Adonis Diaries

Archive for January 11th, 2014

Third President: Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was behind the formation of the Republican-Democrat Party against the Federalist Party that seek a strong executive power and supported by Alexander Hamilton.

Once in power, Jefferson switched to a “strong executive” concept and nominated Hamilton for the Treasury.

Jefferson was born in Virginia and inherited from his father 1,000 hectares of land with 200 slaves at the age of 14. His was educated at College of William and Mary and become lawyer. At the age of 25, he is elected at the Chamber of the Bourgeois, the colonial assembly of Virginia (the richest and most populous of the 13 colonies).

He published in 1774 the pamphlet “Summary View of the Rights of British American” which accused the British government of killing American individual rights. and was selected to represent Virginia at the Philadelphia Congress of 1775 and to write the essential parts of the Declaration of Independence.

From 1776 to 79, Jefferson is member of Virginia legislative body where he demanded the separation of Churches from the State.

At 36, Jefferson is elected governor of Virginia and has to confront the frequent incursions of the British.

In 1781, he retired to his property in Monticello and published his “Notes on the State of Virginia”. His wife Martha died in 1782 and Jefferson decided to return to the public life.

In 1785, he is appointed ambassador to France to replace Benjamin Franklin. Consequently, Jefferson could not be physically at the Constitution Convention of 1787, but approve the text globally.

He witnessed the French revolution of 1789. On the autumn of 1789, Jefferson is nominated by George Washington to head the department of foreign affairs. He has this certitude that only France can counter balance the power of England. His ideas on foreign affairs go counter to the Washington inkling and resigns in 1794.

Aged 50, Jefferson is enjoying the life of a land grower and focus on his studies. His friend James Madison is in charge of organizing the opposition to Washington.

Jefferson took residence in the new Capital of Washington DC in 1801. It has barely 3,000 people. His inaugural address:

Minority own equal rights that an equal law must protect… We are all republicans, we are all federalists…” He walks to the Capitol without the traditional white wig and the formal reception is cancelled.

James Madison is nominated head of foreign affairs and replace most of the 600 executive employees with people of his party.

He launched in 1801 a naval attack against the Algerian Pasha for ransoming American ships.

Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803 for $15 million and the negotiations are held in total secrecy from Congress and invented a new procedure: The Executive Order. This territory included all the States where the Mississippi River passes through. The mischievous story is that England extended the loan to the US for the purchase in order to get the French out of the American continent. Napoleon was preparing to invade England and needed funding…

That loan came with a heavy price: Alexander Hamilton convinced Jefferson to sign on the monopoly of the Rothschild family of England to print US paper money and eventually have control the expansion of the internal US market.

The second calamity attached to this monopoly is that England invaded the US in 1814 in order to pressure Congress to extend this license for 24 years…

The third catastrophe was that England (through the Bank Of US) cut-off credits to the settlers in Ohio and the North-West Territory and plunged the US in a deep financial crisis in 1819.

Jefferson imposes an embargo toward European ports in 1807 and denied any ships coming from Europe to accost on US ports.  This decision is a blow to US trade and Jefferson decides not to seek a third term.

Jefferson returned to Monticello at the age of 66 and created the university of Charlottesville.

He died on July, 4, 1826: a date that coincides with the independence.

Advertisements

Are you in the mood for listing unnatural behaviors and relationships? Like Monogamy…

Is monogamy a supernatural relationship?

Are monogamy and loyalty of higher level behaviors?

Fact is, not until this 20th century, most relationships were of the incestuous type. Why?

People in rural regions lived in very small communities:  the customs (religious and others) and the difficulty of travelling made it unpractical to seeking “fresh encounters” and relationships… Even in urban setting, new relationships were hard to find outside ghetto-type blocks were people conglomerated…

 was posted on January 7, 2014 and , as usual, selected as one of the top posts for some reasons.

Monogamous marriages are unnatural. On this, I agree with the emailer below.

Now, behold these enlightening thoughts that I found in my inbox this morning:

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence.

Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

[Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement]

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me.

It wasn’t until your name came up for a 5th time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it.

But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism.

Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family.

The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth.

Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths.

Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do, it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity.

The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life. (And vice versa?)

You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman.

Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage.

Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies.

Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor.

I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets.

And here is what I wrote back to him:

Good Day Professor,

It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect.

Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class.

But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart.

You should be proud.

In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like “monogamism” out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist.

Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion.

Monogamy.

Monogamy is “unnatural,” says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose.

A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree?

In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread.

What you people — you socially “progressive” academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological.

The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick.

You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears.

But there is SOME truth in what you say.

Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either.

If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural.

It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard.

I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor?

Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are “biologically fitted” to do?

I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. (Not sure of that statement: this troubled mankind is out of whack in matter of rational applications…)

And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things.

But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case.

I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes.

Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage?

It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us.

If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders?

That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence. (Should it be a two-way loyalty?)

You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float.

Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices.

If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business.

Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you.

Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles?

No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise.

All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles.

Note: I disagree with both opinions in discussing Monogamy within the Natural realm of mankind.

There are animal species that are monogamous and the other type.

There are mankind tribes and communities that practice monogamy and others that don’t.

Cornering monogamy within a western cultural heritage is a falsehood.

Marriage institution is as old as mankind decided to settle in urban conglomeration, as the economic and social prerogative of considering the community as the prime responsibility of raising the children has altered artificially. The couples had to deal with newer trading conditions, life-style and imposition of central laws… for preserving security and stability…

You can turn into a Tree: After life, if you wish…

Did you know that you can grow into a tree after you die?

Bios Urn is a funerary urn made ​​from biodegradable materials that will turn you into a tree after you die.

Inside the urn there is a pine seed, which can be replaced by any other seed or plant, and will grow to remember your loved one.

Bios Urn turns death into a transformation and a return to life through nature.

When planted, the tree seed is nourished by and absorbs the nutrients from the ashes of your body which are contained inside. T

he urn itself is made from coconut shell and contains compacted peat and cellulose.

The ashes are mixed with this, and the seed placed inside. You can even choose which type of tree you’d like to grow!

Once your remains have been placed into the urn, it can be planted and then the seed germinates and begins to grow. You even have the choice to pick the type of plant you would like to become, depending on what kind of planting space you prefer.

We now have the option of turning cemeteries into forests, which is a little bit less traditional but is far more practical.

This could be a great way to help sustain the environment, contribute to the well-being of the ecosystem, and to know that the remains of your loved ones will live on through the beautiful expression of nature.

Is this a natural burial ground?


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

Blog Stats

  • 1,292,117 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 669 other followers

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: