The Americanism of Russian-American Master Artist Alexei Antonov

I met and became friends with Alexei Antonov soon after he moved his family into our apartment complex in Peter's Creek, Alaska back in the early 1990s when I was a young Airman stationed at Elmendorf AFB, and my wife and I worked in a semi-managerial capacity on the property (We took care of new applications, some maintenance, problems with problem-tenants, etc...).

Actually, Alexei and I became friends through our wives, as Alexei's wife spoke English very well. Our boys were close to the same age and played together, and so forth and so on, and our families, despite our cultural differences, had quite a bit in common at the time. For example, we were just poor folk and young family men trying to make our way in world. Alexei and I also shared another commonality, we both believed strongly in hard work and self-discipline, self-reliance, delayed gratification and all that. And neither of us could abide the thought of taking a handout, particularly from the government.

I thought about Alexei and his family today as I was reading Mark Presco's entry at his blog, The Politically Incorrect Iconoclast. You see, Alexei and his family did not immigrate to America alone. He and his family came to America with another Russian family, with the aid of the Russian Orthodox Church which both families were members of. The differences in these two families, and the two men, were, however, striking. I personally had absolutely nothing in common with the other family. But other than their common nationality, neither did Alexei and his family.

The other man was supposed to be some kind of an artist too, and though his artwork wasn't that bad, it was (and is, I'm sure), trust me, much, much, much inferior to the work of Alexei Antonov. This man was simply not gifted with Alexei's talent, nor with Alexei's work ethic, but this didn't stop him from demanding from Alexei more and more and more of the proceeds derived from Alexei's work as art enthusiasts became aware of the work of Antonov, and the proceeds naturally followed. I could tell you some stories. And Alexei and I engaged, through his interpreter-wife, in several conversations on the subject. I said to Alexei more than a few times during these conversations, "This is America, not Communist Russia. Part of the American Dream is for a person to be able to use his talents and giftings to create wealth and make his own way in the world, not for someone else to do it for us as we complain, no matter how much they're giving us, that they're not doing enough for us."

Anyway, I've checked on Alexei and his family from time to time since we left Alaska in October of 1992, just to see how they were getting along. And it's good to see, though in no way surprising, that they're doing so well. If you're an art enthusiast, particularly of Classical Painting and the works of Masters of Classical Painting techniques, and if you have ten or fifteen thousand dollars to spend, then maybe you can own your own Antonov.

Read More

Sarah Palin, Down's Syndrome, and Traditionalism

(Note: Be sure to read Nora's excellent comments to this entry where she lays out a few of her own theories on why modern women advocate abortion, and why men do nothing about it. Also that feminism is more responsible for our decline than all the other destructive isms.)

With all that's been said across the traditionalist blogosphere about Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate, one point of view is particularly bothersome.

Over at VA's some of the (presumably "Traditionalist") commenters to her entry The Shameless Left are saying that it's a woman's choice (you know, "a woman's right to choose" applied selectively) whether or not to allow a Down's baby to live. Commenter Rollory even goes so far as to assert that based on the fact that the parents of Down's children "created" the child, then they should have power over such baby's life. This, my friends, is the antithesis of traditionalist American conservatism. I have to wonder from whence these people (originally) hail.

I for one hope beyond hope that Mrs. Palin never considered it her choice to terminate her pregnancy. As mere human beings who have no power to "create" life, we definately have no power to extinguish it on a presumed right of choice. A human baby is not a physical structure that we've "created" with our own hands, for goodness sakes! If you want to exercise your choice to destroy such a structure, none of the rest of us has any say in the matter. But engaging in sexual intercourse is not the same thing as creating life. If you believe it is then your worldview is definitely not traditionalist.

This idea about the sacredness of life is one of the fundamentals of genuine traditionalism.

Read More

Parents obey your children, for this is right in liberal society

I've bemoaned the fact before that children in America increasingly are being raised with a growing sense of self-worth and filial empowerment, feeling themselves equal, if not superior to their parents and elders. It's an upside down worldview that finds anything good or right or proper in destroying the natural, God-ordained relationship between parent/elder and child. But as I've said before, anytime you begin to try to improve on God's perfect design, you're messing up.

But really, when you think about it, what other outcome might one expect in a society where liberalism is the dominant ideology? Since we're all God's children, and therefore owe due respect and subordinance to him who is our Father in Heaven, and since liberalism, when you boil it all down, is just an extreme form of rebellion against God and His authority over his creation, doesn't it stand to reason that liberal empowerment would result in the empowerment of children over their elders, among other evils?

Poetic justice? In that sense I would have to say yes. But it doesn't mean I revel in it.

Read More

Why do Americans accept the unacceptable,...

and what, if anything, can be done about it?

Is our society so eat up with the cancer of cultural degradation that the unacceptable has now become acceptable among the majority, or is it, as Clark Coleman suggests, that the appearance of cultural degradation, seen in television adds promoting everything from "performance enhancement" drugs to "size enhancement" drugs for men, to lesbian activities between college girls, and etc., seems so utterly pervasive and overwhelming that the majority, not realizing it is a majority, feels incapable of, and utterly helpless in doing anything about it?

In a comment to Auster's article which I sent a few minutes ago and has not yet been posted, I wrote the following:

I've told the story before elsewhere, but in 1992 while serving in the U.S. Air Force and stationed in Anchorage AK, residents became alarmed by the radical homosexual agenda that the Anchorage city council was considering passing a local ordinance on -- adding the words "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination laws -- which, as traditionalist conservatives understand very well, has far reaching destructive societal consequences. I personally attended several of the public hearings, braving sub-zero weather conditions with many other like minded concerned citizens who were "left out in the cold" so to speak due to the fact that so many alarmed citizens became instant and active opponents of the measure thus filling the council chambers to capacity, as well as the library building where these chambers were housed.

This did not deter the council from passing the ordinance by a margin of something like five to two, even though the members were warned many times and in many different ways that they'd be removed if they voted in favor of the measure. They passed the measure in open and direct defiance, even aggressive, insulting verbal defiance, of the clear and overwhelming will of the people. And they were all, every last one who voted in favor of the measure, summarily removed from the council at the next election cycle which was only a few months later, just as the citizenry had warned they would be. The new council overturned the measure as their first order of business.

The point is that this is an example of exactly how these things should be handled. We know that there are leftists in positions of power who are going to defy the will of the people, even on threat of their removal from office or on the threat of a boycott, or whatever. Such is the nature of leftists; they are aggressively defiant personalities who recognize no authority but the authority of the ideology of liberalism. The only way to deal with them effectively, therefore, is to give them fair warning of what their fate will be if they defy the will of the people, and then to follow through on that threat once they do. And when I say "follow through" I mean follow through all the way to the end, never allowing them to hold a position of authority where public policy is made again. ...

No news to you, I'm sure, that I like Mr. Coleman's idea, and I disagree with the dissenters and the naysayers. There are always any number of folks out there who say this and that lofty and worthy goal can't be achieved. And comparatively speaking there are generally far fewer people who believe a difficult thing can be achieved, than believe it can. But as Dad always used to say, "anything worth having is worth working for," which, of course, and as I've noted before, implies the opposite: anything not worth having is worthy of the expense of no effort.

Some folks place very little value on preserving moral and cultural virtue. Others place a great deal of value on it. You can count me firmly among that latter group, as well as among that group which believes that difficult and lofty goals are achievable, which makes the pursuit thereof that much more worthwhile.

Read More

Christian leaders discuss viability of a third party, among other things.

Here's another story brought to us by CitizenLink. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family indicates that a consensus was reached between himself and other Christian leaders in a meeting at Salt Lake City recently. The consensus reached, almost unanimously according to Dobson, concerns what would be a deal-breaker for these leaders when it comes to determining a choice for President among the respective candidates.

Other items on the agenda concerned the viability of creating a new third party. The full story is entered below...

The Values Test

by James C. Dobson, Ph.D., founder and chairman

Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.

Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

(This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in today's New York Times.)

Read More

What's Wrong with Democratization?

This question has been raised many times across the blogosphere, and I've ventured into it many times myself. I've only touched on it vaguely here at Webster's, so I'd like to do a fuller investigation into the matter for the sake of the archives.

One of the main arguments I've always made concerning the question of democratizing anyone is that democracy (and I really don't even like the term democracy because it indicates mob-rule) is not a suitable form of government for some peoples and cultures. I would say that pure democracy is not a suitable form of government for any people, but I digress. Somehow we've come to believe that because we find what we call democracy suitable to our liking, that that automatically means it is equally suitable to the liking of others, they just don't know it yet. But we're bound and determined to educate them on this point and bring them to the light that what they really want and desire above all is to be free. But what is it they want to be free of?...

Let's see whether we can put together a suitable analogy here for the sake of providing some clarity to the question. Let's say that at the age of 18 some young American is accused of a violent crime resulting in the death of some other young American. Let's say that the accused is charged and found guilty of the crime, and that he is given a life sentence in prison as punishment for his alleged crime. Now, what I want to point out here is that it does not matter whether the youngster is actually guilty. What matters is the fact that he's been found guilty by a jury of his peers, and he is sentenced to life in prison. That's all that matters in this context.

Now, let's say that thirty years after the fact, all the while the accused maintaining his innocence while being confined to prison and prison life, new evidence comes out that proves his actual innocence and exonerates him of any wrongdoing. He is immediately released from prison and sent to live back in society. Does it not make sense that this person is going to have a difficult time adjusting from life in prison to a life of freedom in a free and open society? How much more so when you do the same thing to whole societies of people?

Think about some of the things this person, innocent as he is of any crime, had to learn and adopt simply to survive within the confines of an American prison. He would be continually looking over his shoulder and watching his back. Not to mention that he would have little understanding or experience with what it means to govern oneself and live peacefully among others, and so on and so forth.

If we take the truth of this and apply it to, say, Iraq and the Iraqi people, I think it is fairly evident that, whatever their innermost desires may truly be, democratizing them is a virtual impossibility, particularly in the short go. As I've said so many times before, given enough time I suppose virtually anything is theoretically doable. But I see no wisdom at all in this idea of trying to democratize peoples and cultures who are not accustomed to exercising or living under any form of freedom as we know it. And besides that, what makes us think that our own modern ideas of freedom are not themselves found wanting, and resulting in progressively less and less of the same?

Read More

Auster Astounds!

OK, I have to post Auster's appeal to liberals because it is so good. I wrestled with the idea of posting this quote in the context of a longer post, but ultimately I decided against it as I seemed to be, at every turn, only watering down or diluting his message. It stands on its own merits. I needn't add anything.

Auster writes:

"Listen, liberals! If you want our society to maintain its liberalism, albeit in a modified, no longer dominant form, then you need to support the renewal of our historic nationhood, culture and religion that traditionalists such as myself advocate. Only such a renewed culture can fortify and defend the West against the Islamic religion which would destroy all liberalism."

I will only say this (and please read the entire entry posted at VFR), I wonder whether Auster's suggestion is acceptable to liberals even as merely a consideration?I'm not so sure. Liberals seem to be so committed to liberalism that the slightest hint of a less dominating influence is anathema to them, and absolutely non-negotiable. In other words, liberals had rather sacrifice our entire culture, nationhood and religion, than to yield one foot of ground they have already conquered, wouldn't they?

-DW

Read More

The Case Against Torture

(Note: See my comments posted at VFR on this topic where I mention another aspect of that particular torture conversation which came to mind after I put up this entry. Thanks to Mr. Auster for posting them.)

With all the conversation going on over at VFR concerning a certain form of gnosticism emanating from a certain group espousing a pacifist sort of Christianity that would, among other things, allegedly prefer the allowance of a hijacked airliner, with innocent passengers on board, to crash into the Sears Tower, as an example, rather than downing the fateful aircraft thereby saving untold thousands, I've been reminded time and again of a similar conversation I was involved in some time back.

In my conversation the question about the use of torture to extract information from 'enemy combatants' was the central issue. My contention was that I supported the use of torture when it was necessary to save American lives. My opponent's position was that torture is immoral, and that he could never support the use of it under any circumstances. So I put this question to him:

Suppose your family is captured by terrorists. Suppose that you get information from a reliable source that someone in your neighborhood friendly to the captors has knowledge of your family's whereabouts. Would you, if necessary, use torture to extract information about your family's whereabouts in an attempt to save their lives. His answer, which may or may not surprise some of you, was: “No!, I would never use torture under any circumstances.” And that's putting it mildly.

Of course, I did not hesitate to tell this individual what a piece of scum I thought he was to prefer to protect his own sensibilities over the saving of the very lives of his family members. But when push came to shove, I wondered, is this truly the way he would react, in spite of all his self-righteous invectives?

I often wonder about that to this very day. I suppose some folks have lost all sense of a moral obligation to protect innocent lives even at the mere hazard of crushing their own sensibilities. But I wonder if part of my opponent's unwavoring adherence to this goofy notion of his was not really based in the knowledge that if he answered “yes; I would use torture in that case,” that his whole case against using torture, which he had very carefully laid out, would at once break down?

-DW

Read More

Righting a Wrong

This is going to come as a huge shock to you all, but I've actually been wrong before. Moreover, I've actually assented to a wrong idea knowing full well that I was assenting to an idea that was purely untenable.

One of the most egregious examples of this came a couple of years ago when I wrongly, and knowingly, assented to the idea, expressed by someone I'll not name here, that "people are essentially good." I knew there was a huge problem with this idea, and I recognized it right away. Yet, to my great regret now, I joined in to this chorus feigning a true belief in the concept.

I'd like to clear the record on this, as well as to finally put my conscience at ease in this matter. I do not believe that people are essentially good, but rather that they are essentially bad. People need a reason to be good, as I've said so many times since, thus contradicting myself. I believe that the best reason to be good is contained in the Bible. And the Bible explicitly states that man is not good, no not one.

I agree with Auster on this question of being good. I can't truly be good outside the good influence of my religion. And to that person (you know who you are) to which I falsely and knowingly mis-stated my actual position (for which I have no good explanation), I offer my most sincere apologies, and beg forgiveness.

-DW

Read More

Is Worldview the Cure for the 'Disease' We Face?

In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...

It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.

Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.

If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.

And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.

Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?

America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?

As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?

Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.

All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.

One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.

The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.

But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?

-DW

Read More

Do We Deserve Our Government?

This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”

Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...

I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.

Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.

In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.

To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.

Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...

-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775

But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:

I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...

-Matthew Fontaine Maury

Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.

So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.

Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

-DW

Read More

A Win for Traditionalism in the Great State of Kansas

Here's a story that traditionalists oughta derive some measure of encouragement from “Kansans Keep Gambling out of County.” I've been highly critical of my own State for allowing these gambling Casinos to crop up all over the place. It is my position that gambling is corrupt at its roots; that it must involve corruption in order to operate, period. I've also said numerous times in the past that its just a matter of time before our own casinos get nationwide exposure for their corrupt 'gaming' practices. And it'll happen, mark my words...

But this story is, as I said, an encouraging one for traditionalists and for counties and States still holding to traditional values on this question of gambling:

Sedgwick County voters showed gambling to the door Tuesday, voting against ballot measures for a resort casino and slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park. The track reportedly will close within three months.
"The Gambling Goliath can be defeated, and Kansas citizens just proved it," said Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action. "I hope other states and counties are paying attention — you can defeat gambling in your community!...

Here's a lesson we need to learn in my state. I'll grant that we may be in something of a different situation given that our casinos are owned and operated by native American tribes such as the Choctaws who probably operate the most casinos in this State. Other tribes are catching on quickly though, getting into the 'gaming' business themselves.

In the State of Oklahoma it is illegal to gamble, but the tribes get around this law by asserting their 'independent nationhood.' This is a question that we need to take up in this country on whether or not tribal entities may be considered national sovereignties within a sovereign nation. There is a conflict of interests in the policy that needs to be addressed, and personally I'm totally opposed to any form of 'dual citizenship.' Either you're a citizen of this country exclusive to all others, or you're not. No-one is forcing you to become a citizen, nor is anyone forcing you to renounce it. But this policy of dual citizenship is just plain hogwash!, and there needs to be a stop put to it.

But once again there's a great deal of encouragement we oughta take from the example laid down in the county of Sedgwick in my State's northern neighboring State of Kansas. I'm greatly encouraged that we still have people across this nation who haven't been corrupted by the enticing lure of how much money they stand to gain at the expense of their morals. Nor are some intimidated by the tactics these folks are known to engage. Indeed, Sedgwick County, Kansas, presents us with a fine example of traditionalist folks saying NO to the corruption that they know comes right along with the establishment of 'gaming' in their area. May other traditional counties in this country follow this good example! Thank you, Sedgwick County, for standing up for your tradition!

-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

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More

So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?...

Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.

This story is an all too familiar story for your's truly. And though I can't say that my business, my employees, nor my family have been nearly as negatively impacted financially speaking as this particular contractor and those associated with him has, I can say without hesitation that all of these have indeed suffered at the hands of cheap, illegal, mostly Mexican labor...

Months back my brothers and I discussed this very topic and the negative impact my interests had suffered on several occasions due to the influx of illegal Mexican construction workers in my area over the last couple of years. Interestingly, while I was away over this past weekend, I managed to get a visit in to one of my good friends whose initials, MB, I'll use from here on out. MB also has his own business, and he employs about six people full-time I think.

MB and I were in his office along with his wife and my two employees just shooting the breeze. I don't recall exactly who or what got the conversation started, but somewhere along the way we began discussing the illegal alien situation. I made a statement to the effect of "ah, don't fret it, man, come November 1st it's reckoning time. He asked what I meant so I told him that November 1st is when Oklahoma's tough immigration legislation goes into effect...thanks to the defeat of the amnesty bill. This legislation, as I related to MB, deals not only with illegals, but with their employers as well. And the fines incurred by the latter for employing illegal aliens get substantially stiffer with each offense so that it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify employing illegal aliens.

The reason I tell that story is because MB said something to me in the wake of my little rant that hit home pretty well. He said that there was a time in the not so distant past when he himself had thought pretty highly of these Mexican illegals because he considered them to be hard workers, pretty reliable, and overall to have good work ethic. His next statement, though, put his initial statements into proper context; he said to me that "I think I'm over that now." Of course we got a good laugh out of it, and certainly I agreed with MB that I had held some of his very views concerning Mexican illegals until I got properly educated.

I've complained to my brothers at the AFB before about the fact that finding good (American) help these days is extremely difficult. And believe me, it doesn't matter how much you pay them; that's not the issue. This being the case, I ran into a situation a couple of years ago wherein two of my four employees quit work (that is, they quit working altogether, for anyone), leaving me with a workload that the three of us left could not handle on the schedule predetermined for, and agreed to by us. I was turned on to a young Mexican immigrant who was supposedly legal and of age, and I hired him. It weren't very long before I realized that I'd made a mistake, however.

I was a little suspicious of him to begin with, so as is my general approach to things like that, I simply listened more than I spoke. And eventually he let out more information than he intended, as per the usual. He had a distinctive accent, but he spoke english very well. The fact was that he had been here several years with his parents who came here illegally. As it turned out he was only 16 years of age, he had no driver's license, no insurance, no tag and no registration in his name. As he was commuting about sixty miles a day, one way, I asked him, upon learning some of these facts: "you realize, do you not, that you're going to get stopped one day during your commute to or from?....what are you going to do when you get caught? His answer was simply this, and in these exact and nonchalant words: "go back to Mexico!"

I approach my nationality in the same sort of way that I approach my immediate and extended family members. Which is to say that while I may complain about the way certain of them act from time to time, and while I may curse their actions on occasion, they are my family so I consider myself allowed. Whereas, someone else had better not curse them with me being present unless they care to get an earfull from your's truly. And it works the same way with my countrymen. We're all Americans, and while I may complain about this and that which Americans do, or about this and that which the President does, that doesn't give an illegal alien license to curse them, or to complain about them in any way, shape, or form. And here again, they had better not in front of me. Well, this young Mexican employee of mine made that mistake, saying some very unflattering things about our President and Americans in general, and very boldly so in my very presence. Not only was he 'biting the hand that fed him' in a direct sort of way, but indirectly he was biting all the hands that feed him, and I didn't like it, no; not one bit! You can use your imaginations to conclude what happened next.

I remember well when these illegals began to arrive here in relatively small numbers. At that time there was enough work to go around for everyone, and in many cases customers were forced to wait as long as a month on some of us contractors to get to their jobs. I'd like to discuss more about how that a certain amount of independency on the part of contract laborers works very well to the advantage of not only the contractor in question, but also to that of the customer. But that's yet another subject for another discussion. The point here is that these illegals began arriving here in very small numbers, and under extremely difficult circumstances. So much so that myself and other contractors I know not only welcomed them against our better judgments, but we loaned them essential tools they needed yet did not have, as well as to help them to find places to live and to help them get jobs, and all sorts of things like that. Such I guess is the nature of many Americans.

While I certainly understood the idea that mass immigration to this country of any kind, and from anywhere was bad (just remember, anything done in the extreme is bad), I still felt sorry for these individuals who were 'just trying to make a better way for themselves and their families.' It was only a couple of years, and several very strained relations between myself and some of my former accounts, before their numbers increased exponentially in my area and they began to compete with me for many of the jobs that formerly I would only have had Americans to compete with. The difference being, of course, that Mexican illegals pay no taxes and they're generally not held to the same standards by law that American contractors are held to. Therefore they can charge as little as half our prices and still come out ahead of us in the end. And of course a general contractor, or a homeowner, or whomever is enticed by these potential savings to their own pockets, so they hire the illegals to do their jobs many times when they would otherwise prefer American labor over Mexican labor.

This all came to a head (but it was far from the only incident of its kind I had personally experienced) when I secured a large commerical contract with one individual who later reneged on his obligation about two days before the actual work was to begin. The exact same Mexican illegal, along with his somewhat larger crew now, had come in and undercut my bid by about half. When I learned of this I immediately got on the horn with some of my nativist friends and we began to start to make phone calls to I.N.S., and to some of our state legislators, expressing our severe displeasure with the immigration situation in our State and our area. This was before we kicked out the democrat bums who had held power in our Congress during the entire existence of this State, and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature that started work on correcting this immigration deal immediately.

Now here's the deal, this same crew is still out and about undercutting contractors like myself, and funneling in new illegals almost on a daily basis. This has effectively caused a great power shift to take place wherein myself and others like me either have to give up some of our independency, or to cowar to the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat that "ok, we'll just get the Mexicans to do it, and they'll do it whenever we say to do it, and at a cheaper rate too." Since I'm not really one to cowar to anyone, and since I enjoy the independency that my profession provides me, not to mention that I understand certain aspects of it, as I said before, that actually works to the advantage of the customers themselves, though it's hard for them to see it unless someone points it out to them, I have since been dedicated to ridding this State first, and the nation second, of these illegals whose compass oughta be pointing south.

But there's a lot more to it than these personal experiences I've had, of course. So very jealous am I of my liberty, my independency, and the ideas of government that have secured them to me in my own State, that I don't even like to see Americans from other States moving into and establishing permanent residency in mine, particularly folks from some of the more liberal States in this nation. And indeed, as I've discussed before with Mike and Edmund, and as my crew will confirm, I don't hesitate to make this known to these migrant Americans whenever I happen upon them. My approach to them on an individual level is usually to give an extreme example of some goofy individual moving in on us from somewhere up in the northeast. Invariably these individuals bring with them inordinate and fallacious ideas of government learned in their former environment and they begin to assert them upon their establishment of citizenship within this State. Their goal is to 'improve upon' what Okies have long since determined to be their own self-governing methods. Our State looked so very inviting to them until they lived amongst us for awhile and finally decided that we're just too d*mn independent here, not to mention that the idea of 'self-government' means just that down here in flyover country - the government of oneself and of one's affairs and concerns without undue influence from on high.

This is generally the line of thought that I engage with these migrants. And of course I also let them know that "we have enough nut-jobs of our own; we don't need anymore moving in on us, so if you have those kinds of ideas that you need to improve upon what Okies have already settled in this State, please leave them at the door because in the end you're destroying the very foundations of the things you found so attractive about our State before you decided to move here."

Now, if I have those kinds of negative feelings about migrant Americans moving into my State generally, how much more must I have the same kinds of feelings with regard to immigrants from other countries? And I ask you, where am I going wrong?

-DW

Read More

Entertainment Media - A 'Carnival' Atmosphere

I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.

Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...

Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.

Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.

We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.

Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.

And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.

The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.

I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?

VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.

But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'

In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!

I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.

But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.

-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