and subordinate than the parental, is so far safer and more irresponsible because it is not parental. I can easily believe that there are some people who do prefer working in a factory to working in a family; for there are always some people who prefer slavery to freedom, and who especially prefer being governed to governing someone else. But I think their quarrel with motherhood is not like mine, a quarrel with inhuman conditions, but simply a quarrel with life. Given an attempt to escape from the nature of things, and I can well believe that it might lead at last to something like “the nursery school for our children staffed by other mothers and single women of expert training.”

of course, i expect that neo will tell me that that is not how it is, that is not how the feminists taught us to regard what we see… the progressives made sure to give us the right knowledge, not give us the ability to think.

chesterson can think on his own

his clarity of the contortions of the progressives and what they did and are doing to women, family and society… show a clarity we no longer can reach, for if we try, we are shunted and told that isnt it forgetting that every time we do that, it was those in question that told us what the answer was.

when someone told another that maddoff was a con man, they would say, no he isnt, he told me.

when someone shows the history, missives, constant direction, never swaying stuff almost 200 years of stuff all in alignment. they attempt to prove the con to the victim, but the victim always says, no thats not it, they told me that your wrong. the same people made sure my classes woudl teach that too. and those same people said i couldnt qeustion those doctrines.

is it any wonder that if your not smart enough to get the whole thing and join, but are in the thing and trying to be good and follow it, that the latter leads to mental instabilities that serve the purpose of destabilizing the common little people?

such people are too off balance to have lots of kids, build companies, coalitions and succeed as they move in the world. and the worst of them end up mental like amy, between a rock and a hard place and no out..
Nolanimrod on June 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm said:

I think one lesson might be that if you slaughter someone and the police let you go even though you told them you did it it’s probably a good idea not to try the same gag a second time.
Barb the Evil Genius on June 18, 2010 at 9:38 pm said:

Apparently she has now tried to commit suicide.
http://www.dailypress.com/topic/sns-ap-us-ala-university-shooting,0,5073206.story
Oblio on June 19, 2010 at 6:16 pm said:

The phrase best describing Amy Bishop is “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.”
Artfldgr on June 20, 2010 at 8:14 am said:

Nolanimbrod…

i think vandersloot could ahve used that advice

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

The wheels of justice grind slow…

Comments

The wheels of justice grind slow… — 7 Comments

Leave a Reply