Well, the phrase went something like that anyway. I got it from the Reader's Digest, a Quotable Quote from Jon Daly, I believe. I couldn't find the issue any more; so sue me, Mr. Daly.
But its true, isn't it? The will of the people is a fickle beast that does not adhere to logic, but rather, to fashion.
These posts I am making (the last one and the next few) are all going to be related, although it may appear that they are completely separated. Marxism has never been defeated, and one of the things I keep looking for when I read more and more about Marxism/Cultural Marxism is: What is its Achilles Heel? I think I see one - something we could do right now that would be effective, but please bear with me as I need to make a few points first in order for it to make sense.
Now, onto the business of saving the world from itself, sigh.
I have spent some time reading through The Men's Tribute http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm which is an excellent site, btw.
There are many pieces, in chronological order, on the reading list of The Men's Tribute, including several that were written about the suffragettes & the vote from the actual time that the arguments were happening in society (ie. - the late 1800's & early 1900's). Reading these articles & essays are a way to obtain a unique perspective on the situation, and it is likely more accurate than listening to the mindless anally derived hot air that academics, the media & government keep directing at us about women being oppressed because they didn't have the vote.
Now, as for a disclaimer, I do not know for certain that I am correct. I am theorizing. Although, the more I look at the situation, the more confident I am becoming that with some hard digging & research, I could make a pretty strong case for this theory.
It is essential to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy in order for this theory of mine to make sense. Why did the US Founding Fathers create a Republic? Why did they purposefully omit any mention of the word "Democracy?" They certainly knew what a Democracy was. The US Founding Fathers omitted the word Democracy because a Democracy was not what they intended for at all. They wanted a Republic and that's what they made. They did not make a system with universal democracy. The people are just plain and simple too busy or too stupid to understand the issues in the great depth needed on some of the issues, and therefore adhere to the fashion of the day, which can be easily manipulated via propaganda. This, of course, leads to the political leaders scrambling to do what they need to in order to get re-elected, rather than truly serving the best interests of the state/people. What politician worries about the effects of their actions 20 or 30 years from now when they might not even be in power in 6 months if they fail to adhere to the fashion of the day and thus, don't get re-elected?
“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” -- Samuel Adams
“...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -- James Madison
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801-1835
It is for these reasons that Benjamin Franklin said that they had formed a Republic, in the hope that it would keep.
The problem of a Democracy is that it turns Statesmen into Politicians.
It is this very problem of a Democracy adhering to fashion rather than logic & altruistic intentions that Karl Marx noted when he stated:
"Democracy is the Road to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
If one looks back in time, it seems that Socialists/Marxists were very intent on injecting Democracy into the nations of the world.
And, ummm... gee folks, what famous old ladies do we know of that were heavily involved with Socialism in the 1800's & early 1900's? Why, I do believe it was the suffragettes!
Now, "Feminism" organized itself from a bunch of whining, moaning women into an official organized movement in the year 1848 - the same year as the Communist Manifesto was released.
And why would they have done so? To get the vote you say? Because men had the vote and women didn't.
Not so, I say!
Landless white men did not get the vote in the USA until 1856, Black men did not get the vote until 1870, and women in 1920 (in the USA - mid 1890's in New Zealand). In fact, here in Canada, women who owned property could vote up until 1867, when Canada separated from Britain and became a Dominion - which means it should be safe to say that this was because of British law, and therefore all throughout the entire British Empire, which was substantial in the 1800's, it is likely that women owning property all around the world had the same voting rights as men.
Why, oh why then, why in 1848 did Feminism officially organize itself, chock full of Socialist women?
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx
Some of the "old articles" I read at The Men's Tribute made mention of the Suffragettes first demanding the right to vote for widows and spinsters who owned property, but had no vote. The thought of the day back then was "one property/household, one vote," and they were supported very quickly by a vast majority of men & society as a whole with this idea. But, after they acheived that, they quickly turned the whole of society amock with the notion of Universal Suffrage.
Think about it, in about 2 or 3 generations the idea of a having a "Republic" was completely thrown out of society and replaced with a "Universal Democracy," going exactly against what the Founding Fathers had intended and exactly according to what Marxists wanted. As Marx alluded to, if you want to change society you have to get the women on board first, as they control the culture & the morals, and the men will follow. Even if they were the last to actually get the vote, is it possible that they were the Agent Provacateur which caused the debate/conflict that got the whole of society to radically alter itself and oppose people as wise as Benjamin Franklin?
Isn't this about the same thing as has happened with the institution of marriage in our modern day?
Again, this is pure theory on my part about the hidden purpose of the suffragette movement, and I will have to keep my eyes and ears open for more clues & facts to prove my case.
Out of all of this, the one point I would like make clear, the only one that matters for the ultimate overall point I will be trying to make in the next few posts, is that the reason Marxists wanted us to have Democracies is because a Democracy can be easily manipulated to work against the people.
“You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.” -- G.K. Chesterton
Read more about Republics vs. Democracy here: