Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

Read More

History of the United States, by Noah Webster

I wrote once, in passing, about Google books. And I included a link in the post to Noah Webster's (America's Schoolmaster) "History of the United States." I thought that I had included a favorite passage of mine from the book in the entry, but a search of the blog archives proves that that is not the case, so I shall include it here. In the introduction to the book, Noah Webster wrote:

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.

So much for the doctrine of "the separation of church and state," eh? By the way, how is it that one is to "separate" his religion (or the lack thereof) from his politics. I hold that it is impracticable; that those who vie for such a thing are irrational.

Someone named "Zapem" invokes the authority of General Washington in a comment posted under Dr. Keyes's latest entry over at Loyal to Liberty. My reply to Zapem involves the importation of foreign ideas of God, man, and government to these shores. It once was, you see, a great concern of Washington's, the witness of American youth migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. Why? Because, in his words, the great possibility existed that these students, ill-eqipped as they were to well understand the value of their own system of government, would thus imbibe principles not congenial with republicanism and bring them back with them on return to America. But we needn't worry with that anymore, as I intimate in my reply to Zapem.

Read More

The Foundation

Noah Webster, who has gone down in history as America's Schoolmaster, once wrote that:

These United States present the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles...

Mr. Webster was, of course, a contemporary of the founding fathers, and in point of fact was a founding father, albeit he does not get the same recognition as do some of the premier founding fathers such as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, et al. Indeed, I've often said of Webster that he is one of the most under-quoted and under-appreciated of our founding generation, which is to say the real "greatest generation," what's-his-name's book title notwithstanding. But there's not a single person in American History who contributed as much to the proper education of American youth as Mr. Webster, who also once stated that "the education of youth is of more consequence than the making of laws or preaching of the Gospel, because it is in a good education that the foundation for law and Gospel rests for its success." And accordingly another epithet that has attended his name throughout the course of our history is that of The Father of American Education. Read that again: The Father of American Education. Yes, American Education should be distinctive from all others. That is, if we want to keep our Constitutional Republican form of government.

Getting back to the intial quote above, Mr. Webster did not simply leave it at that. He was a voluminous writer who spoke 26 languages. As I've written numerous times before he denominated the United States a Federal Representative Republic, each term in the descriptive having a particular meaning and the terms combined having its own distinctive meaning, of course. I'll be writing more about this in upcoming entries.

Read More

Voluntary Union equals the Right to Secession

Yes; put me on Homeland Security Dept.'s watch list for making such a wild-eyed, crazy, nutty, dangerous assertion. Because, you see, there's no truth more evident to my mind than the truth I've selected above for the post title. It's a truism I've long known and understood, and one I've advanced and propagated within my circle of influence during the same lengthy period of time. This single fact makes me, according to Homeland Security chieflette-in-drag, Janet Napolitano -- of open borders, immigration-policy-is-the-exclusive-domain-of-the-federal-government fame, more dangerous than the growing, increasingly influenial and empowered, Muslim population in this country. But let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, shall we?...

If I voluntarily (the only legitimate kind of contract) enter into contract with another person or entity, and the other person or entity has clearly violated the explicit, plain terms of the contract, evincing a design to reduce me under his absolute control or sway extraneous to the terms of the contract, then I have the right (and the duty under certain circumstances) to declare myself, and by extension those persons whom the contract affects but have yet to establish a viable voice by which to restrain the other party's tendencies to oppressive excess, no longer bound by the terms of the contract as the other party is interpreting and applying them.

That's about as simple a principle as there possibly can be. Any third-grader is capable of understanding it, just as any third grader is perfectly capable of understanding that no one has the right to reach into his pocket as a means to support the other's profligate habits and dependency. Where I come from we call it self-preservation.

When we apply the principle on a larger scale -- say, to the states as parts of the federal union of these states -- then the phrase in the post title, and the principle undergirding it, becomes abundantly clear. To say otherwise is not only unreasonable or irrational, it is a verbal act of aggression against the other party/parties to the contract. And who can forget President Clinton's infamous opinion/proclamation before a worldwide audience regarding a movement to secession among some Russian states in the 1990s during his presidency when he said something to the effect that we (Americans) had settled the question on whether a state or states could rightfully secede from a political union during our own "civil war."? Pardon me for saying it, and with all due respect, sir, but your opinion on that matter, Mr. President, sucks! We know for whom your totalitarian leftist statement was really intended, but I've always wanted to ask you by what authority you presume to speak for the rights (or non-rights) of other states and other peoples?

But here's the problem when it comes to the common folk...

We've so long neglected or otherwise re-written our glorious history that The People no longer understand what the American Revolution was and what it was all about fundamentally. The principle of Voluntary Union is an alien concept to this generation, truly. To speak about it outside a small circle is to speak an alien dialect which is "Greek" to the other side and to those "educated" by the other side. Nonetheless this nation, as Vanishing American correctly writes in this blogpost, was created in the aftermath of a movement to secession after it became abundantly clear that the Mother Country was going to continue to exercise arbitrary rule over the thirteen colonies from a distance of 3000 miles (in spite of the founders' repeated petitions), and that their British brethren were also deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, lending the force of their support to their government's illegitimate arbitrary policies regarding the American States. It is, in point of fact, a history of repeated injuries and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce them under absolute despotism with at least the tacit consent of their British brethren. And such a prince or government, as demonstrated in the DoI, is not fit to rule over a free people.

And speaking of being properly fit for a particular job or profession during one's adult life, Noah Webster wrote in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that "Education is all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations." (emphasis added) Under the same word he further wrote that "Education in arts and sciences is important, but a religious education is indispensible," and that "a heavy responsiblility rests on those parents and guardians who neglect these duties."

Now, if you think that fitting one for usefulness in his future station(s) is to make him a dependent and servant of his protector and bread giver the "federal" government, and/or, an advocate for and immovable defender of the same, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, then I would suggest to you that you are an enemy of America and of Americanism. And I suspect that a great many of you who advocate for this line of "reasoning" and this kind of "education" are of relatively recent immigrant stock. But we'll leave that for another post.

Once again, put me on the watch list. I'm going to end up on it irregardless at some point (if my name doesn't already grace the document), what with my absolute dedication to the cause of liberty, of self-government, and of a defense of God-granted unalienable rights as explicated by the founding generation and circumscribed in our founding documentation. By that definition, an unapologetic right-wing extremist I most definitely am. It's all a matter of perspective. And from the perspective of the radical left, I'm an extremist of the first order. Yes, little ol' me. How about you?

No King but King Jesus!; No Government for a Free People than a Government founded on (and operating according to) its legitimate principles!

Read More

Another impotent State Legislature inadvertently reveals the reason for its impotency

One of the most destructive and oft repeated lies that was ever perpetrated on the American public is the lie that immigration is an exclusively federal issue:

Most opponents also point out that immigration is a federal issue, and most legislators say Congress should handle it – Texas has a budget to pass, jobs to create and public schools to monitor, all in less than five months.

Many of this year's bills are unsuccessful repeats from the last session, when only three immigration bills – out of 72 – ultimately passed. Supporters acknowledge that most were kept at arm's length even by devout conservatives such as former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who felt they belonged in Congress. And the measures face even longer odds under a moderate speaker and a House that is almost evenly divided now among Republicans and Democrats.

Am I the only one to see that immigration has a direct impact on all of the above (Texas's budget, creation of jobs, the monitoring of public schools, etc.)? Moreover, am I the only that sees that the unwillingness of the Texas legislature to deal with the immigration issue and to declare it a "federal issue" which belongs in Congress is what's leading Texas and the Texas legislature to become ever more democrat(ic) and liberal?

Allow me to echo the prediction of Mark Krikorian who recently said in a video-interview dealing with the subject of immigration that Texas will soon follow in the footsteps of California in that it will become a swing state progressively moving more to the left until it is firmly in the Democrat column. Why? Because as I've pointed out more times than I care to count, immigrants to this country are, and always have been since the inception of this country, by and large, natural democrats. Among the best explanations for this tendency among immigrants to gravitate to the Democrat party was stated by Noah Webster who wrote:

Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

They don't make a great distinction between the two because they do not and cannot know the difference. In other words, the regimes they've lived under all of their lives, and the regimes their parents and grandparents have lived under all of their lives, etc., have always been oppressive and arbitrary. This being all they've ever known, how could they possibly be aware of the difference (I'm speaking in generalities; I admit of the occasional exception, as did Mr. Webster)? Moreover, whenever our government acts in a way that does not suit them or their way of thinking, how could they possibly understand the distinction between the arbitrary enactments of their own governments and the lawfully executed legislative enactments of our own?

The bottom line here is that it is, always has been and ever shall be, a losing proposition for non-democrats to cater to immigrant groups whether they be Hispanics or any other ethnicity. The best that can possibly be accomplished by doing so is to corrupt your party's principles for the sake of gaining votes you're never going to get, and to simultaneously alienate your base which will result in a net loss, not a net gain, of voters loyal to your party. In other words, to turn your state and your nation over to liberal multiculturalist Democrats.

Wake up Texas!

Read More

How many immigrants naturalized?

When we talk about the immigration situation in this country rarely do we speak in terms of exact numbers of immigrants who are granted citizenship. I've often cited the words of Noah Webster on the subject who wrote:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Numbers of them who have recently arrived in this city come with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

Another founder I've cited on the subject before is George Washington. While this particular advice of Washington's has nothing to do with immigrants per se, it is logically derived from his statements that Washington, like his contemporary Noah Webster, took a very cautious approach to the admittance of foreigners to the rights of citizenship.

It is with indescribable regret that I have seen the youth of the United States migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition ... Although it would be injustice to many to pronounce the certainty of their imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by sending abroad among other political systems those who have not well learned the value of their own.

And although it may be injustice to some to pronounce the certainty of their bringing with them to America maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by bringing to these shores and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of foreigners every year who have not well shaken off the anti-Republican principles that they learned and practiced in their countries of origin.

So how many foreigners does the United States naturalize on an annual basis? Read this New York Times AP story to find out. It looks like we're headed for a banner year in 2008. And if the actual numbers do not alarm you, I doubt that you and I have anything more to talk about.

Read More

Do right liberals believe we can ever have too many immigrants?

Over at VA's Vince P. argues that the problem in America is not that we have too many immigrants, but that we don't project Americanism as the "primary" identity.

Below is my response to Vince's assertions posted over at VA's blog:

Vince P. wrote:

So what has led to conditions in America today? Is it because there's too many immigrants?

I don't think so.

It's because we as a nation we have decided that there is no reason to identify with being an American. Our schools are pumping out peopel who think America is the cause of the worls problems..

When the primary identity is no longer attractive, then by neccessity people have to fall back to another identity and that would be their ethnic or "old country" identity.

My reply to Vince:

"Vince, you're arguing for restrictions on immigration whether you realize it or not. Which is to say that you're arguing that we have too many immigrants in this country while denying that we have too many immigrants in this country. That's illogical.

If immigrants retain their cultural and ethnic identity to the extent that it is the "fallback" identity, and America's educational institutions fail to transmit to American youth the superiority of American culture and values and so on, as they're doing now, then the logical answer to this dilemma, as per your prescription, is to halt all immigration to this country so that the fallback identity does not become more proportionally unAmerican while we try to sort this deal out; if the fallback identity is not American identity under our current conditions, then these immigrants are by definition incompatible with America. All they can do or accomplish is to further the agenda of the left unless and until historic Americanism becomes the primary identity being projected and taught. This, Vince, would require the expulsion of huge numbers of first and second generation immigrants to this country."

I could say a whole lot more on this. But the main point is this, you can try to separate the numbers of immigrants in this country from the degradation of historic Americanism as we witness it now, but it is all a vain exercise. We've had liberal multicultist do-gooders in this country all along, even from its inception, and they've always worked to wriggle their way into government and to push their points. As Noah Webster noted way back when, "one of their main articles is to attach foreigners to their principles upon their landing here." Why would their modus operandi be then and now to attach foreigners, as opposed to natives, to their liberal principles? Is it not because foreigners (immigrants) are more disposed to be accepting of these ideas than natives are? Of course this is the case. We would do well to heed the advice and the reticence of founding fathers such as Webster who also said:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence, the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. ... Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government founded on free elections.

Why is this, does Vince P. suppose? Why is it that foreigners--immigrants from Webster's day; immigrants who were mainly European and therefore much more likely to be assimilable than today's immigrants to this country--would so readily and willingly attach themselves to liberal ideas upon landing here? Why is it that in Webster's time, when Americanism and American superiority was being taught to our youth as the "primary" identity, Webster still observed this trend of unAmerican ideas and identity taking precedence over the then existing "primary" identity, which he also observed would spell doom for our Constitution if ever it became commonplace in America?

Hopefully we can discuss it later. Gotta go.

Read More

Which is more important?

Over at the AFB Mike discusses the importance of virtue in a free society. Mike and I have discussed this topic many times privately. And of course he knows that I agree with the contents of his post. Mike concludes the entry with these thoughts:

Virtue is indeed indispensable for healthy families and a free Republic. But don't count on your children hearing that from anybody other than you, their parent (or Aunt, Uncle, or other relative). It's incumbent upon us to ensure that our children have a moral, as well as an intellectual foundation before they go out into the world. I would submit that a child with no moral foundation is at a greater risk than a child who cannot read, yet you'll never see a "program" designed to correct the former deficiency. (emphasis mine)

Indeed. Reading is important, but religion is indispensable, as Noah Webster said:

EDUCA'TION, n. [L. educatio.] The bringing up, as of a child, instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

Read More

How Would You Define Politics?

I think one of the best definitions I ever read of the word is contained in Webster's original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. As most of you know Mr. Webster was a contemporary of the founding generation, he was an influential leader of his day, particularly in the area of education where his influence is still felt to this very day. In fact, some of you are probably unaware of this, but there's been a concerted effort going on in this nation for some time now to restore, through the educational process, Mr. Webster's uniquely “American” methods of education, particularly at the primary levels. From my view this is vital to the restoration of this republic, and for saving it from the dark abyss which liberalism in all its varied forms is leading it to.

I should like to open a discussion on what the term politics means to each of us individually, and I'd appreciate your participation. I will begin the discussion by saying that to me, despite all the negative modern Americans associate with the term, politics is essentially good. Politics, to me, seeks to improve us and our condition, individually and collectively. It has no power of itself to do good or evil, to secure or to crush liberty. Politics is merely a vehicle which human beings use to accomplish either/or. I don't buy into the libertarian theory, btw, that there's no such thing as 'collective liberty.' I rather tend to think that liberty begins with the individual, but it certainly does not end with him/her. As Mr. Webster might have stated it were the question put to him, “those who claim there is no collective liberty involve themselves in a palpable error, for though they understand the particular aspect of liberty, they fail to understand the general aspect of which the particular is always a part.” And though the libertarian would insist that the 'greater good,' or the 'common good,' should never be sought at the expense of the individual good, using such arguments that indict this pursuit as having been responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, I find that to be a rather poor argument given that in fact what the libertarian is really vying for is indeed his version of the 'greater good.' It's just that the libertarian believes that the collective, or the 'greater good' is indeed, and almost always the individual good. Or, they are one and the same thing. While this may well be true, it does not absolve the libertarian of his error. Which is to say that he seeks the greater good as much as the next guy in spite of all his railings against the idea of seeking the greater good.

So, essentially, I think politics seeks the greater good for the people it applies most particularly to in a universal sort of way. Again, I think politics (in pureness) is essentially good and seeks the best good of the whole. I think politics has a reciprocal aspect to itself, and that indeed if it can be said to be responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, as the libertarian would seem to have it, then it is an indefensible concept, this idea of politics, and irreconcilable with the idea of liberty.

What say you?

-DW

Read More

Why is Intellectualism not Consistent with Traditionalism?

John Savage has an interesting couple of connected posts over at Brave New World Watch that deal with this question. In the original entry entitled Have We Always Had Lindsay Lohans? John cites a marxist author, Dwight Macdonald, whose writings he used to read and have an affinity for. I can't make heads or tails out of what Mr. Macdonald is saying, to be candid, but that's beside the point.

John's post, having been inspired by VA's post on the same subject, which is from an opposing view which I find myself more in agreement with, seems to equate VA's position (and my position via my agreement with hers) with that of Mr. Macdonald's on some level. If I'm misinterpreting him, I trust he'll set me straight...

John goes on to explain in his sentence following the excerpted quote that writings like Mr. Macdonald's, which stimulated some of his youthful exuberance about the superiority of 'intellectualism' caused him to speak in similarly elitist styles of 'proper' marxist prose during his more formidable years, but that now having lost much of that passion, he regards with a great deal of skepticism the charge often leveled from traditionalist circles that today's America is uniquely 'dumbed down.' John's position seems to be that the accusation itself emanates more from a liberal perspective on the subject than from a traditionalist one. But is this true?

John seems to believe that the founding generation was simply an exception to the rule that Americans have otherwise lived and conducted themselves by regarding their approach to 'education,' which to him is one of a tradition of anti-intellectualism, which he dates back to the election of the non-intellectual President, Andrew Jackson, following what some of us would term 'Western Expansion and Deterioration.' John and I would agree that the founding generation was an exceptional one educationally speaking, but in what way?

On the point that the founding generation was an exception to the rule as per its emphasis on education, I would disagree simply on the basis that the generations preceding the founding generation seem to have placed a great deal of emphasis on providing their youth with a quality education, “...dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches.” I quote here from “New England's First Fruits,” c. 1643, so it would appear, in light of the whole document, that unless John believes the founding generation to have extended to the establishment of the first colonies in America, his thought that that generation was an exception, at least to that point, is misplaced. I would further disagree on the basis that it simply seems logical to me that the deterioration in the quality of education in America thereafter, given that John acknowledges at least a peak in education level during the founding generation, must have occurred at a slow and something of a steady rate; probably at a rate that was not that noticeable, or that was not that alarmingly noticeable to most except academics of the time(s). This would imply to me that Americans, rather than having always had a 'contempt for learning' as John asserts, rather developed a contempt for it over time.

John seems to think that Americans have always rejected intellectualism; that this is one of the essences of American 'traditionalism,' and that today's traditionalists, to be true to their 'traditionalism,' would also tend to reject the idea of 'intellectualism.' This is where I might agree with John, though perhaps for different reasons than he. I've been critical of 'intellectualism' on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. And here again I think we might need to properly define our terms.

My view of modern intellectualism (and to be fair to John, he doesn't use the term with the suffix attached) is consistent with John's view, I think, that it is an 'elitist' idea at its core. In this sense I reject intellectualism, and I've always considered that to be consistent with my 'traditionalism.' 'Intellectuals,' particularly the self-proclaimed types, tend to see themselves as possessing a higher order of knowledge that puts them in the unique position of always knowing the better way. In a very real sense these folks tend to think of themselves as being almost 'all-knowing.' I once read it expressed by one of these self proclaimed types as “knowledge is power; anything else isn't.” And though the author of that quote feigned a belief that the 'lower classes' had big enough brains to become intellectuals themselves, this was really not consistent with his true view of the subject, which he simply could not help but make known in his other writings. His way was the better way because his intellect was superior, and until everyone else's intellect had been raised to his level, he and his type were in a unique position to rule over the lower classes.

But to get back to this idea that American traditionalism and intellect just don't, and never have mixed well, I often lament that the level of education of the average person is far inferior today than it was many years ago. Personally I think that children have a higher capacity for learning than our educational institutions lend themselves to. I believe that the main reason for this is a 'non-traditionalist' philosophy and methodology of education in this country, and that can be reduced to the undue influence of government on education in America. So, while I would agree with John that the quality of education in America has been low for a long time by a certain standard, I would disagree that genuine traditionalism endorses and encourages this on the grounds that a different standard was once applied as regards education, and the kind of 'literacy' it was once supposed to produce.

My position on the subject is consistent with that of “America's Schoolmaster,” Noah Webster, who defined in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the term “education” this way:

EDUCATION: Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations...

Mr. Webster goes on to explain that:

To give children a good education in manners, arts and sciences, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

To me this is the true 'traditionalist' view of education, as well as the measure of 'literacy' and of intellect, and one that developed over the years from 1620 to 1776. But I think it very interesting that 'traditionalists' disagree as to what constitutes 'traditionalism,' on this question as well as others. I should like to hear some of your thoughts on what you consider to be 'traditionalism,' and why. It is interesting that the term "intellectualism" was not an entry in Webster's 1828, but the term "intellectualist" is, and the definition Webster offers us is itself intriguing in light of this conversation. You may go to the online version of this dictionary at the link provided for it in the right sidebar of this blog.

-DW

Read More

We Interrupt this Broadcast to Bring You a Special Story

So I rise early this morning to get back to work on my commitments here at Webster's, but before I start I make a couple of my usual rounds, and wouldn't you know it, I run into this posting over at VA's: 'Too many People'

I'm going to attempt to make this fairly short and sweet. VA does a fine job of saying most of what I should like to say anyhow, and more...

In some ways it reminds me of a debate I had some months back with a liberal gal about 'mountain climbers,' and whether or not they contribute to society. And BTW, if you're debating a thoroughly indoctrinated liberal person, you're not going to convince them, so from my view that shouldn't be your purpose anyhow. Your purpose should be, as I've learned, to refute their arguments for the sake of the wider audience.

But getting back to the point, this person was arguing that mountain climbers, and those who engage in activities she later generalized as “high risk sports” or something like that, do not contribute to society and should be forced to contribute to society through differing means like training in mountain climbing techniques which would be taxed heavily, fees paid to climb a given mountain which would go to fund rescue efforts and so forth. This particular individual had a bone to pick with most anyone who engaged in 'amateur' pursuits of any kind, insisting that anything that was deemed to be 'risky' should come with the requirement of the enthusiast to become a 'professional' before ever being allowed to pursue such a thing. And who, pray tell, did she think should determine what is 'risky,' and what not? Well of course, the government. Typical liberal.

My argument against this point, of course, was that there are any number of 'high risk' activities out there that the government needn't bother itself with - “Aren't you liberals ever satisfied; haven't you saddled the government with enough activities it's not equipped to deal with? And of course there was a lot of passion from the other side about how poor old grandma would be turned away in her moment of need due to the fact that 'high risk sports enthusiasts' had overwhelmed the rescue services financially and in the availability of manpower. Liberals always pull grandma out of their hip pockets when they need her most. But enough on that.

VA's post deals with the Duggar family in Arkansas, and some of the “ignorant of the facts” vitriol which has been leveled against them. They don't live but a stone's throw away from yours truly, in a manner of speaking. And I should like to take the family to visit them sometime. The Duggars, if you haven't heard of them, have seventeen children. That's right, 17. They have a huge home, as you might imagine, but something that some of you may not be aware of is that they built that home with their own hands. I remember watching a documentary about the family during the time that they were still building this home, and one of the older male children said something on camera that struck a chord with me, he said, and I paraphrase:

“Dad said “I think we can pour the foundation.” And I said that I thought we oughta hire a professional to do it. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did it. Later, Dad said he thought we could frame the walls. I said I thought we might should consider hiring a professional framing contractor to do the work for us. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did. Then it came to putting the roof up and drying the house in. Dad thought we could do it, I thought...well, we did that too...

Interestingly enough, the home they built had very little work done on it from outside the family. Yep; truly this family, The Duggars, built the home they now live in with their own hands. Quite an accomplishment in my books, for someone whose profession is not 'construction.'

All that one needs do is to click on the profile of yours truly to find that I have six children, which, even in this neck of the woods is considered to be a lot, too many by most standards. I know this because I listen to the gasps that always attend my first sharing of the fact that I have 'so many.' Lot's of times people want to know how many different mothers these children have, automatically assuming that there must be more than one. Usually they seem pleasantly surprised when I inform them that they all have one mother and one father.

But as I shared over at VA's in a comment to her post, I can't even begin to count the times that people have gone plumb out of their way to strike up a conversation with us in some public place, announcing that “these are the best behaved children I have ever seen.” They are shocked, shocked I tell ya, that six siblings consisting of three boys and three girls, and ranging in age from two to nineteen years (the nineteen year old is out of the house now, making his own way) can behave and get along together so very well. I suppose there's something to be said for the ideas and negative predispositions people generally have about 'large' families. Heck, I even complain myself about the fact that “I have enough mouths to feed, I don't need, and shouldn't be taxed to feed everyone else's offspring, nor their aged.” To me, government coerced taxation aimed at 'social programs,' like welfare, food stamps, WIC, State funded health and dental care, and etc., is the same as taking food out of the mouths of my children. Of course, I'm totally against the dependency that such programs create, not to mention the undue attachment to 'government' that they create as well.

But before y'all go assuming anything about large families, barking out blatantly stupid comments about how that you're going to have to feed and shelter these offspring of these 'oversexed' parents, you might want to do a little research. As I noted over at VA's, some folks need to pay more attention to that old adage which states: “To assume anything, makes an Ass outta u and me.”

Nonetheless, though, I ain't real sure about this, but I think my wife may have an eye on a couple or three of the Duggar boys, and a couple or three of the Duggar girls, for some odd reason. And y'know, there's a ratio advantage in our favor there...lol

-DW

Read More

Traditionalism and Worldview

Often I wonder whether 'worldview' gets its due consideration when we discuss the ways and means of correcting and rectifying some of our most egregious mistakes over the last, say, 140 years. I would even go further back in time, but to date it back to the 'constitutional' overthrow of some of our more vital foundational constitutional principles seems to me a good place to look.

As I make my way around the 'traditionalist' blogosphere I often note what seems to me a tendency to long for days-gone-by that really weren't that long ago, and may not have been as good as they could have been, or as good as we perceive them to have been; or as 'traditional' as we think them to have been. Often these longings are for times which fall within the span of our own lifetimes, which is natural I suppose, given that we're most acquainted with, and attached to that which we've actually witnessed and experienced and feel a personal connection with. And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone.

Indeed, I can remember when I was still in H.S., and even in grade-school -not so awful long ago- and I often fondly reflect upon those times as something of an 'age of innocence.' Much of that reflection has to do with the relative innocence of my mind at that age, of course, and the way that this youthful innocence of mine perceived the world around me. Much of it has to do with the environment I was raised in as well - a good, moral family and community structure with much emphasis placed on being good and doing good, as opposed to the self-indulgence and the materialism that seems to rule now. I was also raised in 'small-town-rural-America,' and that in itself had a profound impact on the way I viewed the world around me, as well as the way I remember that time, not so long ago...

During the early part of the 1990's I was serving in the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK. At that time there was a nation-wide effort underway among the homosexual community to have the words 'sexual orientation' entered into all the 'non-discrimination' laws of local governments, and Anchorage was one of the cities wherein this push was happening in full force. I remember it well because as a completely committed member of the opposition to this movement, I counted it my duty to brave sub-zero temperatures and adverse weather conditions to make sure I had done all I could possibly do to stop the progress of these measures. In the end, as I've related before at the AFB, these initiatives passed, but the very next election cycle literally every member who had voted for them was summarily removed from his/her seat and replaced by new members who repealed those laws. Those were the 'good ol' days.'

That battle was won, but the larger war is ongoing and we traditionalists have incurred some significant losses along the way. I look back on those days, as well as the days of my childhood and think to myself how wonderful those times were given that abjectly immoral behaviorisms were not only not encouraged, but they were put down by an overwhelming display of moral rectitude from the vast majority of Americans when the time came. One of the faults we seem to have, though, is that the 'goodness' in us seems to supercede our instinct to survival once a movement like that is perceived to have been effectively put down. And in the end, rather than to go that 'extra mile' making certain that these things will not arise again anytime soon, we tend rather to have sympathy for those we've defeated, and to even help them back up. I often think of it in terms of a fist-fight wherein having neutralized your opponent's ability to cause you harm at that moment, conscience (or something) convinces you to let the poor soul up; often even to help him up, brush him off, and send him on his way. And I cannot help but to think that often this is a huge mistake. And yes, I've had the misfortune of having to do it all over again.

We look back with fondness to yesteryear because relative to today it was a fine, one might say even an 'innocent' time. Yesteryear was a time when we seemed to have possessed more grit, more determination, more goodness, more everything that may be said to be good and wholesome, and 'American,' and of course, less of everything else. The America of yesteryear would not have allowed the moral degeneration and degradation we see today to have occured. No; it would have put it down thoroughly, convincing the licentious movement that it had better not come back for more if it knew what was good for it. And there is a great deal of truth to that.

However, when we traditionalists long for days-gone-by we should not fail to recognize that those times and those generations we generally laud as better than ours are partly responsible for what we're experiencing today. I have always thought of the 'greatest generation' label put to the WWII generation as extremely misplaced. It was this generation, was it not, that effectively brought in 'social security,' and the 'welfare state?' I don't concern myself with whether their intentions were 'noble' in this cause; the effects are what they are, and in my opinion they speak poorly of themselves. And certainly there must have been those 'traditionalists' who were absolutely opposed to these measures, longing themselves for 'days-gone-by' when Americans were more self-reliant, and when they had rather starve than to take a government handout.

In another time traditionalists rose up and vehemently opposed the proposal and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendments following the war between the States, warning that the effect would be detrimental to all this nation was founded on. And it was traditionalists who shouted in opposition to the introduction of progressive education in America, raising cautions themselves against the probable and long-term effects this 'new deal' would have on this country, her laws and institutions, and on the minds and hearts of her people.

Nevertheless, here we are in the year of our Lord, 2007, and of our nation's 'independency' the 231st, and progressive government education of our impressionable youth, once just a fancy of some obscure group of liberal minded nobodys, is now just an accepted norm with majority America. Indeed, I would venture an 'educated' guess that in stark contrast to this once 'unAmerican' style and methodological approach to education in this country, the American psyche has now been thoroughly indoctrinated to the supposed 'superiority' of this thoroughly liberal educational philosophy. But this is not enough, the march must go forward say the liberals. Indeed it does, for how many of us have witnessed the disgusting rise of government funded 'early childhood development centers' across the fruited plain?; and even in small-town-USA, accompanied by the happy consent of the parents and grandparents of these helpless two and three year old unformed and uncultivated minds.

It's a tragic set of cause-effect events which have happened in our nation over the last 160 years or more. Traditionalists have been there all along like 'voices crying in the wilderness': "repent, repent!," but to no avail. The most that traditionalism has been able to do, it seems to me, is to slow the progress enough to avoid all-out armed conflict between the warring factions...most of the time. But the march of progressivism; of liberalism, and of abject moral and cultural degradation seems to have moved forward pretty well unimpeded to this point. We find ourselves in a nation, as well as influenced by its socialist tendencies, that our founding generation simply would not have recognized in any meaningful way. And it seems we must ask ourselves how much further we may stray before we reach the point of 'critical mass'?

The 'worldview' of our founding generation -that which is responsible for the creation of this nation in its pure form- was much, much different than is ours. Today worldview seems to get little direct notice even among 'traditionalists.' At least that worldview of the nation's original creators gets little direct attention. Often it seems that the worldview of the generation of my grandparents is equated with that of the founding father generation. But is this true? Is this consistent with the facts? We may say with little reservation that the worldview of my grandparents' generation was certainly closer to that of the founders' worldview than is ours. But still it can be shown that there was already a wide gulf between the two. And in fact, were the founders capable of transcending time and observing the two, they would probably recognize little in either largely consistent with their own. Just as we look back to those days of our youths with such a longing that 'if only things were that good today,' and so we should since it is the 'good' of those days we so long after, we should as well look past those days to the days before them, and the days before them, and so on until we arrive at the time when the pureness of this nation, of its laws and institutions; of the very worldview of its people reigned supreme.

In the year of our Lord, 1833, and of this nation's 'independency,' the 57th, "America's Schoolmaster," the honorable and learned Noah Webster, published these words in the preface of his work: "History of the United States":

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of Republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct Republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.

Later in this little volume Webster makes these equally remarkable assertions:

Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian Religion. Men began to understand their natural rights as soon as the reformation from Popery began to dawn in the sixteenth century; and civil liberty has been gradually advancing and improving as genuine Christianity has prevailed....the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...

Certainly we must look to our government as well as our churches and note a marked movement away from orthodoxy in both. We may look back twenty, thirty, even to fifty years ago and wish that our churches were now as uncorrupted as they were then. But do we not recognize that 'uncorruptedness,' that 'pureness' in them only as we contrast it with the corruption we see and witness today? Might we not travel back to Webster's time and truly find that 'almost all the losses to civil liberty in this country owes its origin to the prostration of the Christian Religion?' May we not further conclude that 'Americans first began to lose sight of the true origins of their natural rights as soon as the movement away from orthodoxy began to dawn in the 19th century; and civil liberty has been gradually diminishing and deteriorating as prostrated Christianity and other religious impurity has prevailed.'

It may not be popular to say these things in today's pc dominated America, but since I'm not one to toe the pc line, and since I am definitely one to strongly resist further advances of this pc dominated culture we find ourselves in, I'll say it, and let the chips fall where they may. My friends, there is a unique worldview that has always been consistent with genuine American traditionalism, and I think we should probably reach back further in time to discover it in its purest and its simplest form. For I think that therein lies the very key to our salvation.

As has been said before: "Worldview is everything!"

Read More