Memory

by Brad Nelson9/30/16

No (thank God), this is not a post about that Barbra Streisand song. You know me better than that.

I got my hands on an old book the other day titled Strictly Personal and Confidential: The Letters Harry Truman Never Mailed. (I posted this particular link because that is the exact cover of the hardback edition that I have.)

I haven’t read more than a couple paragraphs. I opened the book to page 109 and read something somewhat astonishing, and certainly declarative:

Desk Note (December 28, 1962)

I’ve just been informed that the Democratic Party of which I have been an active member since I was seventeen years old has gone high hat and is charging one thousand dollars for the privilege of sitting with the President of the United States (John Kennedy) at a dinner!

The President of the United States represents 180,000,000 people who have no other person to look after their interests. The President and the Vice President are the only elected public officials by the 180 million.

If is my opinion that ten thousand Democrats at five dollars apiece for the privilege of sitting with and seeing the President as his guest would be worth ten thousand times ten or one hundred times that to the Democratic Party.

When the Party of the People goes high hat on a cost basis, it no longer represents the common every day man — who is the basis of the Democratic Party.

Those who have some sense of American history (and are over 25 years of age and don’t have adding to their current tattoos highest on their mind) might have Harry Truman in mind as their ideal Democrat. Certainly he was way more government-oriented despite all the “common man” rhetoric. Remember, these guys are all politicians who regard themselves too highly. It is their “savior” status that justifies (in their own minds) their power and activism.

Still, Truman, when compared to Democrats of today, is a saint — and could be seen as right of most Republicans of our day and age (and probably was, in fact). He would certainly be a foreign body in today’s Democrat Party.

The lesson for me when I read this is how powerful incrementalism can be. One of the challenges for us here at StubbornThings is to be smarter and more aware than anyone else, to have some sense of the overall and not get blindly caught in the maelstrom of the daily (and often stupid) drama.

Both parties left the little guy long, long ago. Both parties are corrupt. Both parties have not one ounce of integrity — the kind that could write (and believe, which I think he did) what Harry Truman wrote above.


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (696 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Memory

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Truman was a welfare-state liberal who favored government medical care in some form — but he was also a .patriotic American. But note that he relied solely on UN approval for the Korean War, never getting formal approval from Congress (which he could easily have gotten).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A completely useless question, but one that occurs to me anyway, is this: Can an old-fashioned, non-America-hating politician (of any party) construct Big Government and not end up with the kind of polluted culture that we have now with all its excesses?

      This is why you’ll get no nostalgic gushing from me about Truman, except in the sense that he’s not Obama. But one could make an excellent case that he is the necessary precursor for Obama…and worse.

      At least he knew where to drop the bombs. Neither candidate today has much of a clue. They are anchored either in stupid Leftist narratives or little more than massive egos and sense of off-the-cuff omniscience.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think the corruption is inherent in Big Government. Note that until recently, its creators here were pro-American. (Carter hated his own country after he lost in 1980, a consequence of his extreme self-righteousness, but not before then.)

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I am not a big fan of Truman’s for a number of reasons. One is, according to what I have read somewhere, (I believe it was in , “Blacklisted By History” by Stanton Evans) Truman and many in his administration were aware of the broad infiltration of communist within the US government, but blocked the House Un-American Committee and others from getting to the bottom of it.

    But compared to today’s Democrats, and RINO’s, the man was a great patriot.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Democrat presidents tend to have a glowing hagiography written over their lives. Kennedy quickly became “Camelot,” of course. And FDR was every bit as ham-fisted as Trump (or Hillary, for that matter) is likely to be in regards to the economy. But he flimflammed with panache. As Woody said to Buzz: “That wasn’t flying. That was falling with style.” He was arguably the worst economic president ever in this regard, taking a severe recession and turing it into a Great Depression. The mythos, of course, is quite different.

      And when there is actually a solid president (Lincoln), so many work to deconstruct and smear him. So far Washington and Jefferson have remained pretty much intact, if only because they’ve been intentionally forgotten.

      Truman was first and foremost a career politician. If the Democrat Party wanted welfare, he’d certainly be on that platform. But there seems reason to believe he was a personally decent man (which is not to say he was not a bare-knuckled political fighter).

      Truman certainly had the common touch missing from the parade of egotists, narcissists, and ego-maniacs who have peopled the presidency. I hate his party but I like him. I hate some of the things he did (not including nuking the Japs) but pine for a man of his kind of decency.

  3. Lucia says:

    I have a book of Truman’s own sayings and one type of president he hated was a lazy one. He also hated presidents who disliked their country and it’s citizens and who thought too much of themselves. It’s a good thing he can’t see what’s happened to us.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I guess one should note that the thoughts contained in this book were unpublished by Truman. So there’s what one *thinks* and what one will actually do.

      Still, we used to have, roughly-speaking, a pro-American culture and Truman wasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, an Alinskyite. We are now mostly a pro-victimhood culture melded with a pro-hedonism culture. The expectation now is to be protected from all harm (even if the harm is your own damn fault) and/or for someone else to pay for your leisure. Certainly hard-working Harry doesn’t fit this image.

      David McCullough wrote a book titled Truman. He seems a generally fair-minded person so this book might be worth a read. Truman dropped the bomb on the Japs, fired McArthur, and “gave them hell.” But what do we really know beyond this and the general portrait of a simple, plain-spoken man from Missouri who didn’t stand on ceremony?

      Might be worth a read.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’ve read McCullough’s biography, but that was many years ago. It’s important to remember that Truman, though personally honest (as much as a politician ever is), rose through the Pendergast machine in Kansas City. Accountability for misdeeds wasn’t high on his list of priorities — certainly below partisanship.

        In 1972, the socially conservative Democrat Wayne Hays (who a few years later would prove, like so many politicians, not to live up to his message) noted (I think quoting a fellow Democrat) that the McGovernites were turning “the party of blood, sweat, and tears” into “the party of drugs, sex, and queers”. Of course, the takeover took a while, but that’s really when it began as far as the party went. (Scammon and Wattenberg, in The Real Majority, noted that Hays got the biggest ovation at the 1968 convention when he denounced the Yippies outside in similar terms.)

  4. GHG says:

    Yes, we’ve fallen a long way as evidenced by our current choices for president, and this after 8 years of an American hating president who delivered on his promise to fundamentally transform America. The bottom can’t be too far away.

    Was Truman a precursor? Yes, as are all things that came before, but he was just one pull on the rope. Whether the founding ideals of our country can be accurately understood to be “pure”, they were pure in the sense of our starting point, and it is a truism that anything added to something pure makes it less so. There has been a lot of things added since the point from where we started.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      “Pure” as in focused on the idea of America being the land of opportunity, of the rule of law regardless of class (blind justice), and taking charge of your own life…neighbor helping neighbor to fill in the gaps when outrageous fortune hits (and it always does).

      Today the sheer wealth of our culture, and it’s political ends of the equality (predominance, in practice) of women, has assured a society that is more feminine in makeup wherein we are to be nurtured and protected, where the sheer wealth has caused us to believe some kind of material utopia (every need met) can exist merely by voting Democrat.

      Now, one can call this good or bad. But this is a truth rarely stated. This is one reason Hillary’s election is all about a formality. Whatever her flaws, she is the culmination of “equality” as evinced by an unstated (or at least unacknowledged) affirmative action whereby incompetent (including Obama) can be boosted to the top by the sheer power of wish fulfillment as the Progressives forward their narrative, a narrative held more dear than any religious doctrine outside of Islam (and even then).

      One could say that women running the world might be a better thing given Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. And a good case could be made. But in dealing with family issues of late, one thing I can assure you is that the price tag will be enormous. As I’ve stated before, women will sell out their neighbors and the future of their own country to receive a bit more perceived security in the now. With men absent to push back against this proclivity, we have only to wait until Thelma and Louise drive us over the financial cliff. Until then, enjoy the ride.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Michael Barone once argued that US politics has tended to vary between nurturing and tough love — too much one way, and the pendulum swings back. It’s possible that the cultural dominance of the nurturing (feminine side) is now eliminating the pendulum, or at least allowing it to sweep further one way. And of course there’s the effect of SCOTUS, which can be extremely long-lasting.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of Truman and old-fashioned Americanism, here’s a brilliant article by David French: Helplessness and Rage Can’t Become the New American Consensus

    But the challenge of our time is to teach a culture that there is no political solution to what is at its core a cultural problem — a problem in the human heart.

    For a long time now, smart folks have scorned the notion that any given person can “have it all” — that there is a perfect state of bliss where they can be empowered at work without making any sacrifice at home. We know there are tradeoffs. It’s time now to drill into the culture that you can’t “do it all” — that instant gratification can yield permanent consequence and that the price of self-indulgence can be too high to pay.

    Consider, for example, the incredible cost of divorce. For an ex-husband and ex-wife to do as well as they did under one roof, they have to enjoy greater economic opportunity than they did when married — all in the midst of personal emotional turmoil that brings many people to their knees. It’s simple — two households are far more expensive than one.

    We live, however, in a time when the one unforgivable sin is judgment. Who are we to tell others what they should do with their lives? Their choices are their choices, and they’re still entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else. Right? But one can never repeal the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The person who predicts the awful consequences of family disintegration and lack of self-discipline is no more culpable for the outcome than is the weather forecaster for the tornado that sweeps through town.

    So here we are — in an era when even alleged conservatives feel that it’s too cruel to tell families to take primary responsibility for their own prosperity. When “our” people start to suffer from the same social maladies — because they make many of the same choices — as “their” people do, it’s remarkable the extent to which the language of personal responsibility drops from the political lexicon. “We built that” is so 2012. Now, it’s “I alone can solve.” Do you feel helpless? You’re not. Do you believe the 2016 election will represent a turning point in your life? It won’t. Your rage is misplaced. In America you still have far more control over your destiny than the government ever will, and even the best nation with the most virtuous elite can’t truly fix what you choose to break.

    A nice parting shot at Trump voters. Yes, I do believe Trump voters have sucked up the same grievance mongering as the Left. French could have articulated the problem more than just passing it off as “a problem in the human heart.” Perhaps he will write more about this.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Sounds like French has been reading Kung Fu Zu.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I agree. What is remarkable about his thoughts is that he touches on something no man (or woman, for that matter) will do in public: Tell people that most of the problems in a free, prosperous society such as our are the fault of people themselves.

        As I read recently (perhaps in this piece), people want to be able to just schlep out their lives and *still* gain the American Dream. And if they don’t they riot. But we’re supposed to be “sensitive” to all the knuckleheads, hoodlums, and ne’er-do-wells whose main problem is behavioral (aka, moral).

        This message should be repeated often but you won’t get that message from either Trump or Hillary…or Paul Ryan or anyone else I can think of. Dennis Prager would be perhaps the lone prominent exception. Do preachers even preach self responsibility anymore? I don’t think many do. Phony Christians abound.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          People think they can have everything. Even the wealthy can’t manage that, particularly those who earn their wealth through hard work. Life is full of trade-offs, a point Henry Drummond makes very well in the play Inherit the Wind. But too many people can’t accept that they must make them, which is a problem personally and politically.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I really do think our material abundance has turned us all into characters in Hans Christian Andersen’s The Princess and the Pea. (This story is a very short one, so those not familiar with it can give it a quick read, perhaps even seeing themselves in it.)

            To be a man, a real man, means not only putting up with a certain amount of hardship but welcoming it. And to be a man of character, it means putting up with at least a few of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with grace and magnanimity. This is not always achieved, or easily achieved, but men of good will, character, and nobility put this ideal on a pedestal instead of its opposite which is grievance, resentment, blame-shifting, and stewing in one’s own juices of chronic disappointment.

            Name one single woman who thinks like that (and who isn’t named Sarah Palin and who isn’t a regular here at StubbornThings)? For that matter, name one prominent man in our culture who teaches this. (Yes…as someone pointed out, Mike Rowe is a good advocate.)

            Sorry, ladies, but we have become such a pussified culture. And let’s all remember that the women who settled this country with the men folk were anything but pussies. But that’s what we’ve all become now.

            As we enjoy the comforts of modern economies, republican forms of government, and high technology, let’s not get addicted to any of this stuff. Are we not men? Are we not women? Are we not more than the sum total of our stupid tattoos and inane textings?

            As humble as I actually am (and those who know me know I am no second coming of Donald Trump), I do aim for something more than just being a passive marinade in the rotting stew of junk culture. I’m sure that’s true for many of you here as well.

            • Gibblet says:

              “To be a man, a real man, means not only putting up with a certain amount of hardship but welcoming it.”

              My father and I have occationally lamented being born 100 years too late, thereby missing the whole “go West young man” era. He made up for it, in part, by being a real estate developer and “settling” the west a few acres at a time, by being an entrepreneur, and by physically working very hard. I think it is the same spirit that led him to enjoy over 25 summers on his boat in remote areas of Southeast Alaska.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                From what I understand, Gibblet, the settling of America was a succession of waves. You’d get the pioneers (farmers, hunters, or whatever) who desired opportunity and/or wanted to escape the corruption and horror of “civilization” which often was rotten. It certainly was in many places in Old Europe, and with their caving to the Islamic animals, it’s getting that way again in large pockets.

                You’d then get small communities in the rough that scratched out a little security and law-and-order. Civilization would come in stages balanced against “No man — or woman — ain’t gonna tell me what to do.” But eventually the little one-room school houses would be built and a sense of living in the wild by your wits (and your gun) was replaced by something more organized and ethical.

                And then those who just couldn’t stand the crowding, the disease, the crime, and the domestication — the chains that bind, then as now, are often corrupt or just too constraining for the free and adventurous spirits — went further West. Rinse and repeat.

                Now we have nowhere to go but Alaska, I suppose. And I don’t mind the law-and-order. But we are a nation that is now unsure how to live with itself. For all the hoopla given the word “sustainable,” our lifestyle right now is not. Or debt. Our crumbling families. Our crumbling freedoms. Our crumbling law-and-order as hoodlums and thugs begin to take over (first in government and then it trickles down…the real “trickle down” economics to fear).

                But everyone is so damn “nice.” And as they circle the drain, they’ll flash one last obsequious saccharine smile before being deposited in the sewer.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I believe the Census Bureau declared the frontier closed in 1890, presumably not counting Alaska as too difficult to inhabit in large numbers. (But then, so was Nevada.) There are those who think the US of old was impossible in the long run without such a frontier.

            • Pst4usa says:

              Sandy; and yes, I am bias. But I will let you guess the last name Brad, I think she fills the bill you asked for.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I liked Sandy from day one, Pat. You simply got to her first. 😀 She is indeed the kind of woman (and lady) who would dispense non-namby-pamby common-sense wisdom in matters regarding work, life, personal responsibility, and values.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Here’s another article by French in the same vein (or did you ghost write it?): Make America’s Elite Great Again!

        I might quibble with the word, “elite,” (I think we need good leaders), but he’s right on the money again and this article (and reading others like them) is all you need to do in terms of parsing the daily drama.

        A degraded people can’t help but usher in a degraded society. You can feel as tinkly good as you want for being a champion of “transgender rights,” for instance. But one should be aware that you are forwarding a destructive and stupid “right.”

        And although we humans do all kinds of stupid things which, in a free society, often deserves tolerance, that is a far different state than the psychological Freaksville created when the powers that be insist that we “celebrate” and hold as the highest achievement those who do stupid and destructive things — or else.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Yes, there’s a big difference between tolerating people who believe they’re not the same sex as their body and DNA say they are (or that their body should be deformed in some way, such as giving up an arm) and being forced to agree with them and act on that basis. Or between tolerating two people who choose to claim they’re married and actually granting formal legal recognition to it (parent-child, same-sex, whatever).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The new standard is not really “I’m okay, you’re okay,” which was the old 70’s or 60’s shibboleth. As vapid as it was, it was better than, “I’m okay and you’d better damn well acknowledge it.”

            One could say that, in most modern nations, now that the basic (and then some) material needs of people are being met (often with little or no effort of their own), we now turn our attentions to creating and expecting an emotional utopia where every damn thought or feeling you have is considered so important that it is considered life-threatening not to have it confirmed. (This is, of course, consistent with the feminine basis of modern Western cultures.)

            It’s one thing to be pleased when people affirm you or agree with you. We all like that. And disappointment often comes (the other side of the coin) when it doesn’t happen. And we have to be not such pampered and precious little snowflakes that we can’t handle either.

            But Progressivism is creating people who are so narcissistically pampered, with expectations so out of whack with any reasonable reality, that just normal shit that you or I wouldn’t shake a stick at are grounds (in the eyes of these emotional zealots) for getting one fired, fined, imprisoned, or whatever.

            And their fascism is done under the guise of “nice.” I can barely listen to the feminized newscasts these days. I was channel surfing and happened across a local news show where they were highlighting some guy who had just died (I didn’t catch how) and how it was such a tragedy because he was a social justice warrior who was trying to “bring people together” and “make a difference” and “ending racism.” (Those who seek to “end racism” are actually forwarding it if only by exaggerating its existence, thus helping to create plenty of fake micro-‘racism’ anywhere and everywhere…and if you don’t see it it’s because it’s “underground.” I hate “social justice” warriors.)

            All that “saving the world” sounds good to your average Progressive useful idiot who mistakes “nice” for good. But all I heard was another story of somebody who was making a big show of how god damn supposedly “nice” he was. But all this “niceness” has simply become a cottage industry. I don’t trust it. I don’t believe that most of these people are “nice.” I believe they are just the kind of emotionally vapid people who need constant positive reinforcement, particularly to be seen in the eyes of others as a great savior.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The important change came when they went from it being desirable to receive approval rather than disapproval for one’s choices, to it being reasonable to demand such approval on pain of some sort of penalty. This in effect means being entitled to emotional satisfaction. Sorry, but the “inalienable right” was the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Entitled to emotional satisfaction and ratification of your actions. It’s not quite having a caged rat bolted to your face but we’re getting there.

  6. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Brad, the following minor screed about integrity is brought to mind precisely because you referenced “integrity” at the end of your fine post. Words indeed matter and integrity is a fine one. Feel free to jettison the last paragraph if it strikes you as too political.

    Empty rhetoric about integrity? Here in reality-ville where I live, my property taxes climb inexorably to ill-educate, feed and give voting rights to illegal trespassers. In reality-land, black racism is ruining all the progress we’ve made in our benevolent melting pot. My vote in the last three elections was nullified by a non-citizen who voted against me, just prior to killing those in the mall in Wash state. If we don’t make a stand on vote integrity, border integrity, and law enforcement integrity, the absence of that common word and its bounty will haunt our descendants, who will wonder why that important word, integrity, was ignored by over half of our formerly prosperous and free citizens? Why was third-world status desired?

    How did we get Empress Chelsea? Why do her Praetorian enforcers prey on the citizenry, taking our tithe to the esteemed Empress at the point of a gun? Why can’t we have guns, too? Why is there a moat around DC?

    The only hope that will exist in those dark times will be a group of educated stalwarts, driven by intelligent and moral zeal, who will rally in the outer districts, and with the Cross of our Savior held proudly in their phalanx, will finally drive the uncivilized godless demon savage predators out of Chesapeake Bay. A new Crusade will be required to drive out the barbarians.

    Whoever doesn’t vote for Trump, one who may at least start a reversal in our admiration for integrity, whoever wastes their vote on a non-entity, whoever doesn’t vote at all, and of course anybody who actually casts a vote for HRC, is inviting Satan to dinner, and you’re on the menu folks. All the fancy rhetoric will merely amuse the predators, not quench their desire for dominion over you. A responsible citizen is not morally allowed to float above the morass that our society has become without consequence. You may hope they’ll eat you last, but know that they will feast on our freedoms if we so blithely take them for granted.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The late Archbishop of Chicago said that he would die in bed, his successor would die in prison, the next would be executed — and the next would have to help pick up the pieces. I much fear that this is correct. Loss of integrity is certainly one reason for this, though the preference for ideology and emotional entitlement over reality is also very important.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        though the preference for ideology and emotional entitlement over reality is also very important.

        Whaddaya mean, “also very important”? Good god, man, I think just just succinctly described the main problem. The rest is peripheral or derivative.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Tom, it does seem a third-world status is desired. Nicely put. And I really wish Trump was the answer instead of the problem in just another guise.

      • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

        There is no “answer” per se. Just a choice. He’s step one, and the onus is on us to manage the follow up to his possibly unruly start. But, importantly, it will be an inflection point, hopefully curving our path back towards sanity.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          While he has a Twitter war with an old Miss Universe winner. I don’t see an inflection point nor a curving path towards sanity, Tom.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I was listening to the radio last night and a commentator made a very good observation regarding the Trumpkins who expect people to support Trump no matter what.

            The speaker simply asked when will these same people expect Trump to adjust his behavior and act like someone running for the presidency.

            Which expectation is more reasonable?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Well, if you can have the blind leading the blind, you can have the insane leading the insane.

              • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

                With due respect, this reply is intended for KFZ and Timothy. Have you not yet realized that this is a binary contest? The primaries are over, kind gentlemen, and it’s either the promising cipher or Satan. What I continue to yearn for is commentary on how we can help Trump be the best he can be. Positive suggestions are desired, rather than shopworn digs.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I’m well aware that this is a binary choice in the end, and do prefer Trump to the Fire Witch, if only as a lesser of evils. I may even vote for him, though in Kentucky it’s sort of irrelevant — no way she’s even getting close to his vote total here. This allows me to consider a third party choice.

                As for keeping Trump state, this depends on who he listens to (if anyone) after his election. If it’s his children, he’ll be liberal; if it’s Pence and company, he may be relatively conservative. But it won’t be you or me, nor will we be the ones who choose who he listens to.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                You keep repeating “this is a binary choice” as if it were something new. It is not. We all know it.

                If one is seriously ill, one can make the choice between living and dying. But if a sick man chooses to live instead of die, unless he is an idiot, it behooves him to figure out what those cankers, decaying teeth, high fever, failing eyesight and hearing, in other words, all those rotten symptoms of decay mean. Else he will not be around very much longer in any case.

                We should not fool ourselves. Donald is another symptom of the decay. Perhaps he is only stage one lung cancer and not stage four cancer as Hillary and her gang are. But if we want to halt, and then reverse, the disease then we must acknowledge the body politic is diseased.

                While trying to save ourselves, we don’t pretend we have a cold and take two aspirin. We don’t pretend everything is ok and hope for the best. We call the illness what it is and take all the necessary action to cure it.

                And I have to agree with Timothy. We are not the people the Donald is going to listen to. So we must do all we can to call attention to the disease to whomever we can so that stage one cancer does not develop into an incurable situation.

          • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

            The game has changed, for the better.

            So, he should follow the example of the last several GOP candidates and just ask for another? The Dem attacks are designed to only last two or three days, the damage is done via the short-term message, and after that the truth may come out and lessen the intended impact on the target. The backstory is significantly different than you’d imagine. We are supposed to just take it like a man…

            That gentlemanly strategy has yielded zero positive results, so I’m guessing that Trump’s keeping the spotlight on the original message long enough to expose the extremely shallow, or actually false, basis for the original story.

            My opinion is still an expectation of a landslide.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There are those who think the US of old was impossible in the long run without such a frontier.

    Timothy, I think any country’s founding (or history) is chalk full of the vagaries of happenstance. American was interesting in that this was, for all intents and purposes, a brand new continent systematically populated by a people spilling over from an established advanced civilization — often an oppressive or over-crowded one, at that.

    This channeling of the teeming millions was done mostly through the filter of English law and customs although obviously very early on, it was Dutch customs or Spanish (to the south) customs, or German ones, and so on. But England became the guiding and sustaining influence. This was no libertarian rabble, per se. These were god-fearing people looking for a better life and willing to endure great hardship to find it and build it.

    It mattered that most of these people were from Europe. It mattered that it was generally an English culture that predominated. America would not be America if an Islamic horde had “settled” it, to the point that the religion spawned by Satan can ever settle anything.

    Modern uninformed, corrupt, secular, and just plain stupid people like to point to America’s success because of her “natural resources.” She does have them, but that doesn’t explain Japan’s success where their natural resources are relatively poor. It was the culture (stupid…as Mr. Kung often reminds us) that was surely the greatest natural resources, and that resource was Western Civilization — the very civilization being systematically demonized and deconstructed by the Marxists bastards (and helped along by the various tattooed useful idiots).

    It matter that this culture was Western, predominantly English (and following English law to a great extent), Christian, and did I mention Western? As Mark Steyn says, there will still be an America. It will still have a zip code. But as it continues to undergo “fundamental transformation” by Satan (and his forces), it won’t be America in any true sense of the word.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *