I read through this article and noted a concept described, but not stated. That is the focus of an individual in regards to relationship to spouse and children.  In the 50s, there were television shows using entire families with each member showing the anticipated roles they played in society.  Using the female role mentioned in the article, note the disdain the teacher had for the role of mother. What is the main difference, personally speaking, between a mother and someone at a job?  The mother is working to care for others.  The woman in a job is working to care for herself.  This is not to disparage working moms who need to put food on the table.  I just want to recognize a concept using the scenario presented in the article – man supporting the family and woman supporting the home.   The child received a disparaging remark from her teacher that she should not consider caring for children as a worthwhile activity even though she was living the result of someone engaged in that action.  The teacher was trying to inculcate the child into selfish rather than selfless mindset.  The educator was trying to intrude in the family concept of the home life.  As an aside and quote I have used previously – Dr. Thomas Sowell noted that if one simply wanted to present sex education as the facts, it could be done so in a few classes.  The only reason to extend it over multiple years is to undermine the training received at home.  This demonstrates a similar retraining.

Arranged marriage – perfect name for the concept of deliberate action based on thought and conversation.  Emotions come and go.  Feelings run the gamut of ecstasy to discouragement.  Self absorption can only destroy a relationship.  Joy is recognized when shown in desire to give to others – in this case, the children.  She recognized how her dad gave to the family and the mom gave to the kids and him.  “It was never really spoken about to me, but those are just the ideas I developed and carried with me.”  She developed those ideas because she lived them.


I found a Thanksgiving post from Victor Davis Hanson.  He had an interesting thought in there which matched something I had read from a book a long time ago.  “Rather, as one follows the trajectory of my generation, whose members are now in their sixties and seventies, it is difficult not to conclude that we were contemplative and critical mostly because we could be — our mindset being the product of a far safer, more prosperous, and leisured society that did not face the existential challenges of those who bequeathed such bounty to us.”  What the book mentioned was that socialism can only exist in a time of prosperity.  There has to be enough extra supplies that missing some doesn’t put existence at risk.  In times of scarcity, one makes decisions based on the best information at hand as being incorrect carries a higher penalty.  The generation of world war two had been through the depression and had practiced getting by on what was available and making it work.  Can you imagine the current generation handling lack of electricity?

When Colorado legalized pot a few years back, I was wondering the number of car accidents which would be realized.  After all, the effect of THC on the mind doesn’t make one more alert to the surrounds.  As a former coworker told me, “it makes everything funny.  They could say my grandmother died and I would think that was funny.”  That much alteration of consciousness in charge of a motor vehicle?  There had to be an effect.  I found a hint this morning.  The article doesn’t even touch on the statistic.  It only mentions it in a pull piece, but double the number of vehicle fatalities does seem significant to me.

The last comment (when I was reading) has some truth as well.

I saw a great poster with a photo of Sam Elliot, dressed as a cowboy. He (supposedly) said, “When you are dead, you don’t know you are dead. All of the pain is felt by others.

The same thing happens when you are stupid.”

The effect of modern education is seen in, for example, how one receives change at the register.  The kids there are taught not to think, and when presented with something different – like a few extra cents so I may receive a quarter change, they can’t mentally handle the information.  The mind is instructed to not work.  That’s really sad and also probably the main reason democrat politics based on race, ethnicity, feelings, etc, rather than factual analysis gets so much play.  If the population was actually educated to analyze and think, little that they desire would be able to be passed.

Here is the link.

In this case it’s philosophy.  This is a real battle.  Our cultural survival depends upon the warriors who are willing to engage.

I remember in early grade school how we discussed the melting pot – where every immigrant brought their individual talents and as a whole, the country was better.  By breaking up individuals into tribes, those individual talents are diminished and the whole is reduced to tribalism.  One particular item simmering in the back of my mind is the concept of any black trying to excel in school being called “acting white.”  If one doesn’t put their own talents to work and develop skills, the end product is going to be welfare bound, street bound, or working for someone else as labor.  That mindset is actively placing the blacks on the low end of the economic ladder – by their own behaviors.  This has nothing to do with their ancestors.  This has to do with current thoughts being pushed by those with demise of our country in mind.  How can a young boy become a man when he has never had an example?  This applies to all males.  How can females learn to respect males when they are constantly instructed and inferred as a lower mentally operating individuals?  How can young people understand the value of a family when it is constantly undermined and presented as a false construct?  These are the real battles we face to maintain our culture.

I found this interesting article.  Excerpt:

Intolerance masquerades as forbearance, proclaiming an open-mindedness that is reserved only for those who conform to ideologically acceptable standards of cultural elites.

It has been my observation that over the last few decades, differences have been pushed as the defining elements of an individual.  People have been labeled and those labels utilized to force a tribalism into this culture.  No more is the rule of law paramount.  The color of skin, bedroom activity, physical or mental disability, shape of one’s nose, etc become the focus and that rule of law which combined the culture is being removed.  In its place is a tribalism more defining of those of original islam.  The goal of those pushing tribalism is to lock people into a group an then force the group to do “x”.  It is the human equivalent of setting up a survey with only discrete possibilities available as reply.  That removes the individual humanity which so long flourished on this continent.  One’s actions are no longer that which is defining.  Those characteristics over which she has no control are the ones celebrated.  I prefer how it used to be, warts, statues and all.

Article here:  This one covers most of the basic thought points.  I don’t prefer it’s ending, but on the whole, it is good.  Some excerpts:

Good for him, you should never let your mouth write a check your backside isn’t willing to cash. But it is not racism that he can’t get a job; it is due diligence on the part of potential employers.

The Constitution guarantees your right to voice your opinion but it doesn’t shield you from the repercussions of voicing your opinion.  [actually, there should always be results from one’s actions – that is the best teacher]

But don’t you dare look at me and think you are anything special because you take the very fashionable stance of disparaging this nation. [it’s sad that it can be described as “fashionable” to disparage the nation which provides us so much opportunity]


Next Page »