Let’s pick one of your forefathers who lived sometime between 50,000BC and 1,700AD. At random we’ll pick Throck, who lived between that river over there and this mountain over here sometime around 13,650BC. Great[x625]-Granddaddy Throck had a daughter, your Great[x624]-Grandmother Maralay, whom he knew was his daughter because she was born to his woman Mara whom he had guarded jealously ever since he had carried her to his hut more winters ago than he can remember.

Throck loved his daughter dearly as fathers usually do, and he was loved by her in return as good fathers usually are. In time Maralay began to fill out as girls will, and being that she was the spitting image of Mara, she began to attract the attention of men generally. Before long those men, both suitable and not-so-suitable, began sniffing around Throck’s hut.

Is it true that men will want to lay with Maralay? Generally speaking, yes. Is it true that Maralay likes the attention of men and might be seduced into laying with one of them? Again, yes. Wisdom and youth are not often companions. Will wicked men take Maralay by force if they can? Sadly, yes. If Maralay should unite with a man, might she become pregnant? The possibility certainly exist.

Should Maralay have a child, will Throck love the child? In all probability, yes. Granddaddies usually love their grandbabies.

If Maralay cannot provide for the child, will Throck and Mara? Again, grandparents usually will, as many a grandparent today can testify.  

All of this is human nature 101.

Could Maralay becoming pregnant be a problem for Throck? Yes, because then he would have another mouth to feed and another helpless being to protect. The fact is that however many generations it’s been since Adam and Eve sat around their first dung fire outside the garden of Eden, or since man-thing first climbed out of the trees, our ancestors have made a precarious living on this planet. Want and insecurity has been the rule, not the exception. 

This is the reality for Throck, as it was for his ancestors and would be for his descendants right on up to the modern era, our unprecedented prosperity today notwithstanding.

So what is he to do to avoid this problem? Well, first of all, Maralay’s desire for a man and men’s desire for her, as well as Throck’s desire for a posterity, are all perfectly natural imperatives. But Throck’s self-interest is also perfectly natural, and if he doesn’t see to it, he will be left holding the bag. So what does Throck do?  He does what fathers have always done.

With threats, and a club if necessary, he keeps the wolves at bay. With exhortations, threats, and a switch if necessary, he keeps Maralay’s primordial instincts in check. He then waits for the key reality to play to his advantage, namely, that men still want Maralay and will pull a freight train to have her. Or fight a woolly mammoth rather. And if blocked by Throck’s club and Maralay’s sense of propriety (we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt), they will seek terms. 
So here comes your future Great[x624]-Granddaddy Crot to pay a visit to Throck, who sits outside his hut with his club laid across his lap. Crot and Maralay have been exchanging looks and crossing paths an awful lot lately. Mara is onto them though and has alerted Throck.  

Crot lays a nice pelt at Throck’s feet as a sign of his respect and request to parlay. ‘Mr. Throck,’ he says, ‘I’ve got to have her. What’s it gonna take?’ Now Throck knows Crot and that he comes from a good family where the women are sweet and the men brave, and he would not object to having him as a son-in-law.  
‘Crot,’ says Throck, ‘you’re a good boy and Maralay fancies you. If you will vow before your family and mine and the whole tribe that you will lie dead before permitting harm to come to her or y’all’s young’uns, and that you will provide what they need, and that you and your kinsmen will come to the aid of me and mine, and make our fight your fight, then I’ll give you Maralay and you can carry her to your hut.’

Crot, who was prepared to give the last twenty years of his life, runs off to give his kinsmen the terms, who accept them readily, all agreeing that Maralay is a good girl and well worth having in the family.

This is natural marriage. Not just a hook-up between a man and a woman, but a solemn union of families to the benefit of all.  And where this paradigm does not prevail, family disintegrates. And when family disintegrates, society disintegrates. As we see here in America today. And dating is at the root of the problem.

Dating is a modern institution without historic precedent that, like its parent feminism, has been a disaster for our culture and should be rejected root and branch. It inevitably leads to promiscuity that debases women, leaving them jaded and scarred, for despite what feminists would have us believe, a woman is indeed an emotional being whose natural inclination is to form a powerful bond with the man with whom she lays. Promiscuity stretches and erodes this ability.

Secondly, the inevitable promiscuity of dating has resulted in extraordinarily high rates of illegitimacy (to say nothing of abortion) with its attendant social dysfunctions and costs.

Thirdly, dating is play-marriage. All the fun but none of the responsibility. The problem is that the habit of going together and breaking up doesn’t end at marriage. ‘Breaking up’ has become, in effect, divorce practice.

​We should return to the timeless and natural paradigm of courtship, parental consent, and arranged marriages and to the Christian precept that marriage is sanctified before God and not to be broken by man.

If the lifespan of man is upwards of eighty years, then my question is, has there been an eighty-year-old man anywhere on the planet during the last 500 years who did not live through momentous changes or a momentous event? Eighty-year-olds today certainly have.

Every morning across the country, 80-year-olds and their young 60-year-old friends sit around drinking their coffee, telling stories, ruminating, and reminiscing. Any of them can easily recall the great changes that they have seen in their lifetimes. They can also remember when they stood four feet off the ground watching their grandfathers do the very same thing.

And their grandfathers, our great-greats, certainly would have heard our great-great-great-great-grandfathers saying the same things that old men today say about young people today. This paradigm of the old and grizzled criticising the young and naive is as old as time, and timeless too because, like getting old, it is just part of our human nature.

There have always been and will always be old fuddy-duddies who talk nonsense and don't understand, and young whippersnappers who know-it-all or who are dumber than boxes of rocks.

But just as today’s fuddy-duddies grew and matured, so will today’s whippersnappers. That too is the nature of things.

It may be tempting to be critical of young people but we need to remember how we were. It is simply impossible to fully grasp the depth and breadth of the human experience at age 20.

I posit that today’s young people are no dumber or smarter than we were, but I will suggest that today’s young people are going to contribute a great deal more than we contributed to our collective struggle against the madness of this age. I believe this because they have two things that we did not, i.e. hindsight and us.

By ‘hindsight’ I mean that those born in 2000 that are now coming of age can begin to see the damage caused to their culture by the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s. For them the danger is not hypothetical – what may happen. No, for today’s young, the history that my generation lived through is the proof in the pudding that Progressivism has in fact been a cultural catastrophe.

By ‘us’ I mean that right-thinking young people today can be and are being made to understand what has happened to their country since 1970, and contrary to what our post-WWII youth culture would suggest, young people do, and always have listened to what their elders have to say.

The war against the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s has been heating up the entirety of my lifetime (b.1966), though my generation, and the Boomers before us, have barely managed to hold the line. But we are still in the fight, and being the optimist that I am, I believe that with our help the Conservatives of the Millennials and Gen Z will be able to begin pushing back hard. And maybe it will be the children of the Z’s who will at last raise our flag atop the ruins of Liberal ideology.

​Today’s right-thinking young people are smarter and tougher than we may think, and I for one feel good about them.

We have inherited several assumptions about how to educate our children that are just not true, including that educating requires 6-8 hours per day, nine months a year, for 13 years, and must be done by professionals. None of this is true. These are not requirements.

What is true is that we humans educate our young. Unlike the dog licking his tail, certain things such as the knowledge of the wheel, how to forge metal, or how to type or drive are not written on our DNA.

Via observation and imitation, the child will, in his early years, learn the great bulk of what he will use over the course of his life. However, a significant portion of direct instruction must come into play, and parents must consider exactly what to teach their young. They will teach what they believe their child will need to know in order to survive in the times that they imagine the child will live when an adult. The father may teach the son to string the bow to hunt, as well as to deter and ward off the enemy. The mother may teach the daughter to tan the hide and roast rabbit over a dung fire.

In the modern era we have come to worship education, and why not? The ocean of knowledge that we have accumulated over the last 500 years in particular certainly has extended our lives and made them vastly more comfortable than our pre-modern ancestors could have imagined. Whether it has made us better is another matter.

Spoiler: it hasn’t. It hasn’t because that which can make us better is in fact written on our DNA and thus has always been known, or knowable, and may be summed up as prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity, the exercise of which will serve all men, in all times, in all circumstances.

The wise parents with conscious intent should strive to cultivate these virtues within their children, first and foremost by their example, but also via direct instruction and when necessary, discipline. But it doesn’t take thirteen years. Neither does it take thirteen years to teach them to read, write, add, and subtract, or to inspire them by lessons of the past wisdom and deeds of man. It does not take thirteen years to prepare them for the vast majority of modern occupations which are learned in the doing. Neither need it consume the bulk of their childhood to prepare them to embark upon strenuous advanced studies at any age, whether fourteen, eighteen, twenty-five, or fifty years old.
​
We as parents (and We the People) need to do a re-think of what our educational objectives for our children are and what is actually required to achieve them. Just as importantly we need to consider the damage that we have done to generations of Americans and thus our culture by grinding all of us through a one-size-fits-all K-12 regime.

​Man has since the beginning of time been led by simple ideas that speak volumes. Ideas that are often associated with symbols and images. Christ on the cross being the most potent symbol of all time and certainly for the West.

Likewise, those who would lead have used simple ideas that become memories to control the thoughts and actions of those they would lead. Imagine the prehistoric mother telling her child about the boogeyman. The blackness beyond the fire was after all full of peril and she didn’t want her little tyke waddling off while she slept.

Modern media has certainly used the event or the moment and its associated imagery to hammer into our collective mind an impression that may cause We the People to think and react in this or that way. Think the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin, and 911.

Here is my point. Whether the good and courageous Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent or guilty was secondary. The reason that this event was chosen by the Left to put and keep in the spotlight is the same as why they focused on that ballsy couple in St. Louis who dared to brandish arms in the face of Leftist thugs. They seek to impress upon our collective mind a new idea. A new boogeyman.

Don't resist.

Of all the madness, stupidity, and outrageous hypocrisy that we were subjected to in 2020, surely the idea of defunding the police would get at least the silver medal. I’m afraid that I would have to give the notion that we are still a racist nation the gold.

But what is the real reasoning behind the idea of defunding the police? What is the genesis of it? Surely no one that matters believes for a moment that you can have any kind of functioning society without police, or put another way, without the fear of retribution. Surely this is just a slogan concocted by Progressive theorists and then fed to their mob by a Progressive media in order to move the needle in this or that direction.

We all have an inkling of who the great thinkers and movers of Progressivism were. The great theorists who established the foundations of this new religion and those who have built upon it since. Voltaire and Marx may come to mind and rulers like Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Castro will ring big bells of recollection. Today there are any number of rising stars on the Left all vying for the bullhorn and hopefully their footnote in history.

But every army must have foot soldiers, sergeants, and junior officers. Where and who are they? I don't mean the Carnivorous Sheep that will follow anyone that feeds them and lets them do what they want. I mean those worker bees that know that they are Progressives, know why, and know what Progressivism is progressing towards.

My question is, who are they and where are they made? Where do they come from? From whom did they get their ideas? What pew did they warm in their youth? At whose feet did they study?

They came of course from Progressivism’s system of seminaries, where you learn the in’s and out’s of your religion and the why’s and how to’s. From there, you go forth to spread the gospel to the unwashed and to expand the borders of the kingdom.

The high priests of modern Progressivism do not call these centers of indoctrination ‘seminaries.’ That would be too honest. Rather, they are known as the humanities departments of America’s secular university system.

And it is these humanities departments across the nation that annually pour forth a small army of freshly ordained preachers and priests who will then go on to make themselves useful enough to earn a paycheque and then climb whatever ladder they can. And there, at that desk, or behind that counter, or in whatever committee they land, besides doing what they are paid to do, they will likewise let their light shine by preaching the gospel of American Leftism or otherwise advancing its cause.

​I do not understand the deep theory behind the American Left’s call to defund the police, though I know it must be sinister and naturally meant to hurt its erstwhile enemy, American Conservatism. But two can play that game. If we really wanted to hurt American Progressivism, to bomb its deep supply chain, then I propose that we defund the humanities departments in America’s secular universities.

All peoples produce a Common Man. He is the archetype of his people and it is his nature to have a limited view of things. For the Common Man things have always been and will always be as he has ever known them.

This is neither bad nor good, nor a life sentence. The Common Man may make himself the Uncommon Man, or perhaps at least a little less common, if he wishes.

If his view by nature is limited, then what views he does hold are of supreme importance because his power, or the collective power of all Common Men, like the ox, is immense. When the Common Man walks, he pulls the plow. When he is agitated, the earth trembles. When he is furious, he flattens mountains and will even bring them down on himself.

Because of his limited outlook and immense power, the Common Man can become an immensely useful tool for those whom he chooses to trust. If he follows nobility, then he makes of himself a tool for the good. If he follows the self-serving or wrongheaded then he becomes a tool for all manner of evil, even though the Common Man’s intentions may good.

If this is true, then how can the Common Man be innoculated against being persuaded to follow the demogogue, and thus do that which in hindsight will be seen to have injured his own interests or the interests of his people, or even of civilisation itself?

That inoculation will come from his worldview, that is, his core beliefs, the foundational myths his people embrace, and his limited understanding of his own history. It will also come from the culture in which he exists and which produced within him particular notions and inclinations.

If his core beliefs are based more or less on truth, wisdom, and the good, then the demagogue will have a harder time deceiving him. If the Common Man is inclined to the martial and disinclined to suffer fools, the demagogue will think twice before trying.

I posit that what the Common Man must be made to understand here in 2021, 245 years after the founding of this nation he so loves, is that he was born into a world of Leftist propaganda as were his grandparents, and that he is bringing up his children in the same.

Generation by generation we have been accepting ideas or a view of things that would have been antithetical to our grandparents, just as they had come to accept things that would have been antithetical to our great-great grandparents. The common man must be mindful of the influences in his life. Too many of the information feeds he ingests are producing within him a view of things that are simply self-destructive. He must come to recognise that what sounds like a sweet voice is actually that of Wormtongue, or a Siren Song that for generations now has lulled the Common Man into complacency, persuaded him that up is down, and made of him a tool to ruin his own posterity.

Democracy can work if employed by friends trying to decide whether they are going to eat pizza or fried chicken for supper.  Likewise, it can be useful to any given people with common values to order their government.  But it will end in disaster if used to determine which way is up or down.

It is the nature of man to take the path of least resistance, to seek pleasure, and to avoid pain, be he an emperor or the Common Man, and he is only restrained by choice or counter-force i.e. he may choose the hard path, or be forced to take it.

If the people are indeed sovereign, then via democracy the people will inevitably redefine society and even human nature to suit themselves, unless they are possessed by some self-restraint or are blocked by some reality.

Via the democratic process and led by a revolutionary Progressive elite, the Common Man today is being led about by a leash that he believes he holds. He has been told, and in his simplicity and vanity he believes, that he has unshackled himself from the old order and that now he is soaring to new heights and horizons. But in reality he is not soaring, but falling.

Human nature and common sense, to say nothing of the revealed will of God (long since rejected by our intellectual elite), are now finally being rejected by the mass man, and the resulting irrationalities are, decade by decade, squandering our cultural inheritance and leaving us weaker as a people in every way, if we can still call ourselves a people.  Like the substance abuser, we interpret the high of this new freedom as the reality, when in fact it merely masks the pain while the body and mind wither away. Such is the state of what is left of American culture today as we collectively drive our civilisation soaring off the cliff with the pedal on the floor, via the democratic process.

Man is not innately good and his collective will is not inherently right.  Quite the contrary.  Where the people rule unrestrained by an objective standard of right and wrong, anarchy and/or tyranny are inevitable.

Future historians will look back upon this period as yet more proof that the mass man is unfit to rule himself and unwilling to pay the price of true liberty.  For true liberty is a burden to be carried by the self-disciplined for the benefit of all, not a license to be enjoyed by the profligate and indolent at the expense of all.  True liberty is born of responsibility and self-restraint, and it is an undeniable truth that, as suffrage expands beyond the self-possessed, liberty contracts for all except tyrants and demagogues.

If we are to save our culture and be able to declare once again without irony that this is indeed the land of the free, then responsible people must defy the march towards ever-expanding democracy, stop it in its tracks, and roll it back.

Only the responsible and self-possessed should have a political voice.  Some would say that to deny the fool, the sluggard, the corrupt, or the indifferent the right to vote will result in the reduction of his freedom, but that is not necessarily the case. And even if it does, why should the responsible man concern himself with the freedom of people who will only use it to take from others, shirk responsibility, or indulge their vices…all via the democratic process, and all too often at the expense of the responsible man?

We must not allow the base elements of society to define who we are or where we are going, and we must not be blinded by utopian promises of democracy, which will only make us all serfs to a new Liberal oligarchy if we will not be bound by what is right.

Prudence, justice, temperance, and courage are sovereign goods. Democracy is not. It is but a tool. And the burden of proof must lie on the shoulders of those that claim otherwise. The Founding Fathers certainly did not consider democracy a sovereign good, which is why they attempted to bequeath to us a form of government that would both bestow the blessings of democracy but at the same time protect us from it.

Suffrage has been expanded too far and needs to be contracted.  It needs to be limited to those fit to bear the burden of liberty.

I know a businessman about my age who has a large acquaintance of other businessmen across the country who, like him, are directly or indirectly involved in real estate or banking. These are red, white, and blue alpha-males and entrepreneurs who have lived the American dream. Most are upper middle class in income, many are rather well off, and a few are just stupid rich. They, like him, are more or less Conservative.

My friend laments that after last November, this group by and large did nothing and have since just kept their heads low and their mouths shut. Like him these entrepreneurs were horrified by what they consider a coup, and they fear they may be losing the country that was gifted to them. But as a group they are more afraid of being singled out by Cancel Culture, preferring a cowardly silence to risking losing what they have.

Methinks that any Middle Class anywhere is by nature both defensive and complacent. The system in which these folks exist has worked for them and thus they are inclined to protect the status quo as well as to embrace a historical perspective that justifies it.

Plus, being human they tend to be shortsighted.

The Bubbas and Joe-Sixpacks of the world possess all of the Middle Class’s shortsightedness, but not its stake in the game. Yet, like the Middle Class, Bubba can be deeply rooted in the land and have a powerful sense of tribe, and if he does, it is because he inherited and embraces the myths of his people.

Neither the Middle Class nor Bubba know their history but they do know this is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave and the best country ever because Granddaddy’s granddaddy said so. The difference is that Bubba, with less to lose, is ready to fight for it. The problem is that Bubba, by nature, looks to the Middle Class for leadership, and that has been slow to come.

​There is a class in this country that I call the Carnivorous Sheep. By his nature as a Sheep, his power does not reside within himself but rather rests in the hands that can both feed and protect him, a class that we can call the Wolves. What makes him carnivorous is that through no power of his own he has the right to vote, and, driven by his appetites, via this vote, he eagerly seeks to consume that which others have produced. Once fed, via this same vote, in all other matters he gladly supports the Wolves that feed him.

The Carnivorous Sheep has no inner voice or guiding light that compels him to deny himself or do for others, at least not at his own expense. He does not feel guilt or shame. He has no sense of history or tradition that restrains or elevates him. His great vices are gluttony, sloth, and envy, but also pride, for he delights in being told by the Wolves that he is beautiful and powerful and, on the other hand, cannot bear having his vices pointed out. He is the sheep in wolf’s clothing, and for the Carnivorous Sheep the illusion is the same as reality.

I despise the Carnivorous Sheep, not for his weakness, because that often cannot be helped. I despise him for his ignorance, arrogance, and selfishness that make him a tool of the Wolves who are, with malicious intent, unraveling the fabric of our culture and poking holes in our ship of state.

I say this to the Carnivorous Sheep. By all means continue to feed for as long as you can. But make no mistake, you are the new American peasant, weakness is nothing to boast of, and your vote will not satiate the appetite of the Wolves. If they ever manage to bleed to death the producers that you feed on, they’ll come for you next, because like you, they will be fed at all costs.

But this remains the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave until we, the free and the brave, are all dead or we have allowed our descendants to become like you. Until then, ‘This land is our land, this land is not your land.’ So boast not of the country into which you were born and on which you feed. Stay seated during the anthem. Furl your American flag. For you, the 4th of July is just another day, because for you to act like a patriot is cultural appropriation. You dont get to have your cake and eat it too.

All peoples everywhere have mannerisms, traditions, habits, and customs that will cause an outsider to form a stereotype, and this includes Southerners. We are particularly well known for being friendly, and, having seen some of the world myself, I think we deserve this praise. It is one of our great cultural legacies.  

I am 54 and I give thanks today to the one true God for bringing me to the light of day amongst those that I consider my people. I am thankful to those generations now dead and gone whose kindness, good manners, wit, and back slapping laughter so formed me when I stood a yard off the ground. I am equally grateful for their backbone and their disinclination to be told what to do.