Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Some facts about early suffrage might shock you! | HBR Talk 303

Transcript

Some facts about early suffrage might shock you! | HBR Talk 303 · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three oh three. Still a college level
• 0:05
  class, right, some facts about early suffrage might shock you. I'm your
• 0:11
  host, Hannah Wallin here with nonsense annihilator Lauren Brooks and the personification of perceptivity
• 0:16
  Mike Stevenson, and tonight we're going to discuss the evolution of suffrage, or
• 0:21
  at least the beginning of the evolution of suffrage. And we've got a few
• 0:27
  surprises in that discussion just just a little bit. But before we do that,
• 0:31
  we gotta do what we gotta do. As always, Honey Badger Radio
• 0:34
  dissues out a s. Morgasb board of thought provoking discussions, and as experiences
• 0:39
  both recent and long past have demonstrated the provoked thoughts, excuse me are fighting
• 0:45
  back. They made it clear that for people like us relying on third party
• 0:49
  payment platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on thin ice or building
• 0:54
  our house in the path of a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this,
• 0:59
  we strongly encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for us to
• 1:02
  feed the Badger dot Com the most stable way to help us out, and
• 1:06
  if you want to tip us directly instead of relying on any social media platforms
• 1:10
  tip jar. The link for that is feed the Badger dot com slash just
• 1:14
  the tip And as always, the same risk applies to our social media platforms,
• 1:19
  which is why you should further provoke the thought police by tracking our thought
• 1:22
  provoking discussions on Honey Badger Brigade dot com, where you can find your way
• 1:26
  to all of our content, as well as a link to feed the Badger
• 1:30
  dot com in the drop down menu at the top of the page. So
• 1:34
  last week we kind of learned how the concepts of parliamentary government and voting evolved
• 1:41
  in medieval Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland. We looked at how that
• 1:49
  evolution intrinsically ties the concept of voting rights to civic duty and military service,
• 1:55
  despite feminist protests to the contrary. This week we're moving forward with the next
• 2:01
  steps getting more complicated, so we're probably going to see this topic continue for
• 2:07
  a while and bye for a while. I mean, I'm not even getting
• 2:12
  into the formation this week of the United States and Canada and Australia as countries
• 2:22
  with their own voting mechanisms that didn't necessarily spring from the British Motherland. And
• 2:32
  the difference there is like different time periods were going on when different countries came
• 2:43
  into being. So the United States was the first of the three and sort
• 2:47
  of was influenced by the French Revolution and had its pathway and its evolution of
• 2:55
  voting rights. And the United States didn't all come into being at once,
• 2:59
  you know, had you had some states form and then and out of the
• 3:05
  colonies, and then you had territories that didn't gain statehood until much later.
• 3:08
  And I mean the last the last state to gain entry into the Union gained
• 3:15
  entry during the twentieth century, so we're a few centuries behind that. And
• 3:22
  voting evolved into past actually the middle of the twentieth century in the United States
• 3:30
  as well, there was there was quite a bit of change there. So
• 3:34
  we'll probably do that and we'll start with that next week. And as I,
• 3:38
  as I said in the show notes, let's see if I have got
• 3:40
  this. Okay, it did come up good, and I'm not gonna go
• 3:46
  just like read the whole thing, but at the end of this I have
• 3:52
  a note about that. So as as we discussed this history, though we
• 3:59
  did pretty much establish like the connection to military service, the connection to payment
• 4:04
  of at least proto taxes, and then taxes, and then the connection to
• 4:12
  service to country, as as things that were that were qualifying factors in having
• 4:19
  the right to vote in the medieval Commonwealth. So now we're going to look
• 4:28
  at what happened next. And the one thing that I will point out is
• 4:32
  we pretty well established, as I said here, the concept of suffrage can
• 4:36
  no more be divorced from men's historical obligations than a person could be surgically separated
• 4:43
  from their DNA. It's how it was created, it's how it came to
• 4:47
  be. So when feminists tell you that because men in the United States can
• 4:57
  vote even if they don't sign up for the draft, and they won't stop
• 5:00
  you from voting even if you don't sign up for the draft, unless they
• 5:04
  start enforcing the aspect of the law that says you can be arrested and thrown
• 5:11
  in jail for not signing up for selective service to be drafted. And they
• 5:15
  throw a fit about, well, there's not a draft right now. It
• 5:18
  doesn't matter because voting wouldn't exist in Western culture without that. If we were
• 5:26
  still under the old system, the old monarchy system, where you had to
• 5:32
  trust that the King would even or the Queen would even take advice from the
• 5:40
  Great Council. And they hadn't fought for the right to make that input and
• 5:46
  the right for commoners to be involved. Nobody would have voting rights. There
• 5:53
  wouldn't be this discussion about men's voting rights and women's voting rights, and when
• 5:58
  they came about, how they came about, because it wouldn't exist. We
• 6:02
  would be remembering it as a failed system that Greece tried and and nobody else
• 6:08
  liked. You'll you'll like to think you diverged from the British system in all
• 6:13
  the right ways, and I guess you did in some of the right ways,
• 6:17
  along the lines of no taxation without representation. But it never occurred to
• 6:24
  any of you to to diverge from the guynocentric system that was already underway in
• 6:30
  what we called the British Empire at the time. This is this is why
• 6:34
  we were sailing across the world doing anything but attending to our hideous fat pigs
• 6:42
  of wives. That's that's that's, that's why you should have drawn yourselves away
• 6:46
  from But but you didn't. You did everything except draw yourselves away from that,
• 6:51
  you were like, yeah, we we we don't we don't want to
• 6:54
  pay money to the king, but we're quite happy to pay everything. We
• 7:00
  to have fat pigs of wives because they weren't fat pigs of wives at the
• 7:02
  time. Because because because you're you're were subsisting on on on on on new
• 7:09
  tracts of land, and you you were you were a world behind, uh,
• 7:15
  the the advanced prosperity of the British Empire, which at the time was
• 7:20
  so advanced that they could afford two to give women everything they want, and
• 7:28
  and and and while the American Empire, the Canadian Empire, and the Australian
• 7:32
  Empire were we were busy, uh, living off the land. H You
• 7:45
  you became that self sufficient society that the the the English that the British Empire
• 7:56
  always should have been. But you still had, you still have that that
• 8:01
  grain of kind of centrism in your brains that made you go, let's give
• 8:07
  everything to the women. Even even though we're building bards every day, like
• 8:11
  the Armish still do. You still couldn't help yourselves. You had to be
• 8:16
  like, let's give everything to the women, even though we can't afford to.
• 8:20
  Let's do that and let's let's build upon that seemed like a good idea
• 8:28
  at the time. Never mind what's going to happen one hundred years from now
• 8:31
  if we keep plugging away at that particular way of thinking. And yeah,
• 8:39
  I'm not judging anyone, Like the British Empire did this to everyone. The
• 8:46
  British Empire brought the world prosperity, but it also brought the world this particular
• 8:50
  brand of kind of centrism. You could actually blame the French for that.
• 9:00
  And one of these days we're going to go visit guynescentrism dot com and read
• 9:05
  about that, because Peter Writ's done quite a bit of research into the subject
• 9:09
  and it really deserves its own show. The information that he has compiled and
• 9:18
  written about it, like honestly is something that the men's rights movement needs to
• 9:24
  understand because we have this debate going on in regard to guinocentrism, and it
• 9:28
  is there's a lot of evidence that prior to the introduction of Romantic chivalry by
• 9:39
  French courtesans that really wasn't like what we see as Guinness centrism today. Modern
• 9:46
  guyness centrism is a whole different animal. From what historically could be called guyinescentrism,
• 9:56
  and it was it really was more focused on maintaining family structure and children
• 10:03
  and and so on, not prioritizing women just because we're women. That that
• 10:11
  that's a major change in human behavior that took place. But and we'll probably
• 10:18
  have to do more history studies just just to to uh go over that and
• 10:28
  to relate that to the development of the other issues, because if you look
• 10:33
  at the rest of men's issues, almost all of it stems from that that
• 10:41
  change, including the increased disposability of of men and the elimination of any disposability
• 10:50
  in regard to women, where you know, historically, if you were done
• 10:54
  having babies, you could be as disposable as a man. And because that's
• 11:01
  what kind of centrism was about. It wasn't about women. It was about
• 11:07
  women's function in regard to the protection and upbringing of children. And you know,
• 11:15
  if you're not doing that anymore, then it doesn't apply to you except
• 11:20
  now and in modern times it does. But in regard to the whole taxation
• 11:26
  without representation thing, I always thought that that was an American invention, that
• 11:33
  that cry of no taxation without representation but it's not. It survived in US
• 11:41
  long enough to twenty sixteen. That's why Brexta happened. Well, it's also
• 11:46
  why the first Barons War happened. Like that's King John wanted the barons to
• 11:52
  fund things that the barons didn't want to fund, and he refused to listen
• 11:56
  to the Great Council, and the baron were like, fuck you, we're
• 12:01
  going to war. Like none, none of this taxation without us getting us
• 12:07
  say, and what's what's going on here? None of this we're not we're
• 12:09
  not paying you to do stuff that we think you're failing at. Uh So,
• 12:13
  yeah, it was. It was essentially a cry of no taxation without
• 12:20
  representation. If you will try money, you better get our word. A
• 12:26
  cry that was exactly two words too long, by the way. Yeah,
• 12:31
  the first the first two words is all you need no taxation? Yes,
• 12:37
  yeah, any other endeavor, any other So we went over how your country,
• 12:43
  your government, any form of government, acts as a corporation. It's
• 12:46
  a it's a group acting as one and and it has its own you know,
• 12:50
  financial activity and everything, right, But any other corporation if my little
• 12:58
  LLC, for instance, if I decided that I wanted money to expand what
• 13:03
  I do beyond service to the Honey Badger Brigade, and to just start making
• 13:11
  informational videos as a profession for other organizations. And I wanted a loan of
• 13:18
  some sort or to be given a grant, you know, or anything.
• 13:22
  For that, I would have to write a proposal or get a grant writer
• 13:26
  to write a proposal and go to organizations that have money and ask them for
• 13:33
  it, and they could tell me no. But if your government wants to
• 13:37
  do something stupid like fund experimentation to see how fast different brands of Ketchup run
• 13:46
  across at tilted table, that that really did happen, by the way,
• 13:50
  our government here in the United States funded that. Once they just take it
• 13:56
  from you. You don't get to say no, because if you say know,
• 14:00
  then they come after you with jack booted thugs and throw you in jail
• 14:03
  for non payment of your taxes. Yep. Yeah, And of course we've
• 14:09
  all totally benefited from Oh wait, I still don't know which brand of ketchup
• 14:16
  actually lost the race or won the race, what the benefit of that was,
• 14:20
  you know. Yeah, So there you go. So, so we're
• 14:26
  getting to the point of what happened next. And so one of the things
• 14:31
  I found I thought I was gonna have to go through another two hundred years
• 14:35
  of history with wars and battles and protests and stuff. And you know,
• 14:45
  I was under the impression that a lot more people had voting rights at the
• 14:48
  beginning of the nineteenth century than actually did. So what I found out is,
• 14:56
  and this was from a lot of different sources, officials, US,
• 15:00
  unofficial sources, research papers. Actually know it didn't change much, very little
• 15:07
  changed between the fourteen thirty thirty two Knights of the Shire Act and the eighteen
• 15:18
  thirty two Reform Act. So from Anglopedia dot nets The History of Voting Rights
• 15:28
  in the United Kingdom by John Raybon, it points out the Knights of the
• 15:35
  Shire Act was the first parliamentary legislation to establish who was enfranchised. Gave the
• 15:43
  vote to the forty shilling freeholders, meaning only owners of real property who paid
• 15:48
  taxes to the Crown of at least forty shillings a year, which is roughly
• 15:50
  twenty five hundred pounds in today's money, could vote. And this remained the
• 15:58
  status quote for another four hundred years, even after the passage of the Bill
• 16:03
  of Rights eighteen sixty nine that provided for regular parliamentary elections. And it's interesting
• 16:12
  to note a survey from seventeen eighty. Remember the United States formed in seventeen
• 16:18
  seventy six. Survey from seventeen eighty revealed that the number of enfranchised voters amounted
• 16:25
  to only three percent of the United Kingdom's population. So when the United States
• 16:33
  became a country, only three percent of people in the UK and the English
• 16:40
  Commonwealth could vote from kettle mag's suffrage in the UK. But we've studied the
• 16:48
  history of the vote, we have the changes that took place. There we
• 16:53
  go. In sixteen eighty eight, this was referred to as the Glorious Revolution,
• 17:00
  when King James two of England was overthrown by a union form between English
• 17:06
  parliamentarians and William, the third Prince of Orange. I'm not going to make
• 17:14
  a trump joke. I'm not. I will behave the Dutch I hit listening
• 17:23
  to you, going yeah, yeah, we get it. All of our
• 17:26
  kings, all of our kings have been Orange for centuries or whatever. Before
• 17:33
  William could ascend to the throne with James's daughter, Mary the second of England,
• 17:38
  they both had to accept the Bill of Rights, which was released in
• 17:42
  sixteen eighty nine. So the United States wasn't the first place to have a
• 17:47
  Bill of Rights either. Like that name didn't get invented by our forefathers.
• 17:52
  It was something, it was a concept that existed. So when they created
• 17:56
  the Bill of Rights that were part of our constitution, there was a historical
• 18:06
  standing for that. This bill guaranteed certain rights of England citizens and protected them
• 18:12
  from the power of the crown. It established the principles of having frequent parliaments,
• 18:18
  free elections, and freedom of speech. Does that sound familiar, guys
• 18:25
  within parliament the pre speech. No, that does not sound like we stole
• 18:33
  it and then you guys didn't take it back. The bill was also supplemented
• 18:42
  later by the seventeen oh one Act of Settlement. Together they reduced the powers
• 18:48
  of the crown and contributed to parliamentary sovereignty, and that's what makes Parliament the
• 18:55
  most powerful government institution in the country. It was only in the nineteenth century
• 19:00
  that there was radical change in suffrage and even further reform within parliament. So
• 19:03
  again we have that established there you go. Albert Nada retro gave us two
• 19:10
  dollars just now and said Heinz lost women most effect and patriarchy. Yeah,
• 19:19
  and we have some other comments about that. I like the thicker rich one,
• 19:23
  that's women most affected, the thicker ridge one, women most affected,
• 19:27
  and that could be taken a whole bunch of different ways. So there you
• 19:34
  go. But yeah, very few people could vote in eighteen hundreds Britain.
• 19:42
  In England and Wales this was less than three percent of the population of nearly
• 19:47
  eight million, and in Scotland only forty five hundred out of two point six
• 19:52
  million. UK Government and many of them were female, by the way.
• 20:00
  Yeah, so let's not let's not go down that right, We are going
• 20:03
  down that road later. This is this is this is our Easter egg.
• 20:10
  It's Easter is over, but we still have an Easter egg. But the
• 20:14
  UK Government's National Archive website summarizes the conditions that led to the Great Great Reform
• 20:21
  Act of eighteen thirty two as follows. And this is this is where things
• 20:26
  start to actually change and the meat of the show is coming up here.
• 20:33
  So the reformat became law and response to years of criticism of the electoral system
• 20:37
  from those outside and inside Parliament, the rabble was rousing guys. Elections in
• 20:48
  Britain were neither fair nor representative. In order to vote, a person had
• 20:52
  to own property or pay certain taxes to qualify, which excluded most working class
• 20:59
  people in In other words, if I was a male or female citizen in
• 21:08
  in Britain during that time or in I think, I think all of the
• 21:18
  parts of the Commonwealth, I wouldn't have had voting rights. Most of our
• 21:26
  listeners probably wouldn't have had voting rights. If you if you're not a property
• 21:33
  owner, a landowner, like you don't have a house on land that you
• 21:38
  own. And that's I think even even people who I don't know if mortgages
• 21:45
  existed at the time, but even people who were renting, if they were
• 21:49
  not earning enough to pay a significant amount in taxes, you know, like
• 21:56
  that, the the British pound is still worth more than the dollar bye by
• 22:03
  quite a bit. So we're talking over I would say over three thousand,
• 22:11
  probably closer to four thousand a year in taxes. Aren't effect effectively, we
• 22:22
  still don't have any functional voting rights. We con choose between the conservatives,
• 22:27
  who are a bunch of communists, or labor who are a bunch of communists,
• 22:33
  or the liberal Democrat Party who are a bunch of communists, or even
• 22:37
  the Reform Party. The Reform Party who were supposed to be finally an alternative
• 22:42
  to a bunch of communists, but it turns out they do everything that hope
• 22:48
  not hate it coerces them into doing, revealing that they too are a bunch
• 22:55
  of communists. It's just a different flavor of communists that you haven't tried before
• 23:00
  yet, babe, just might be good. At at least we're not a
• 23:03
  two party system. We have like four different no five if you include the
• 23:08
  Green Party, who are the biggest communists of all, we have five different
• 23:12
  communist parties to choose from. But we we we we totally have a say
• 23:18
  in what happens to our country. It's it's really sad. We're at a
• 23:22
  point and the United States is in the same kind of boat. We're at
• 23:26
  a point where we can't even you know, we can't even trust that if
• 23:32
  somebody says things that that sound good in terms of you know, policy that
• 23:37
  don't sound communists, that they're not actually secretly a communist who is you know,
• 23:45
  running under a banner of anti communism, but actually saying, well,
• 23:51
  you know, we we need to use the government to do this, and
• 23:53
  we need to use the government government to do that. We need to make
• 23:56
  this collective, and we need to make that collective. And uh, in
• 24:00
  order to do that, we need more government control over your lives. And
• 24:03
  by the way, we're going to spy on you some more too. Like
• 24:07
  that's they're they're all they're all really part of the same thought group. They're
• 24:18
  all part part of the same I don't know, cult. Even if they're
• 24:22
  not part of the same party, even if they think they have massive differences,
• 24:26
  they're still trying to impose collectivism. And they're here. It's more socialists,
• 24:36
  it's more uh using the government as a stand in for the people taking
• 24:45
  control of pretty much every form of means of production in in the country,
• 24:52
  whether it's business that that produces actual physical things or business that produces intellectual property,
• 25:02
  your use of that intellectual property, your relationship to the business, whether
• 25:07
  or not things you buy belong to you after you've bought them. Like,
• 25:11
  it's all, it's all socialism. So yeah, we are our voting rights
• 25:18
  have expanded, But are our choices from from which we're you know, selecting
• 25:25
  when we make when we exercise those rights have have condensed and it's all authoritarianism
• 25:32
  in the end, but it has expanded, so working class people can vote
• 25:41
  now but they couldn't then. There were also there was another issue, and
• 25:45
  you we've had great debate over this in the United States as well. There
• 25:53
  were constituencies with like several voters instead of several one hundred voters or thousand voters
• 26:02
  that elected two members of parliament to Parliament, such as old Sarum and Salisbury.
• 26:08
  These were called rotten boroughs because they they had almost no population in comparison
• 26:15
  to other places that had significantly larger populations but didn't have representation commensurate with the
• 26:25
  size of the population it was. It was actually instead much much less per
• 26:32
  capita because you had two members of parliament representing a huge number of people.
• 26:37
  So they they basically have a dog called yeah and a dog called Colin.
• 26:44
  So they basically reformed that. And then then there were some that had no
• 26:51
  representation as well. Industrial towns like Manchester Birmingham had grown over time but had
• 26:59
  no members of Parliament. In eighteen thirty one House of Commons Pastor Reform Bill,
• 27:03
  the House of Lords, dominated by the Tory Party, defeated it.
• 27:07
  This was followed by riots and serious disturbances in London and Birmingham and Derby,
• 27:15
  Noddingham. And I think this is pronounced like hester and yovill Leicster really like
• 27:26
  your uncle okay, like your uncle Lester. So is yeovil pronounced yoval or
• 27:33
  is it something else? Yes, that's yova? Well done, okay,
• 27:36
  because because it looks like it could also be pronounced evil, but that would
• 27:40
  be hilarious and probably wouldn't be right Sherborne, Exeter and Bristol. The page
• 27:47
  further states that the act itself only gave the franchise to middle classmen, so
• 27:51
  it still didn't give you know, the back then equivalent of today's retail and
• 27:57
  gas station workers the vote. It gave it to owners of small businesses,
• 28:06
  people who earn as much as maybe an elementary school teacher or a construction worker,
• 28:12
  but but not too adults working in places like McDonald's as you know,
• 28:19
  long term employees or or anything like that, right for modern equivalent. So
• 28:25
  back then it would have been you know, people working in factories might not
• 28:32
  have might not have made enough people, people working in coal mines might not
• 28:37
  have made enough, and that would be men and women were working in coal
• 28:41
  mines up until Queen Victoria got upset that women were working in such harsh conditions
• 28:48
  and decided to put the cabash to that and ended their jobs because you know
• 28:57
  that that helped their families so much. Yeah, he sounds like he was
• 29:03
  a really rough boss at Victor. Yeah, that patriarchal. Oh wait,
• 29:12
  so what we're seeing is, you know, over time, the things that
• 29:17
  affected the right to vote were not necessarily up until the nineteenth century, they
• 29:25
  were not necessarily laws expanding voting rights. They were other things. Here's another
• 29:33
  bit from Ryan Miller's paper, A Dire Need for Parliamentary Reform or the Role
• 29:38
  of Elite Fears in Britain's Great Reform Bill of eighteen thirty two. And he
• 29:42
  has another perspective because they talked about briefly in the previous one, the riots
• 29:49
  and everything, and it was sort of glossed over, like you here you
• 29:59
  have these people were angry, but it was quashed. The Parliament was having
• 30:03
  none of that, and and that was the end of it until then.
• 30:07
  Then then later that you know, there there was this law that was passed,
• 30:11
  but that's not all of it. So he Miller writes that the examination
• 30:18
  of parliamentary debate, so he had there's there's notes of the debate on the
• 30:23
  floor, and then there's also communications private correspondence that he cites between the pro
• 30:32
  reform party and the anti reform party, which was the Whigs and the Tories.
• 30:36
  Demonstrates that fear of revolution launched by France and catalyzed by Bristol, by
• 30:42
  the British elite, was the primary motivator for reform. They were afraid that
• 30:48
  they were going to experience what the French elites would experience when the French people
• 30:56
  got mad. And fortunately, you know, in the more recent revolution,
• 31:03
  as opposed to the initial revolution, they didn't, they didn't heads didn't roll,
• 31:10
  but they still did take down one administration and replace it with another,
• 31:18
  so you you still had you know, they were afraid for still the acts
• 31:25
  of violence and the potential for great destruction of property. And there is always
• 31:30
  the potential that the people they think of as riff raff will execute them like
• 31:40
  that, because that has happened historically numerous times in various places all around the
• 31:45
  world. But even if they didn't get executed, they would still lose everything.
• 31:52
  You'd think people would learn their lesson. I mean, the French Revolution
• 31:59
  put the fear of God into the into various monarchies across Europe. After that
• 32:05
  happened, they were like, oh, ship, we'd we we'd better pull
• 32:07
  this this ship back otherwise our heads are going to roll as well. But
• 32:14
  shortly after the French Revolution happened, a certain young man named Napoleon happened,
• 32:21
  and he tried to take over Europe in much the same way a certain adult
• 32:27
  Hitler tried to take over Europe less than a century later. And you thought
• 32:31
  this would have put the reverse fear of God into everyone and made people go
• 32:38
  right. Yeah, yeah, maybe monarchy can go too far, but maybe
• 32:44
  the excesses of of of of republican agendas can also go too far, as
• 32:54
  as represented by by Napoleon. That and you remove the monarchy, you create
• 33:01
  a void in power whatever it's called. I forget what the popular phrase is,
• 33:12
  but yeah, this this hole in a waterfall that you that you think
• 33:17
  it's going to remain a hole, but yeah, this, this void in
• 33:22
  power is inevitably going to be filled by someone else. And you have to
• 33:25
  be very careful, have to be very careful when you create this this this
• 33:30
  hole in the power structure because it's going to be filled. This is what
• 33:35
  we should have learned from the French Revolution that that, yeah, it's it's
• 33:39
  a good idea too, to not piss on the working class quite so much.
• 33:47
  But at the same time, if if, if that power vacuum,
• 33:53
  that's the phrase I was thinking of, power vacuum, if that power vacuum
• 33:58
  is filled just as drastically as the as the power vacuum of monarchy was emptied,
• 34:05
  then you can you can find yourself in a situation as dire as the
• 34:09
  French found themselves in. And what we should have learned from this is to
• 34:16
  reduce the centralized power without reducing it so much that it becomes just as centralized
• 34:22
  by fucking communists, because that's gonna that's gonna result in a ship show of
• 34:31
  affairs. There was even worse than monarchy ever should ever should have been.
• 34:37
  What the French should have done was reduced the power of the monarchy. But
• 34:40
  I guess, you know, I guess it got so bad that they were
• 34:45
  given no choice but to exact these extreme measures. And you know, like
• 34:51
  I said, what what the rest of the world should have learned was to
• 34:54
  reduce those powers gradually rather than extremely and and you know, I suppose that
• 35:06
  was uh, those were the That was the moral lesson learned by the United
• 35:14
  States that they they didn't go ahead and adopt the kind of monarchy that the
• 35:23
  British war owner at the time, but not quite the kind of republic that
• 35:30
  the French had already found themselves and exorably plunged into. And they kind of
• 35:37
  found a middle ground. And good on them for doing that, but i'd
• 35:42
  well they it was it was stated, you know, if you can maintain
• 35:47
  it, that was the that was the hard part. And where a republic
• 35:52
  if you can keep it, if you can keep it. Yeah, where
• 35:55
  the United States went wrong was lapsing back into the belief that you can you
• 36:05
  can just trust somebody with ambition and with somebody who's driven, somebody who has
• 36:15
  a desire for power and authority to to run your your whole legal system and
• 36:22
  your whole social system, even even with checks and balances in place, even
• 36:28
  with three branches that compete with each other for control, and that are that
• 36:36
  exists to say, hey, wait a minute, that that rule, you
• 36:40
  can't you can't violate that rule by doing this thing that you're doing uh like
• 36:45
  that. That still doesn't stop abuses of power. It stops abuses of power
• 36:52
  from taking certain pathways. But if you have somebody that's bent on abusing power,
• 36:59
  that bent on changing the country from a representative democracy with small government to
• 37:13
  basically a socialist republic with a huge burgeoning I don't like the term shadow government.
• 37:21
  We just have a huge burgeoning bureaucracy. There's no shadow there. It's
• 37:24
  not happening in private. Everything the government does is available to the public.
• 37:29
  The thing that makes it viewed as a shadow government is that people have gotten
• 37:34
  comfortable not paying attention. And the checks and balances system that we were talked
• 37:42
  about in school is a lie. We were told that there were three branches
• 37:45
  of government that all kept each other in check. There are four branches.
• 37:52
  You are the fourth branch, and as the fourth branch, the general population
• 38:00
  of the country has not been doing its job, and as a result,
• 38:05
  the other three branches have decided to suppress the fourth branch. That's what's going
• 38:12
  on right now in the country, and that that has to stop, and
• 38:16
  the only solution for it, the only cure for this kind of warping of
• 38:22
  the system of government that we were supposed to have in this country. Is
• 38:27
  it more cow bell? No, unless you want to whack somebody upside the
• 38:31
  head in Minecraft with the cow bell. But but no, what you really
• 38:38
  need to do in this instance is, instead of setting your sights on somebody
• 38:44
  who wants power and privilege and control and authority, is to keep a constant
• 38:52
  watch on the people in power, keep a constant watch on what the bureaucracy
• 38:57
  is doing, and sin into higher offices, people who run on a platform
• 39:04
  of getting rid of the excesses of government, reducing the bureaucracy, reducing the
• 39:12
  power, reducing the control over the public, and going back to a more
• 39:21
  skeleton of a government like we were supposed to have in the beginning. That's
• 39:24
  going to be hard because the bureaucracy responds to those people like an immune system
• 39:30
  responds to a virus. Well, yeah, because I mean essentially, what
• 39:34
  they would be doing is basically arguing to lose their own jobs, you know
• 39:40
  it. I mean, yeah, I think it absolutely should happen. But
• 39:47
  how are you going to convince these people? Yeah? Yeah, it's really
• 39:52
  difficult. And the worst part of it is we have a public that has
• 39:59
  become a addicted to government services. And I say addicted because people are literally
• 40:06
  afraid, like they would be afraid of a tornado hitting their home or a
• 40:13
  giant stepping on it, Like they're afraid of having the food pulled out from
• 40:16
  under their noses, of losing those services, when in fact those services cost
• 40:24
  taxpayer money. That takes money out of the economy that would bolster their ability
• 40:34
  to support themselves without those services if it was in the economy. So there
• 40:39
  you go, like, that's our whole situation boils down to, uh,
• 40:46
  the the political form of heroin that our country is addicted to right now and
• 40:54
  has to go and and unfortunately that's that's a tool of the elite. You
• 41:02
  know, the more they throw you bread and circuses, and the more addicted
• 41:08
  they can get you to sucking on the government teat, the more control they
• 41:15
  know that you will put up with. Right that's where we are. Well.
• 41:21
  The French learned from the French Revolution because there were originally three powers,
• 41:25
  the monarchy, the clergy, and the I guess what communists we call the
• 41:32
  proletaria. And ever since then, various intimidation groups have been working on bringing
• 41:40
  down the monarchy and bringing down the clergy, and they've been very successful in
• 41:46
  those endeavors. Ever since then and to this day, we've we've found the
• 41:52
  situation where the monarchy has already been brought down. Even in the I believe
• 41:59
  six Yourropean countries where there is still a monarchy, the monarchy has no powersoever,
• 42:04
  and in any given country where the clergy ever had power, the clergy
• 42:08
  no longer has that power. That that's that's a whole other argument. And
• 42:15
  and and not just with regards to this the spiritual discussion of religious versus versus
• 42:22
  non religious things. The point is both of these two powers that previously held
• 42:30
  all the power have been replaced by the government. And the whole idea was
• 42:37
  to reduce the power of the monarchy and the clergy, and not to replace
• 42:45
  it with anything, but just to reduce it. But it has been replaced.
• 42:50
  It's been replaced by this ubiquitous power we call the government. And for
• 42:58
  all their effort, for all the efforts put into the French Revolution, it's
• 43:01
  it seems to have bitten everyone in the ass because because because now we're we're
• 43:07
  not bogged down by a monarchy, and we're not bogged down by a clergy.
• 43:13
  We're bogged down by that which has replaced both of them, namely the
• 43:16
  state, the government, which which is determined to not just be a nationalistic,
• 43:24
  uh top down power force, but a globalistic, top down power force,
• 43:32
  which has become a force that which is not to even burden itself with
• 43:39
  any competition. That's the nature of globalism. It's it's it's the hideous marriage
• 43:47
  of monarchy and clergy, that which does not revere to any religion or any
• 44:00
  or any such It's a cult obligation, obligation to the to whatever the monarchy
• 44:12
  was ever obliged, you know, to adhere to. We now have this
• 44:21
  overarching class of people that are more powerful than the monarchy ever was, and
• 44:25
  more powerful than the clergy ever was. And that was never the point,
• 44:30
  but that's quickly become the state, which has left a lot of us wondering
• 44:37
  maybe we were better off having a monarchy and a clergy. It's possible that
• 44:47
  the monarchy and clergy would have ultimately resulted in the same thing. I mean,
• 44:54
  if you look back at how the clergy was involved in in the Barons
• 45:01
  War, the First Barons War, like it, there was still that kind
• 45:06
  of I guess you could call it a conspiracy to maintain power and to keep
• 45:14
  power divided between the monarchy and the church, well with the common man excluded
• 45:22
  from it. But today we have what we have in terms of the I
• 45:32
  guess the people in power economically in the world. You have this cult that
• 45:39
  I guess you could refer to them as humanists. They think of human beings
• 45:43
  as the ultimate I don't think they like there's there's the conspiracy theory that they
• 45:50
  worshiped Satan and they believe in all these old deities and everything, like I've
• 45:54
  heard that theory and all that, but I don't think that's the case.
• 45:58
  I think that they are so arrogant that they think humans are the end all
• 46:02
  be all of intelligence in the universe, and that's that's it. They should
• 46:08
  be able to they the smartest humans, at least in their own minds,
• 46:13
  of all humans in the world, because they've managed to get richer than everybody
• 46:16
  else. They they just think that they have the right to use the rest
• 46:24
  of the people of the world as they see fit, and they're trying to
• 46:28
  institute a system that will allow them to continue to do that and their descendants
• 46:32
  to continue to do that through you know, all time. So so there
• 46:39
  you go. And of course that power exists because of the void that was
• 46:46
  created again by the fourth branch of government not doing its job and getting addicted
• 46:53
  to the services provided by the other three. We let the banks become that
• 47:01
  powerful, and we let the rest of the financial industry become that powerful because
• 47:07
  we didn't pay attention and we didn't put put the brakes on what they were
• 47:13
  doing. And at some point I'll go over, Uh, there's a pattern
• 47:17
  and I've discussed it before, I think in a previous show, but there's
• 47:22
  a pattern of money wandering that I identified in regard to uh, mortgage lending
• 47:32
  and other forms of property loan lending by banks and government bailouts that that is
• 47:43
  facilitated by the political correctness end of politics. But but that's not the subject
• 47:52
  of today's show. But the fact is we we did see historically where voting
• 48:04
  rights may not have evolved much during that four hundred year period. And I
• 48:10
  think, having had this up like it pretty much says the same thing about
• 48:19
  the massive unrest, but that this this guy points out that the communications demonstrate
• 48:27
  that the the resistance to the Whigs arguments for reform kind of disappeared as a
• 48:37
  result of that resistance. The speeches and letters that that he would he could
• 48:42
  find at the time demonstrate that preventing disaster, preventing the public from from basically
• 48:49
  going ballistic was was the objective. So just pointing out and he goes on
• 49:00
  heat cites expansion, enrichment, developing social power. The middle class had new
• 49:07
  ways to make money as a result of the Industrial revolution that had never existed
• 49:13
  previously because or had never been available to the middle class. Because there were
• 49:19
  now tools that made things that only people who were willing to put in a
• 49:23
  huge investment to do available to more people to do. Things like if you
• 49:31
  wanted to publish a book before the printing press, you were you were,
• 49:38
  You had a totally different pathway than after the printing press, if you wanted
• 49:44
  to publish a periodical before more changes to the mechanic mechanized version of the printing
• 49:53
  press took place. It's so perfectly analogous. Yeah, well, perfectly analogous
• 50:00
  to what happened after the mention of the Internet. By the way, yes,
• 50:04
  yes, for any of that read any of this, and this is
• 50:07
  why the people in charge of the television are so rabidly fighting against anything that
• 50:15
  exists on the Internet for exactly the same reason, because they had a stranglehold
• 50:21
  on mass communication the previous Yeah, until the twenty first century, you couldn't
• 50:30
  mass communicate anything unless you were on the television or in the press or something.
• 50:36
  But then the Internet came along and any ordinary Tom Dick and Harry could
• 50:44
  not just get rich off this stuff, but could communicate en massed to the
• 50:47
  public ideas that would ever previously be allowed. And it's all, yeah,
• 50:54
  it's history repeating itself, no less than five hundred years, six hundred year,
• 51:01
  but it's sort of yeah. But so basically, you were you were.
• 51:07
  You were able to do things as a as a middle class individual in
• 51:13
  in in the in the height of the Industrial Revolution or the beginning even of
• 51:19
  the Industrial Revolution, that you wouldn't have been able to imagine doing, you
• 51:22
  know, fifty hundred years earlier, because the money just wouldn't have been there,
• 51:27
  the things that you could buy to make it possible, wouldn't have been
• 51:30
  there. You'd have been screwed. And as the other thing that happened was
• 51:36
  as the expansion of industrial production took place, like mass production took place.
• 51:45
  You saw more people working working jobs outside of owning a business at home.
• 51:55
  So your success didn't depend on your ability to run a business. It depended
• 52:00
  on your ability to do your job. Just just perform a repetitive action and
• 52:07
  well, you might still be in the lower income echelons. You would have
• 52:14
  money that you wouldn't have had before, like you'd have been you know,
• 52:20
  if you had a dry spell with your business, you were kind of screwed.
• 52:24
  But you had a steady income from a factory, right, So there
• 52:29
  were a bunch of different things like that that changed there. That sort of
• 52:36
  gave people a structure within which to protest. So and Miller. Miller also
• 52:45
  points out the effect of the Second French Revolution, the July Revolution. The
• 52:52
  British aristocratic elite feared that they too might fall victim to revolutionaries, and the
• 52:58
  electrical electoral reform became the best option to prevent a revolution. So if the
• 53:05
  middle class were not given a voice in their government, their government feared that
• 53:07
  they and they're less economically fortunate countrymen would fight for it. So what can
• 53:14
  be laid out here is standards linking voting rights with the status that historically associated
• 53:21
  with military obligation and civic duty. Those didn't change. You still had even
• 53:29
  after the eighteen thirty two Reform Act, you still had a tiny percentage of
• 53:35
  the population voting, and that during that four hundred years there are only tiny
• 53:42
  little variations here and there, based on local laws and things like that.
• 53:47
  What did change was the level of power that existed in governments. You had
• 53:57
  the power of parliament expanding the power of the monarchy reducing to a huge degree.
• 54:07
  So due to an international pattern of uprising like in the nineteenth century,
• 54:15
  you started to see more expansion. So the expansion pattern taking place was from
• 54:21
  men and women who were responsible for communities, to men who were responsible for
• 54:28
  their tenants or their businesses and their families, to working men who were responsible
• 54:34
  just for their families. But it was still based on levels of responsibility,
• 54:39
  not just something that was handed out willy nilly. Preceding this change was the
• 54:50
  comparative levels of power the people's elective representatives had. So here we started with
• 54:57
  the king being in charge of everything, the queen being charge of everything when
• 55:00
  there was a queen and just taking advice from the Great Council up until the
• 55:07
  thirteenth century, and by the nineteenth century, you had parliament doing most of
• 55:16
  the decision making and the monarch choosing to sign off on it or not.
• 55:22
  Basically, so this is something that you know, you know, modern times
• 55:30
  is completely changed. Even where the monarchy still exists, the prime minister takes
• 55:37
  on the function that as an executive power, right, so you're seeing more
• 55:45
  of a system of government instead of an individual government. The monarchs do still
• 55:50
  have some responsibilities, but they are not in charge, Like, they don't
• 55:57
  make the laws, they don't decide what the government is going to do.
• 56:01
  They're not running the country. So that's basically where we're voting. Changed is
• 56:12
  what you were voting for and how much power the people that you were voting
• 56:16
  for had versus them having very little power and just representing to you to a
• 56:24
  government that that could decide to not follow their advice. But the real least
• 56:31
  egg here is this article I'm going to open and i'll I better put a
• 56:37
  link to this in the in our little chat here too. This is something
• 56:44
  that was unknown and at least by modern students of history until twenty thirteen,
• 56:55
  I want to say, is when this came out. So this is a
• 57:00
  twenty thirteen document from there with the article it's from twenty thirteen as well.
• 57:05
  From the document is from eighteen forty three, so after the Great Reform Act
• 57:12
  of eighteen thirty two, which is when feminists say that the vote the rights
• 57:22
  to vote were enshrined in law as male only because the law said men right.
• 57:28
  So this after that, but before the nineteen eighteen represent Representation of the
• 57:36
  People Act that restore the right to some women. And this is where we
• 57:42
  will take a break from other aspects of history and let me open this up.
• 57:47
  I think we do have some time to go through this, and it
• 57:52
  might take a minute because I had to go with an archive and it is
• 57:58
  wanting to if I can open it in a different tab. We're just gonna
• 58:02
  stop that. No, it's gonna be just as slow because because you know,
• 58:08
  fuck me right. But when I first saw this, oh there we
• 58:15
  go. When I first saw this, I was I was not as surprised
• 58:19
  as I should have been, because I had my suspicions, but it was
• 58:27
  posted on Reddit, and at that point the Telegraph was not behind a paywall.
• 58:32
  I linked this when I wrote about the Suffragettes not being able to save
• 58:40
  feminism, and I'll reference that a little bit more when I talk about the
• 58:45
  United States, because I wrote sort of a summary of US voting expansion history
• 58:52
  in that article. But in this we're going to find out that actually q
• 59:01
  Q the image that feminist always used when one of us says, actually,
• 59:06
  actually women could vote before the suffragettes. Women voted seventy five years before they
• 59:13
  were quote legally allowed to in twenty or in nineteen eighteen. And this is
• 59:20
  again, this is old. This is an old article, eleven years old.
• 59:22
  A new document has surfaced which shows British women of all classes voting in
• 59:29
  eighteen forty three, some seventy five years before they received the parliamentary franchise in
• 59:36
  nineteen eighteen. A new document, a new document, which is old document.
• 59:44
  All these new documents that are suddenly arising about I have writ and all
• 59:51
  these things we weren't allowed to say three years ago. And yeah, it's
• 59:55
  not a new document. It's a document that you've only just allowed people to
• 1:00:00
  see a hundred years after it already existed. Right, Yes, it makes
• 1:00:07
  you wonder, doesn't it. It's kind of like, uh, spies are
• 1:00:10
  releasing the data from their stupid injection all one hundred years later. Yeah,
• 1:00:21
  God damn, let me see if I can fix somebody's complaining about the My
• 1:00:28
  mic is as high as I can get it, so i'll have to I'm
• 1:00:31
  can eat just fine. I don't know, listen to it. Here we
• 1:00:35
  go. I had I have, I had you turned up because you were
• 1:00:39
  very quiet in a recent episode of something Else and I could barely hear you.
• 1:00:45
  So it's you sound fine on the on the YouTube as well. Yeah,
• 1:00:52
  so I uh yeah, I think I fixed it. So I okay,
• 1:01:00
  so a tuned A tuned flux will have to tell me if it made
• 1:01:05
  a change in the sound. Let's see back to the article though I've got
• 1:01:14
  I don't want to hit it without there we go. So I don't want
• 1:01:15
  to go back and select it. For some reason, my windows are not
• 1:01:19
  showing there we go. I had the bottom of the you know that bar
• 1:01:25
  at the bottom of the page that you can switch between windows. It wasn't
• 1:01:30
  giving me that for some reason all of a sudden, so let's scroll up.
• 1:01:37
  So this was written by Sarah Richardson, Associate Professor of History at the
• 1:01:40
  University of Warwick, so you know, and it was published on the eighteenth
• 1:01:45
  of March twenty thirteen, and she says, occasionally, just occasionally, you
• 1:01:52
  encounter a document that radically changes your view of the past. This happened to
• 1:01:55
  me very recently. The source was just a few scraps of parts in a
• 1:02:00
  box of solicitors papers, so attorney's papers correct solicitors or attorneys in Lichfield.
• 1:02:09
  But at a stroke, it provided me with a tangible proof that Victorian women
• 1:02:15
  were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right some seventy five
• 1:02:21
  years before they received the parliamentary franchise in nineteen eighteen. But it was only
• 1:02:30
  women who were powerful. And if we describe women as necessarily not powerful,
• 1:02:36
  then none of this ever happened. That we can burn down all of this
• 1:02:38
  evidence, much like those Iraqi soldiers smashed down all those statues, and then
• 1:02:45
  it'll be fine. As long as the evidence is destroyed, it doesn't exist
• 1:02:51
  anymore. Hurrah. Yeah. The document in question was a poll book for
• 1:02:58
  the election to the local office of Assistant Overseeer of the Poor in the parish
• 1:03:02
  of Saint Chad's Litchfield in eighteen forty three. I was tipped off about its
• 1:03:10
  existence by friend Phillips Salmon of the History of Parliament and that link does still
• 1:03:19
  work. I looked, but it's a lot of that stuff is actually behind
• 1:03:23
  a paywall or a certification, while you have to be in a university to
• 1:03:30
  see a lot of that stuff. But it was a schedule of voters,
• 1:03:32
  their addresses, the rates they paid, and how they voted. But as
• 1:03:37
  I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page.
• 1:03:42
  Elizabeth Shorthouse, which I will admit that I misread her name first time around,
• 1:03:51
  Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Anne Marlott, and all. There were
• 1:03:57
  thirty women playing an active role in election. Although I knew that in theory
• 1:04:01
  women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century,
• 1:04:05
  I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack
• 1:04:10
  of evidence had led me and many other historians to assume that voting was entirely
• 1:04:15
  a male prerogative before the twentieth century. So we talked last week about the
• 1:04:26
  fact that there was no nationwide law up until up until fourteen thirty the Knights
• 1:04:40
  of the Shire Act that governed who could or who could not vote in parliamentary
• 1:04:45
  elections. That didn't exist until fourteen thirty, and in fourteen thirty it didn't
• 1:04:55
  specify gender, it specified conditions women thirty. Yes, there was that.
• 1:05:09
  There was not a thing as a democratic government until we just we went over
• 1:05:13
  this just last week. It was yeah, it was fourteen thirty was when
• 1:05:18
  I remember in the thirteenth century, near the end of the thirteenth century,
• 1:05:25
  you saw the Great Council evolve into Parliament, into a parliamentary system. It
• 1:05:32
  didn't it didn't meet on a regular schedule necessarily until much later, but but
• 1:05:41
  it did exist, and in at the in the latter part of that era,
• 1:05:49
  you saw after the Second Baron's War, you saw commoners become represented by
• 1:06:00
  knights that were sent to Parliament, and they did have to vote for them,
• 1:06:04
  and there were election systems. We went over how the election systems were
• 1:06:11
  different in the shires, the counties, or the boroughs, and how the
• 1:06:15
  standards were different depending on but in each of those there was no male or
• 1:06:21
  female. I said, there was no such thing as a democratic government until
• 1:06:26
  then. But the Roman Senate was technically democratic, but it was only senators
• 1:06:32
  that could vote on things. I'm talking about when the general public could vote
• 1:06:38
  on things. Interesting you should bring up Rome because in my research into this,
• 1:06:45
  one of the things that I came across was it didn't really describe much
• 1:06:50
  about how voting evolved in the UK, but it did describe how the feudal
• 1:06:56
  system evolved in the UK and what it evolved out of, and that was
• 1:07:02
  the Roman landlord system, So kings and barons and lords and so on,
• 1:07:15
  that whole system evolved out of Rome, out of Roman control. In Europe.
• 1:07:24
  All roads really do lead to Rome, guys. This everything we're they
• 1:07:32
  have a direct has a direct connection. It's sometimes a dotted line or a
• 1:07:40
  thin road, but yeah, we are we are right in the moment thinking
• 1:07:47
  about the Roman Empire, and actually what we do today, what we are
• 1:07:51
  doing now, what we are talking about, was influenced by the Roman Empire.
• 1:08:00
  So so there you go. In many ways they had a lot of
• 1:08:04
  things right. In many ways they did not. Well, you know,
• 1:08:09
  I'm not telling you, I'm not telling you what the right answer in it
• 1:08:13
  is, but it's I don't know, I guess it's somewhere between emperors and
• 1:08:16
  kings. You know, that Roman Rome's version of feminism, it was the
• 1:08:25
  bell that rang, the toll for the death of the empire right like,
• 1:08:33
  as soon as they started stepping away from their their system of division of responsibilities.
• 1:08:45
  It's not just a division of labor between the sexes, it's a division
• 1:08:47
  of responsibilities. I'll take responsibility for this, you take responsibility for that.
• 1:08:53
  And women lived in that system the same as men did for the longest time.
• 1:09:00
  And then all of a sudden, when will your responsibilities come with rights
• 1:09:04
  that we want? But we don't want your responsibilities, we just want the
• 1:09:08
  rights. And then the empire died. It's difficult to point to any empire
• 1:09:15
  that lasted for longer than a thousand years, or any kingdom that has lasted
• 1:09:21
  for longer than a thousand years. Beyond that, we can look at things
• 1:09:27
  below that to just tribal situations, and tribal situations never even live two a
• 1:09:34
  hundred years because they're so bulkadized in the first place. And then we have
• 1:09:41
  to look to anything that goes beyond empires, and I guess that would be
• 1:09:47
  things led by governments. And we're led to believe that those things can exist
• 1:09:55
  for thousands of years, but we don't know that. And yeah, we
• 1:09:58
  can say, well, none of the systems have ever lived for long for
• 1:10:01
  longer than a thousand years, but we don't we don't know that as of
• 1:10:06
  yet. I mean, the US government has existed for to two hundred and
• 1:10:15
  fifty years, which which seems to be the average length of an empire.
• 1:10:23
  I mean, you know, we're still looking for the optimum kind of governance
• 1:10:29
  that can last beyond two hundred and fifty years. I mean, the Ottoman
• 1:10:33
  Empire lasted like a thousand years or something, but that was largely because of
• 1:10:41
  slavery. Loads of empire has existed for a long time, but largely because
• 1:10:46
  they were able to make use of the industry of slavery. If you can
• 1:10:51
  call it an industry, I guess slavery is this is this weird cross between
• 1:10:57
  agriculture and slavery, depending on what you consider it to be. Yeah,
• 1:11:01
  to count as it's acount as agriculture or industry. Well, and if you
• 1:11:09
  look at modern history, the thing that ended slavery wasn't just morality. I
• 1:11:16
  think the industrial revolution had a significant effect. We just just like we are
• 1:11:24
  being told that the the modern revolution of I guess you could still call it
• 1:11:31
  an industrial revolution. It's it's more of you know, computerized systems, but
• 1:11:39
  we're still looking at automation. You know, the automation revolution may be replacing
• 1:11:46
  a lot of modern jobs, and advancements in means of production had have over
• 1:11:56
  the last century changed or replaced a law of jobs, and AI may change
• 1:12:03
  or replace a lot of jobs in it. You know this This is I
• 1:12:10
  think slavery was pretty much doomed as a system by the invention of machines that
• 1:12:16
  could replace human labor. And you know, with when it comes to slavery,
• 1:12:23
  that's a good thing. We don't we don't really, we don't really
• 1:12:28
  want to be exploiting humans when we don't have to. We can pay humans
• 1:12:34
  to do work. But if if we had large swatches of the population,
• 1:12:41
  large you know, whole nations that we're going to exploit humans instead, then
• 1:12:45
  it's better that more machines were invented to do those things, because it takes
• 1:12:50
  away the excuse. The bad thing is obviously that now they're starting to replace
• 1:12:58
  paying jobs as well, and well, the bad thing is a double edged
• 1:13:01
  sword. Uh. To quote someone whom I will not name, the industrial
• 1:13:10
  revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for humanity, which which has been
• 1:13:17
  a disaster for the for the slavery industry and a boon for the industrial industry.
• 1:13:26
  But well there's and and and yes it has caused some problems. But
• 1:13:33
  this is where we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. That
• 1:13:38
  the the industrial Revolution brought an end to the to the slavery industry, which
• 1:13:44
  is a good thing, but it also brought about all the things we're encountering
• 1:13:49
  now with which which arguably are not as bad as slavery, but I'm rapidly
• 1:13:56
  becoming even worse. And so so we're there, impass in history where were
• 1:14:02
  we where we try and figure out how to make your work for us.
• 1:14:06
  Oh, it'd be nice if we could figure out how to use tech without
• 1:14:11
  using it to kill each other, that would be that would be a good
• 1:14:13
  step if we If we if we could have, you know, some kind
• 1:14:20
  of basic compassion for each other as men and women, that would that that
• 1:14:26
  that would be a good place in which to plant the seeds of of the
• 1:14:31
  technological revolution. And when I say men and women, like if only we
• 1:14:40
  could respect men for their existence as men as well as respect women for their
• 1:14:45
  existence as women, that would that that that would be, that would be
• 1:14:49
  some fertile soil in which to plant. We can just start treating men like
• 1:14:54
  teological Yeah, that would be great, wouldn't wouldn't that be great? I
• 1:15:00
  would much appreciate that. It would be maybe even better than if we would
• 1:15:05
  come into work on Saturday. That seems like that would be all it would
• 1:15:11
  take. But humanity in general, it seems to seems to not be on
• 1:15:17
  board with that. No, and in fact, we are our society,
• 1:15:23
  our civilization. Sorry, I don't know where that came from, but our
• 1:15:30
  civilization can't even stop lying about men. We've been told this has been one
• 1:15:38
  of the fundamental principles of patriarchy theory that men kept women out of power,
• 1:15:45
  men kept women from exercising the power of the franchise that men had. The
• 1:15:49
  reason I've been going over this voting history, all right, When you go
• 1:15:55
  to school in the United States and elementary school, junior high scho school,
• 1:16:00
  high school, middle school, if you have it, which is just another
• 1:16:04
  word for some of the grades in elementary school or junior high school, you
• 1:16:11
  get taught that men always had the right to vote, but women didn't get
• 1:16:15
  their voting rights until much later. Men didn't always have the right to vote.
• 1:16:20
  Men had to fight and bleed and die for the right to vote.
• 1:16:27
  And they did it to keep the monarchy from confiscating property that men fought for
• 1:16:40
  and using it for its own purposes without the input of the people that they
• 1:16:47
  were taking it from. That's why men fought for the right to vote,
• 1:16:54
  and most men didn't get it. Most men didn't get the right to vote.
• 1:16:58
  Most men had no voting rights until shortly before women got universal voting rights,
• 1:17:05
  and slavery was oddly upheld by this idea of no, we have to
• 1:17:13
  put men to work, We have to make men pick cotton, we have
• 1:17:16
  to make men act as the machines of our society, because if we don't
• 1:17:23
  do that, then what on earth else are we supposed to do? And
• 1:17:27
  then someone invented machines. Well, a bunch of people invented machines and then
• 1:17:31
  went, look, we don't have to put men to work. We can
• 1:17:34
  put machines to work instead. And a whole bunch of people were like,
• 1:17:39
  no, we have to put men to work. Well, these machines of
• 1:17:45
  yours, machines aren't the thing. How very dare you? You're a misogynist
• 1:17:51
  or something, And a bunch of people had to say no, actually,
• 1:17:57
  there are alternatives to turning men into machines. We can't actually do that,
• 1:18:03
  and well, respect what we're experiencing now in the technological revolution, it seems
• 1:18:10
  to be a similar thing. Look, we don't have to put we don't
• 1:18:13
  have to make men's slaves. We can actually there is an alternative to this.
• 1:18:18
  And you know, I know, I know that sounds like it's incomparable,
• 1:18:23
  but at the same time, maybe it's not. Maybe we could.
• 1:18:28
  We could replace what were once male slaves with machines. And a whole bunch
• 1:18:39
  of people are going, no, we need to make men's slaves. How
• 1:18:43
  could we possibly exist as a species without making men's slaves. It's again,
• 1:18:49
  it's history repeating itself. Once it was the agricultural revolution, and then it
• 1:18:56
  was the industrial revolution, and now it's the technological reli revolution. They're all,
• 1:19:00
  you know, different, itserations of the we can't possibly exist as a
• 1:19:06
  species without enslaving men, and I'm like, maybe we can, Maybe we
• 1:19:12
  can. It is a possibility, and drawing ever closer to the idea that
• 1:19:20
  maybe we can exist as a species without making men's slaves. I know it's
• 1:19:27
  mental, isn't it. It's a fucking mental idea that we could exist as
• 1:19:32
  a species without making men's slaves. But yeah, it is. We're getting
• 1:19:38
  closer and closer, and every every every new revolution with with with with thrown
• 1:19:45
  up with this wall of nonsense trying trying to make it impossible. But maybe
• 1:19:55
  it's not impossible. Yeah, no, it's it's I think it's not impossible.
• 1:20:00
  I think we just have a lot of work to do, and starting
• 1:20:05
  with not lying about men like that would be that would be a good start
• 1:20:10
  if society would stop lying about men and stop lying about this whole patriarchal idea.
• 1:20:16
  What this article sort of gave me in terms of information and what to
• 1:20:24
  evaluate for a history on was the fact that a women could vote when feminists
• 1:20:33
  have told us that men kept women out of the franchise, and b the
• 1:20:40
  standards were mostly the same for the for the sexes. The one thing that
• 1:20:45
  I will say is different is that women were never subject to anything resembling a
• 1:20:49
  selective service or a draft for going to war. Men were. And remember
• 1:20:56
  last week, one of the things that we pointed out as taxes evolved as
• 1:21:00
  a system for paying one group of men paying other men to substitute for them
• 1:21:10
  in that requirement of being being prepared to defend their land. So if you
• 1:21:15
  lived far away from the king and the king needed to send military body to
• 1:21:24
  defend or attack, and you weren't going, then the king could raise his
• 1:21:31
  army locally by hiring mercenaries with money that you paid. That was the proto
• 1:21:39
  tax system that he would send out to barons and distant areas and say,
• 1:21:44
  hey, we're going to war, we're doing this, I need to pay
• 1:21:47
  mercenaries if you don't want to send soldiers. And women who paid taxes were
• 1:21:56
  participating in that part of that system. But prior to the existence of that
• 1:22:02
  system, the the proto military the feared didn't didn't include women. So so
• 1:22:15
  that is something that it's it's a line that needs to be drawn from that
• 1:22:23
  system. That was the male only system to even when women could vote.
• 1:22:30
  What the the only standard that that men met that they didn't was military service
• 1:22:38
  and that history of military service and the attachment of that history of military military
• 1:22:43
  service to their tax paying. And the difference between that proto tax system versus
• 1:22:51
  the modern tax system was that respect of the Greek council system made that something
• 1:23:00
  that these men agreed to and they didn't go and agree to it, and
• 1:23:03
  then their underlings had to pay the tax. The people who were making that
• 1:23:10
  agreement were the ones paying the tax. So they would go and have counsel
• 1:23:15
  with the king, and the king made his decision or the queen, because
• 1:23:19
  there were queens that did this as well, and the monarch would make this
• 1:23:25
  decision based on the support from the barons, and if the barons were not
• 1:23:30
  supportive, the monarch couldn't couldn't just enforce the decision, as the First Barons
• 1:23:36
  War showed, when they didn't agree to fund the actions of the monarch,
• 1:23:45
  they went to war and said no, you know, fuck you, we're
• 1:23:48
  going to fight this and things have to change or there will be blood.
• 1:23:56
  And when things didn't change, there was blood. Right, women were not
• 1:24:00
  participants in that. And yet when voting expanded based on taxes, women who
• 1:24:09
  paid their taxes, who were property owners, who were independent of men,
• 1:24:17
  they still had the right to vote and they exercised it. So that that's
• 1:24:23
  something that like the reason that I want this symphasized is because we're told this
• 1:24:32
  is a is evidence of patriarchy. This story that women were not included in
• 1:24:40
  in the franchise prior to the suffragettes. This was this is this is part
• 1:24:45
  of the evidence that you know, men have kept women down for centuries.
• 1:24:51
  And yet here we are these names, these thirty names from this one one
• 1:24:59
  area. They indicate that this was not true. And if it's it's happening
• 1:25:04
  in this one area, it's happening in other areas as well. Right,
• 1:25:10
  And we have this record because this particular area was was monitored. It was
• 1:25:17
  a marginal constituent constituency in the period the party wanted to keep tabs on the
• 1:25:24
  political temperature, the solicitor would have compiled the pull book from ballot papers returned
• 1:25:30
  by the voters in the period before the secret ballot. Let me see if
• 1:25:35
  there we go, Sorry about that, Hope everybody's not getting motion sickness.
• 1:25:40
  But in the period before the secret ballot, everyone was entitled to know how
• 1:25:44
  people voted. So you know this this is you could see who they voted
• 1:25:48
  for. In the image where the handwriting is, you can you can see
• 1:25:56
  their vote, how much they paid, I think, or their name,
• 1:26:00
  how much they paid, and who they voted for. It was unusual to
• 1:26:04
  have an election for this particular office. It was a powerful post responsible for
• 1:26:12
  collecting poor rates and deciding how they were allocated, so that basically was the
• 1:26:17
  head of the welfare system at the time. Overseers were usually appointed to avoid
• 1:26:26
  the expense of an election. All heads of households paying rates were entitled to
• 1:26:30
  vote all heads of households, so these women were heads of households. This
• 1:26:36
  was a very wide franchise and one that included single and widowed women, so
• 1:26:48
  she goes on. My assumption was that women would be of genteel status,
• 1:26:54
  but as I checked their names against the nineteen or the eighteen forty one census
• 1:26:59
  return, I was to see the diversity in the group of votes. There
• 1:27:03
  were a few women of independent means owning property in land. There were also
• 1:27:08
  women, probably widows who had inherited their husband's businesses. So, for example,
• 1:27:15
  the wealthiest female actor in the role was Grace Brown, a butcher who
• 1:27:18
  managed a large household including several servants. Due to the high rates she paid,
• 1:27:27
  Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in
• 1:27:32
  favor of the conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on
• 1:27:36
  the list who were far lower down the social scale, including the laundress Carolyn
• 1:27:45
  Edge, the servant Sarah Payne, and even paupers including Sarah Batkin of Stowe
• 1:27:51
  Street. So this wasn't just reg this wasn't just the middle class, right,
• 1:28:03
  This was women who owned their own home. This was remember we talked
• 1:28:12
  about the the people who got the right to vote by by having boiling their
• 1:28:20
  own kettle, their own pot, you know, in their own home,
• 1:28:26
  at their at their own fireplace, like that would be. She may have
• 1:28:32
  been considered a pauper, but she wasn't on the dole. Essentially, the
• 1:28:41
  poll book is all that remains of an unremarkable local parish election in a comfortable
• 1:28:45
  Midlands market town in the mid nineteenth century. Yet it has prompted a need
• 1:28:50
  to rewrite the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able
• 1:28:56
  to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise. So it's interesting
• 1:29:03
  to look at this and the reason, like I said, I wanted to
• 1:29:06
  go over this is that that lie about patriarchy. So for all of the
• 1:29:13
  time that the men's rights movement has been in conflict with feminists, you know,
• 1:29:17
  we've been told that we are agents of something that kept women from power
• 1:29:30
  for centuries. Yeah, we have evidence that women had that power. They
• 1:29:39
  weren't kept from power, they were just subject to the same expectations for being
• 1:29:45
  able to exercise it that a man would be subject to, and not even
• 1:29:50
  all of them. The most demanding expectation that men faced was death, willing
• 1:30:02
  to die for for the right to have their say in how their government was
• 1:30:06
  run. Women didn't face that. They just had to pay. They'd pay
• 1:30:14
  somebody else to die. I'd say we had it pretty easy. I don't
• 1:30:20
  know any thoughts. It's it's it's it's not even I'm trying to draw this
• 1:30:34
  between class systems and the women have always had the opportunity to use Certain women
• 1:30:46
  of a certain wealth have always had the opportunity to to vote for the government
• 1:30:53
  they wanted. It's just that no one of a lower classes ever had the
• 1:31:00
  opportunity to vote for these things. And that doesn't necessarily mean that that people
• 1:31:05
  weren't voting on behalf of of of any particular class below them. People have
• 1:31:16
  been voting for systems that would benefit them and any other below them. No
• 1:31:29
  way. I did have a solid thought in my head earlier on trying trying
• 1:31:34
  to trying to get it around now it's the term. It wasn't that people
• 1:31:46
  always voted for the class. It was people voted in their own interests.
• 1:31:55
  Mhm. That was both men and women of upper class and upper class voted
• 1:32:01
  in their own interests. And that included upper class men and upper class women.
• 1:32:10
  And and they always did so, and it was always in their own
• 1:32:16
  interests. And they didn't even pretend to vote in the interests of the lower
• 1:32:27
  class. They voted in the interests of their own class. And I know
• 1:32:34
  a lot of the John Stewart types like to say, knows this thing is
• 1:32:39
  trickle down economics. And yet nowadays what you call trickle down economics doesn't really
• 1:32:45
  work like the strong man you call it does work. But in those days
• 1:32:54
  it did because people would invest in their own businesses and if they succeeded,
• 1:32:59
  they seeded and they became Coca Cola. If if they didn't succeed, then
• 1:33:05
  it did trickle down. And when anyone is allowed to invest in in the
• 1:33:15
  risks in which they wish to take place, then there those those risks present
• 1:33:25
  themselves as risks, and if you do well, then then you become billionaires.
• 1:33:30
  And if they don't, then your business liquidates and and it is trickled
• 1:33:38
  down into those things. And it was always, it was always able to
• 1:33:45
  trickle down from not just the rich men, but the rich women into the
• 1:33:50
  descendants of what could happen, which is no longer the case because anything you
• 1:33:59
  might have called trickle down economics before no longer exists. I'm because because men
• 1:34:06
  only have that option if they are successful. Women have that option even if
• 1:34:12
  they are not successful. Women nowadays represent a pool into which those economics triple
• 1:34:24
  down, into which they are collected and with. Even though women could build
• 1:34:36
  upon their initial success back in the Victorian days and so can men, nowadays,
• 1:34:46
  people can't build upon that initial success because it's not allowed because they sort
• 1:34:54
  of the the they are considered, despite being on top of the economic pyramid,
• 1:35:04
  they consider lower down on the cast system pyramid. And the cost system
• 1:35:11
  nowadays is based on demographics, namely men and women, and it's the current
• 1:35:20
  day cust system is no longer based on success, and and so no one
• 1:35:29
  has given the incentive to work on their business because it sort of doesn't matter
• 1:35:38
  anymore. Success isn't based on what you can invest through through hard work.
• 1:35:49
  It's based on what it's it's based on the cost system that has drawn up
• 1:36:00
  was based on what the model of what was once down was. In fact,
• 1:36:08
  you end up in a position where if you are successful and you're from
• 1:36:15
  the wrong part of the cast system, you end up having your fruits of
• 1:36:20
  your labor and of your risk taking confiscated and redistributed to people in the right
• 1:36:30
  parts of the caste system. Like what you're talking about is kind of it
• 1:36:41
  used to be that what trickled down referred to was, you know, the
• 1:36:47
  individual that become successful in an endeavor, they take their risk, they create
• 1:36:54
  a product or service, or you know, some combination of both, and
• 1:37:00
  it becomes popular or relied upon by people, and they end up needing to
• 1:37:08
  expand their production of it. They need to be able to expand their provision
• 1:37:13
  of it to the public, So they increase the size of their business and
• 1:37:18
  they hire people, and so part of the money that they are making goes
• 1:37:24
  to the people that they have hired to do parts of the job. And
• 1:37:30
  the whole job is still the creation and distribution of this product, service,
• 1:37:39
  or combination of both to the general public so that people who want it can
• 1:37:43
  buy it, and that whole job brings in a whole gross profit, and
• 1:37:53
  then parts of that gross profit are distributed to parts of the business. The
• 1:37:58
  people that do they're part of that job, and the risk taker at the
• 1:38:03
  head of it, who does all of the management of the business, has
• 1:38:09
  his share. So the part that the workers get paid, the part that
• 1:38:15
  the manufacturers of the supplies that they need to do their part get paid,
• 1:38:20
  the transport part gets paid, and all of that is has trickled down from
• 1:38:28
  the head of the business. And at the same time, those individuals then
• 1:38:32
  go out and spend money at other businesses, and as as those expenditures happen,
• 1:38:42
  and that commerce takes place lower and lower areas of the economy. See
• 1:38:49
  some of those dollars from that that top dog, and that's basically trickle down
• 1:38:56
  in a nutshell. Unfortunately, we have developed a tendency for the federal government
• 1:39:01
  and the state government to take bigger and bigger chunks out of those dollars,
• 1:39:08
  and those bigger and bigger chunks leave less to trickle. And there there are
• 1:39:16
  a combination of market interferences in the form of of grants and and in the
• 1:39:25
  form of regulations and and tax manipulation So, for instance, let's say the
• 1:39:32
  company is Coca Cola, like Mike mentioned, If Coca Cola hires Brad,
• 1:39:43
  and Brad is a white guy who has never been impoverished, He's never used
• 1:39:49
  food stamps or medicaid or any of those services. He's just you know,
• 1:39:56
  gotten out of high school and gone to work in a factory. And there
• 1:40:01
  isn't any part of the case system where he is in one of the right
• 1:40:10
  boxes to tick. Coke doesn't get a tax incentive to hire him. But
• 1:40:18
  if if Brad is of an ethnic background that is historically considered disadvantaged, that's
• 1:40:28
  a box they can tick and say, well, you know, Brad Bradley
• 1:40:31
  is Native American or part Native American, or he is black, or he
• 1:40:36
  is he is an immigrant, his second generation of an immigrant immigrant family from
• 1:40:42
  Mexico. And so then they get then they get a tax incentive, small
• 1:40:47
  one, but a little bit. If he's female, you know, sudden,
• 1:40:53
  suddenly, you know, if there's this Brad Lorena. I don't know
• 1:40:56
  what a feminine version of Bradley is. But Brenda, Brenda, Yeah,
• 1:41:02
  Brenda goes to work there, there's an automatic tax incentive incentive because Brenda's female.
• 1:41:10
  And then if Brenda ticks off one of those other boxes, there's more.
• 1:41:14
  If Brenda was on aid to dependent families for instance, Uh, there
• 1:41:19
  there's an incentive there, there's a tax breaker. Risk. Risk is supposed
• 1:41:25
  to be part of life right, not just now, but all the way,
• 1:41:28
  all the way back through our evolutionary history. Well, the point being
• 1:41:32
  that the interference and trickle down is that now Brad's cut off from the trickle
• 1:41:40
  if he's white and middle class. But go on, yeah, you know,
• 1:41:45
  like I say, risk has always been part of I'm not going to
• 1:41:50
  say human nature, but it's always been part of of what has been exacted
• 1:41:56
  in I mean, that's where we that's where we cross from tribalistic humans dominates
• 1:42:05
  nature to what we call civilization. That some people are willing to take more
• 1:42:12
  risks and some people are less willing to take those risks, and that that
• 1:42:17
  seems to be what has taken us from from mud huts in Africa to cathedrals
• 1:42:26
  in in in Europe. And that's that's pard on, that's what should be,
• 1:42:34
  that's what we should encourage in order to continue on that trajectory. But
• 1:42:44
  it's what's being discouraged by by so many of these forces, forces in which
• 1:42:49
  I will include well, I'm I'm reluctant to call the government of the state.
• 1:43:00
  We're surrounded by these forces that are that are determined to discourage us from
• 1:43:06
  taking risks. And that's not necessarily miss anddric in its nature, but it's
• 1:43:14
  mass anddric in its practice because men take more risks than women. That's that's
• 1:43:23
  something that any psychologist, evolutionary or otherwise, will tell you. Men are
• 1:43:30
  more willing to take risks than women. And you know, we're we're now
• 1:43:34
  surrounded by these forces that are them that are determined to to stop us from
• 1:43:44
  taking these risks because they would rather regulate everything. Dare I call it communists?
• 1:43:50
  Dare I call it? This? This collective push to make us less
• 1:43:59
  risk taking, this collective push to make us more not even equal, but
• 1:44:05
  equitable, like it's it's not it's not just this equality of outcome, but
• 1:44:14
  this this this this continually collective desire to make us less willing to take risks,
• 1:44:24
  because if we don't take risks, then we'll, in the end will
• 1:44:29
  all be equal. And that's that sounds beautiful on paper, but in practice
• 1:44:35
  it doesn't work because without people who are willing to take risks, people who
• 1:44:42
  are willing to either fall into the top percentile or the bottom percentile, then
• 1:44:49
  we're all just going to average out into the medium percentile, which is what
• 1:44:56
  every other species does, is animal species, but plant species. This is
• 1:45:01
  what every species does. They average out into whatever will work according to the
• 1:45:11
  environment. And yet you can see how that produces a certain equilibrium. And
• 1:45:19
  and yes, you can see why why that works if if your only interest
• 1:45:25
  is in in in this natural equilibrium. But this is what makes humans different
• 1:45:32
  from all the other animal species, from all the other plant species, from
• 1:45:35
  all the other fungi species, that we're able to rise above that. It's
• 1:45:45
  it's it's the reason we're able to to go beyond mud huts, to be
• 1:45:51
  able to to create city cities that can span from her into horizon. The
• 1:46:00
  reason we're able to go to the fucking Moon and maybe even Mars, if
• 1:46:08
  if that's possible. And you know, maybe you're of the mindset where you're
• 1:46:13
  like, maybe we shouldn't be doing that. Maybe you're like, fuck the
• 1:46:17
  Moon. Maybe you're like, fuck Mars, we don't need to do that
• 1:46:21
  ship And yeah, fine, but I would I put it to you that
• 1:46:29
  that is where that that is where the the argument reaches reach reaches its impasse,
• 1:46:38
  like should should we be be the kind of species that that that reaches
• 1:46:44
  its apex at mud huts on the African planes, or or species that can
• 1:46:54
  go further, that that can develop all the way to Europe and Asia and
• 1:46:58
  America and all the way the globe and even to the moon and to Mars.
• 1:47:03
  And I would put it to you that, you know, what's the
• 1:47:06
  point, What the fuck is the point in living in this universe if we're
• 1:47:12
  not gonna expand our horizons. I mean, yeah, we shouldn't expand our
• 1:47:17
  horizons so much that we kill all the other animals. And yeah, that's
• 1:47:21
  the different conversation. But no, these are different ideas of what progress is.
• 1:47:28
  And I'm sick of listening to people whose idea of progress is that we
• 1:47:34
  should that we should prevent human beings from progressing any further than the African savannah.
• 1:47:45
  Yeah. I get it, I I really do get it that maybe,
• 1:47:50
  yeah, maybe we've progressed too far from the African savannah. But I
• 1:47:56
  think you know, as far as we know, we're the only planet in
• 1:48:01
  the known universe that has developed life, and I think I think we should
• 1:48:12
  really indulge in this endeavor to spread life, perhaps the only life that has
• 1:48:21
  ever existed in the universe, to other places. And we're not going to
• 1:48:27
  do that if we keep insisting on the growth. Yeah, and that's all
• 1:48:34
  it is. You know, Like, I don't know if we could bring
• 1:48:38
  life to other planets. Maybe it's I don't know if it would look similar
• 1:48:44
  to ours or anything that we would recognize as life. But I do think
• 1:48:47
  that we owe it to humanity to see how far we can go. You're
• 1:48:53
  absolutely right. But you see, I think that the government, the people
• 1:49:00
  in power know that we do possess this capability. We do have genius people
• 1:49:06
  who are just sitting here with you know, they're solving math problems instead of
• 1:49:13
  trying to figure out how to advance, you know, certain areas of technology
• 1:49:17
  or whatever. And but what do you see The reaction is they want to
• 1:49:24
  hurt us all into fifteen minute cities. So it's not a mud hut.
• 1:49:29
  We're not going back to mud huts, but it's it's very similar, you
• 1:49:33
  know, it's more comfortable, it looks more like what we're used to,
• 1:49:36
  what we're familiar with but it's still a fucking yeah, it's but it's still
• 1:49:42
  a mud hut essentially, you know, that's exactly what they want to do.
• 1:49:47
  They want to limit our capabilities, you know. And that's why this
• 1:49:55
  lie about voting is so I just I really hate it, you know,
• 1:50:02
  because you see these young women out here parroting the same thing over and over
• 1:50:08
  and over again. And I guarantee you feminists, actual feminists, you know,
• 1:50:12
  the ones who've been doing this for a long time. They know this
• 1:50:15
  information, they know it, but you will never see them actually correcting the
• 1:50:20
  record because it only enhances their goals, which is more feminism. It's a
• 1:50:29
  big part of the problem with women's voting habits, and we'll get into more
• 1:50:34
  about that in future episodes. But I really believe that, and this is
• 1:50:42
  another reason why I feel that it's very important to go over this history.
• 1:50:46
  The pathway men took to vote created a one set of voting habits, right
• 1:50:54
  one attitude toward voting, and also the pathway men take to success in their
• 1:50:59
  lives. Lives, your voting habits are partly based on what it takes for
• 1:51:05
  you to survive in your role and for you to thrive in your role as
• 1:51:12
  a man. Women do not face the same standards. They don't face the
• 1:51:16
  same expectations. Women don't have the same social obligations, the same legal obligations,
• 1:51:25
  and women do not have the same level of accountability. Our lives are
• 1:51:31
  very protected in comparison to those of men from various levels of risk. Women
• 1:51:39
  aren't just risk averse. Women are averse to other people taking risks, and
• 1:51:45
  women are safety net addicts. And then when when a woman is not a
• 1:51:50
  safety net addict, other women treat her like she's weird, and that goes
• 1:51:58
  clear back to child Other girls will treat a girl who picks up bugs with
• 1:52:04
  her fingers and jumps between monkey bars and trees and sticks her hand in mud
• 1:52:12
  when she can't see what's in the mud and stuff like that as a weirdo,
• 1:52:18
  even though little boys do that shit all the time and they're not weirdos
• 1:52:23
  for it. Right, Little girls will say boys are gross for that,
• 1:52:28
  but they don't act like they're weird because they're used to that being a boy
• 1:52:31
  thing. So women are not just risk averse, and they're not just averse
• 1:52:36
  to other people taking risks. They're controlling about it. And that has resulted
• 1:52:43
  in a different voting pattern among women, and that voting pattern really needs to
• 1:52:53
  be like, women need to be aware that they're doing that, because without
• 1:52:58
  that awareness and without the recognition that prior to women women voting being a common,
• 1:53:08
  universal thing, we didn't have systems of government that robbed Peter to pay
• 1:53:18
  Paulina to to to spit out babies and not work and not marry, you
• 1:53:28
  know, the father of any of her children. Right before it was common
• 1:53:32
  for women to vote, our our government did not. It didn't fund endless
• 1:53:42
  constant attacks on other countries for living differently than we did. You know,
• 1:53:47
  we did still have a tendency toward uh warmongering early in the twentieth century,
• 1:53:56
  but it wasn't something I don't think we will have had the history that we
• 1:54:01
  have today of people, you know, voters in mass listening to our politicians
• 1:54:10
  say that we have to go attack this country and attack that country for being
• 1:54:15
  communists. I don't like communism. I think it's shit, but it's also
• 1:54:19
  the decision of the country that it's happening in our country, whether they develop
• 1:54:28
  a communist regime or not, and it is not it's not right that the
• 1:54:34
  United States felt obligated or entitled to be the world police. And I think
• 1:54:42
  if women had been more conscientious in their voting patterns, I don't think that
• 1:54:49
  our our population's children would have been sent to fight those battles. But in
• 1:55:00
  any case, we can get more into that as well as we get into
• 1:55:05
  the United States, Canada and Australia. I've got a blurb at the end
• 1:55:10
  of the show notes about that this is voting changed in the colonies that became
• 1:55:20
  countries before it changed in the UK in some ways, and like that's something
• 1:55:29
  that we'll discuss next week and in weeks after, because I know this is
• 1:55:34
  going to take more than one week to talk about three different countries formed during
• 1:55:42
  and after the time period when reforms were taking place in the UK and how
• 1:55:51
  voting is done, and they started, they all started with different election systems
• 1:56:00
  and evolved after they'd started, So we're gonna have to talk about that,
• 1:56:04
  and I'm not sure whether I'm going to do. My mom had a history
• 1:56:11
  teacher that did this. My mom's history teacher had a timeline that had world
• 1:56:18
  history and the events taking place around the world at different times listed on it,
• 1:56:26
  instead of just America's timeline and England's timeline and so on. So you
• 1:56:32
  knew the French Revolution and the American Revolution were related to each other because of
• 1:56:43
  the influence of one on the other, which happened fairly fairly close together,
• 1:56:49
  right. And you knew what was going on in the world in various countries
• 1:56:58
  at the start of World War One and at the start of World War Two.
• 1:57:01
  That contributed because you could see it on the timeline. So I'm thinking
• 1:57:06
  I might do that, you know, with with the timeline of voting in
• 1:57:13
  the United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia. Like as each
• 1:57:19
  of these nations formed and their their franchise formed and evolved, it did I
• 1:57:30
  think influence the UK. And at the same time, like the suffragette movements
• 1:57:35
  were influenced by each other as well. They were not little bubbles in each
• 1:57:42
  country where there was the the UK suffragette bubble and the US suffragette suffragette bubble
• 1:57:47
  and the Canadian suffragette bubble. There was a worldwide movement. So that's something
• 1:57:55
  to look forward to, uh. And it might be it might be easier
• 1:57:59
  to do with the other way, where I talk about one country and then
• 1:58:01
  the next and then the next but if I can, I'm going to try
• 1:58:06
  to talk about it in terms of things that were happening concurrently. If I
• 1:58:15
  find it important to do that and can't can't do the note combination like put
• 1:58:25
  things together in a week, I will delay that show and talk about something
• 1:58:30
  else next week and delay it to the week after, just so that I
• 1:58:36
  know I'm doing it well. But so I'm not going to promise that next
• 1:58:41
  week we're going to talk about the United States, but in the next couple
• 1:58:45
  of weeks we will definitely get onto this part of the evolution of voting rights,
• 1:58:49
  and we'll talk more about the reform acts in the UK as well,
• 1:58:55
  because that's important information too. But in the meantime, just remember, we
• 1:59:02
  already saw that women were voting in the UK before feminists say they were voting
• 1:59:12
  in the UK, so don't be surprised if you find out that that was
• 1:59:16
  true in some place other than the UK, namely, when we do talk
• 1:59:23
  about the United States, there are some aspects of the new Jersey voting system
• 1:59:29
  at the start of the nation that are kind of interesting and important to discuss
• 1:59:33
  as well. So with that, let's get into we do have another superchat
• 1:59:41
  a superchow and a rumble rant to read. So the superchow is Meredith g
• 1:59:46
  who gave us five dollars and said, HBr talk three oh three honey for
• 1:59:50
  the Badgers. The superchat was from Albert Nada Retro, who gave us five
• 1:59:57
  dollars Canadian and said woman gets into a car act incident. Blames the patriarchy
• 2:00:00
  because men invented cars, street lights, telephone polls catchup women most affected.
• 2:00:08
  I don't know who invented ketchup. Actually that might have been a man,
• 2:00:12
  That might have been a woman, But whoever invented it? You know?
• 2:00:17
  Thanks A Nova fan twenty one gave us a dollar on and a rubble rant
• 2:00:24
  and said off topic. But France IGN made a claim that attractive women,
• 2:00:29
  even from Stellar Blade, cause direct harm to women. Have you done shows
• 2:00:32
  debunking that claim? Exactly? How are attractive women harmful to other women?
• 2:00:39
  Exactly? How? Because we don't We don't have to imitate them. We
• 2:00:45
  don't have to It's not like we don't even have to compete with them,
• 2:00:53
  really, because it's not like half the female population is made up of women
• 2:00:59
  who are significantly more attractive than the other half and personality doesn't matter. Attractiveness
• 2:01:08
  in men and women, there's a there's a small percentage that are highly attractive,
• 2:01:12
  and then then there's a much greater percentage that are sort of somewhat attractive,
• 2:01:18
  maybe you know, mid maybe not so fabulous, and and then there's
• 2:01:25
  a small there's a percentage at the bottom it's less attractive, and a small
• 2:01:30
  percentage that's unattractive. You know, from from what I've seen, you know,
• 2:01:34
  in the general public, most people are not and there's no harm to
• 2:01:43
  be had there. The French like like like to think that their women are
• 2:01:49
  more adulterous than other women because they like to assume they're more attractive than other
• 2:01:56
  women, and and the rest of the world likes to assume that's the case
• 2:02:00
  because they're women are more adulterous than other women. Not necessarily the case.
• 2:02:04
  French women are just woles. I don't know. I would say that because
• 2:02:08
  I know, but fuck you, it's true. Oh that's great. I
• 2:02:18
  don't know. I don't know if it's necessarily Ethnic women in general, like
• 2:02:27
  women have an easy cover, you know, for that if if a conception
• 2:02:33
  happens, unless the person that the woman was cheating with with looks significantly different
• 2:02:41
  than her partner. She seems to be able to pawn off the kid as
• 2:02:45
  the partner's kid, and nobody knows, you know, nobody is any the
• 2:02:48
  wiser. And of course modern women have the whole slut shaming narrative. Oh,
• 2:02:53
  you can't slut shame her, but she's betraying her partner. No,
• 2:02:58
  no, you're just mad that she had said. No, No, she
• 2:03:00
  can't have all the sex she wants with her partner, or they can have
• 2:03:03
  an open relationship, but she shouldn't lie to them and say she's not having
• 2:03:08
  sex with someone else when she really is slutshamer, you know, And it
• 2:03:13
  doesn't matter that actually, no, you're lying. You're shaming her for lying
• 2:03:16
  about sex, not for having it. You're shaming her for betraying someone's trust,
• 2:03:25
  not for being intimate, but for violating that intimacy. You're still a
• 2:03:31
  slut shamer, right, So yeah, it's I don't know. I think
• 2:03:36
  that claim is so ridiculous that there needs to be substantial evidence provided. If
• 2:03:43
  somebody makes that claim, they need to explain exactly how that damage takes place.
• 2:03:47
  And if somebody just says, we'll look at the source material look at
• 2:03:53
  the source material. That means they didn't read it, they don't understand it.
• 2:03:57
  They saw the headline and they think it's it's something that they can can
• 2:04:00
  shoot at you with, and you need to call them out on that.
• 2:04:03
  What do you mean you don't want to understand the source material? Can't you
• 2:04:06
  explain briefly, give a list of ways and some supporting evidence that's from that.
• 2:04:15
  Tell me a paragraph and page number at least where I should be finding
• 2:04:20
  that information. Or did you just read the headline and think, hey,
• 2:04:27
  I have a gotcha right here. Look there's a gotcha because it's not.
• 2:04:33
  You know, I've never been harmed by the fact that there are other women
• 2:04:36
  who are more attractive than I am, Like, that's never bothered me.
• 2:04:42
  In fact, it's fun to look at them, you know, I quite
• 2:04:46
  enjoy that. And I've never been harmed by the fact that there are women
• 2:04:49
  who use makeup and hair extensions and all that stuff, aside from the fact
• 2:04:54
  that you know, they do pollute the environment and that harms everybody, but
• 2:04:59
  the actual physical appearance change. I look at that as entertainment. Right.
• 2:05:03
  Look, this lady's eyelids are blue and sparkly that's kind of cute, that's
• 2:05:09
  fun to look at. You know, it's only a when that makes her
• 2:05:12
  think she's better than me, that I have a problem. Like, And
• 2:05:14
  most of the time, most women who do that don't do it because they
• 2:05:16
  think they're better than everybody else, right, They do it because they think
• 2:05:19
  that their looks are inadequate or they want a particular effect. But it doesn't
• 2:05:28
  even the social justice warrior tendency to dye their hair a rainbow of bizarre colors.
• 2:05:34
  Right, it's interesting to look at that, boys or girls, men
• 2:05:40
  or women. When people do creative things with their appearance, that's fun because
• 2:05:45
  we can look at that and enjoy the artwork. Right. But no,
• 2:05:54
  no, we have to be upset about it. We have to have women
• 2:05:58
  have to be victims of it somehow if they're not victims of having to do
• 2:06:01
  it, which we don't because, as as I've said before, being allergic
• 2:06:05
  to all that shit has freed me from any any obligation. And I actually
• 2:06:12
  find it completely unnecessary to you know, the the idea that we're victimized by
• 2:06:18
  discrimination against us because of other women doing it, like, which isn't true
• 2:06:24
  either. I haven't had you know, an instance where I've not gotten a
• 2:06:28
  job because somebody came in with sparkly makeup and and no better resume than me
• 2:06:35
  and and got it instead. So uh, like I I don't think that
• 2:06:41
  that's that's real either. I think that's bullshit. I just it just bugs
• 2:06:46
  me that women have to be victims of fucking everything, so women should be
• 2:06:54
  in any way. No, it's it's merely that the English should destroy the
• 2:06:59
  French and a massive war. I elaborate no further, and I leave.
• 2:07:04
  You have to get rid of some of my DNA. Yes I will.
• 2:07:09
  I'm ready and willing to do that. I'm even really ready and willing to
• 2:07:14
  destroy Lawrence, to destroy the world of the French. You can't call it
• 2:07:23
  gene therapy because it's French, right, you have to call it geen therapy.
• 2:07:27
  Such thing as French French is merely a social construction, and it's up
• 2:07:32
  to us to destroy all of it. Does that mean I can't be frank
• 2:07:36
  with you? It does? Uh? And that and with that we have
• 2:07:45
  one more super chat that came in from Albert Nata Retro, who says gave
• 2:07:51
  us two dollars and said my new catchphrase catch up women most effective, which
• 2:07:59
  yeah, and wait, have another one. Albert Adarectro gave us another five
• 2:08:03
  dollars and said feminism would have died in the seventies except Jane Fonda and Glorious
• 2:08:07
  Steina made it fashionable because they were attractive ketchup women most effective. Yeah,
• 2:08:13
  the uh, I don't know. I think that there was. The establishment
• 2:08:22
  was behind feminism. So whether it was made fashionable by the attractiveness of some
• 2:08:28
  prominent feminists or not, it was. It was going to be. It
• 2:08:33
  was. It was a sign of the whole time. Guys. Sorry,
• 2:08:35
  you could go you could go back in time and kill Jane Vonda and Corus
• 2:08:39
  steinem in my feminism feminist in the minecraft, feminism still would have happened.
• 2:08:45
  Is It's much like the idea that you could go back in time and kill
• 2:08:48
  Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Revolution wouldn't have happened. No, it still would
• 2:08:52
  have. Yeah, even even if Hitler had never existed, the the zeit
• 2:09:00
  geist at the time was bound to produce some kind of Adolf Hitler. And
• 2:09:05
  for all you know, if you had killed baby Hitler, then the zeitgeist
• 2:09:09
  would have produced an even worse equivalent of Hitler, and the same thing goes
• 2:09:13
  for for feminism. This this was an inevitability as as as society it becomes
• 2:09:22
  more and more prosperous, it it produces the seeds of feminism. This is
• 2:09:30
  just something we were bound to have to deal with as as society became more
• 2:09:35
  prosperous, and we're now in the late stages of having to deal with with
• 2:09:43
  the excessive of of of feminism. If there was never a Glorious Seynum or
• 2:09:48
  a Jane Vonder, there would have been a different Jane Vonder and a different
• 2:09:52
  Glorius Dynem and it might have been even worse. Yeah, the SIAP would
• 2:09:56
  have can would have would have happened no matter what. And you know what
• 2:10:01
  we would have had to do to prevent that. Actually, if you wanted
• 2:10:07
  to destroy feminism in the twentieth century, what you actually would have had to
• 2:10:11
  do would be to destroy the comfort that people had with sitting back and letting
• 2:10:18
  government make decisions for them and letting the establishment form that formed during the mid
• 2:10:26
  twentieth century that led to that feminist sye op in the latter half of the
• 2:10:31
  twentieth century, and that would have meant no great society. That that would
• 2:10:41
  have meant no progressive movement at least, not no successful progressive movement, at
• 2:10:50
  least, not a successful, widespread supported movement. It would have been people
• 2:10:58
  would have had to have been looking at that and going, you're getting too
• 2:11:01
  addicted to safety nets. Stop it. And unfortunately we didn't do that.
• 2:11:09
  I say, well, I wasn't born yet, but American society didn't do
• 2:11:13
  that. The rest of the world didn't do that either, and as a
• 2:11:18
  result, we now have the worst, the worst cancer that our political environment
• 2:11:28
  in the world has had, and that is guynocentrism. That is feminism,
• 2:11:33
  that is the progressive stack. That is diversity and equity and inclusion. It
• 2:11:39
  is the belief the attitude that one group of people can can matter more than
• 2:11:46
  another based on their immutable characteristics, and another group of people can matter less
• 2:11:54
  based on theirs. And with that, I think it is time to call
• 2:12:01
  it. We have read all of our various chats, and so I will
• 2:12:05
  thank everybody for listening to me delve into the history of suffrage and sort of
• 2:12:13
  crashing around like a bull in a china shop in regard to how I articulate
• 2:12:18
  that history. Because there's a lot I could have incurred and included in this,
• 2:12:22
  but the show would have been eight hours long and I have to go
• 2:12:26
  to work tonight, so I can't do that. My co host would be
• 2:12:28
  exhausted. They can't do that. So you get the crash course, and
• 2:12:33
  we'ld you show various calves in a china shop trying to keep up, trying
• 2:12:39
  to break some china as well. Yeah, I kind of plowed my way
• 2:12:45
  through this a lot of this because it's a lot of it's just giving you
• 2:12:50
  information, but and I know a lot of it didn't lend itself to much
• 2:12:56
  commentary. But the overall, this guy should turn out pretty good, I
• 2:13:01
  think, so, thanks you guys for for bearing with me on that.
• 2:13:03
  So now we have we have a bullet a bear. I'm ready to market
• 2:13:09
  the episode and uh well we'll end with the puns. Good night all we
• 2:13:16
  will. We will see you next Thursday. See you next Thursday.