Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 28, 2019

Liberate this, this Fourth of July

Today, as we are approaching once again the 4th of July Independence Day of 2019, I’ve been thinking grand thoughts about our Constitutional Republic, and it’s long term fate as it was put by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation — in the notes of Dr James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention — when he was asked what kind of newfangled government they had decided to bring forth, and he answered: “It is a Republic, madam, but only if You Can Keep It.”

Dr Franklin’s perspective and response on the inauguration of a Constitutional Republic in these United States of America: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It…” shows Benjamin Franklin to be the evergreen optimist who at the age of 81, gave what was for him the best speech of his life…

And while today we marvel at fireworks on the Fourth of July, marking our Independence — we tend to forget the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, and their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures, because most of them were quite underwhelmed and considerably less enthusiastic, than the hot dog eating, beer swilling and fireworks rocketing Americans of today.

Even Benjamin Franklin, the optimist, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention by reasoning that: “When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

Old Ben thought it impossible, to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, “with all its faults,” was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin’s logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty  — “democracy” — as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of “Franklin” which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America’s federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program, especially their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians — are fit objects of national shame, not honor.

But statesmen of succeeding generations — with Abraham Lincoln, the 14th President,  foremost among them, would continue the quest for a “more perfect union.”

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the “popular will” can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the “popular will” is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

As we look at the state of our federal union 232 years after the Founders completed their Constitutional Convention work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation’s most powerful symbol of unity — a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.

On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the “pursuit of happiness.”

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 5.01.42 PM

The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today’s conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery–a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.

If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

And it is abundantly clear that in order to “Keep It” we need to regain that spirit of REASON and OPTIMISM, that Dr Franklin so abundantly shared. That is, if we want to have any hope of  keeping our REPUBLIC, by rekindling a Western AngloSaxon Liberal Democratic rebirth. And it must be in the direction of Classical Liberalism, as applied in the Western Democracies of the best parts of our lives today, because going back to the past is never an option. We must look boldly to the future and hope for the best, as Old Ben always advised us to do.

This New Era has to be the era of classical liberalism that is based on the US Constitution, along with Natural law, infused and influenced by the particular biblical and common law traditions of the AngloAmerican nations, based on the “thought cannon” of all the multihued and multicolored individual leaders and commoners alike — who fought, spoke, toiled and even died, with force, about the outcome of political philosophy and patriotism, as they set their hopes on making our country Rational Again and guiding America on the path towards universal reason.

And it is pivotally important that the liberal western nomenclature has to be wrestled away from the hands of the freaks, and brought back to sanity. Classical liberalism, is a reasonable system of ideas for Governance, but first the use of the word “Liberal” has to forcefully extracted from the clutches of the word-thieving, doublespeak spewing crazy people, who seek to enslave once again, the masses of the “great unwashed.”

And because Classical Liberal Democracy is a fantastic idea of Independence and Liberty for our Republic, and it is contrary to all of the socialist leftist ideas that today’s so called democratic socialist, and all of the leftist liberal demonrats soil themselves with — we need to save these words from the loonies and their crazy ilk.

And because we are indeed in the midst of a Culture War, and we play with fire if we forget 1984, and the observations of George Orwell and Winston that the current and future Nazis, Fascists & Communists, will call themselves AntiFascists…

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 12.42.48 PM

And that the illiberal and totalitarians, will call themselves liberals…

Double speak folks, is where the game rests.

And we need to be liberated from that soonest.

So if we wish to be truly liberated from the sinister use of our language to weaponize our words and definitions and to turn them against our sanity, and common sense reason — it is the drawing away from the flames of the current cultural conflagration.

Because we need to regain the strength of our own cultural relevancy and linguistic definitions before we go through with the recovery of Classical Liberalism as the great aspiration of our Free Societies, our Free nations, and our Free World.

Alongside of that, we can harvest the particular Anglo-American political and religious traditions that were the original source of the English-speaking nations’ cohesion and strength.

Even all the way from the time of the American Independence, and during our flesh eating Civil War, and all the way to the current wars, as well as before and during the Second World War — these classics liberal democratic traditions represented the touchstone of our strength so that we can keep our Republic alive and kicking.

But all that, was well before the current wholesale displacement of our Greco-Roman civilizing Judeo-Christian traditions, by the pseudo leftist fake liberalism.

On January 4, 1939, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave the State of the Union address to an American nation that he believed, would soon be at war on an unprecedented scale, because FDR knew that America, Britain, and their allies would have to fight not only the Socialists of the Fascist, and Nazi (National Socialism) varieties and its imitators, but also the Soviet Communists as well. Yet even FDR struggled to define, what would the Western allies be fighting for, in the coming titanic struggle.

And perhaps only Winston Churchill fighting — all alone fighting a war to the death, for the first two years of the II World war — had fully understood and embraced this primeval conflict between Good & Evil, as his destiny, and his ultimate call-to-arms, in order to save the whole World from thousand years of Darkness & Totalitarianism.

My grandfather Winston Churchill grasped the meaning of Totalitarian Evil — full & well.

But who else thought that way?

Nobody else…

Nobody else, except the simple people, the salt of the earth kind, the ones not in any positions of authority, the ones bereft of any wealth, the small shopkeepers, and daily market men, the women who rear the children and toil alongside the men who turn kids to adulthood…

Nobody else.

Yet, the Christian fearing, English speaking and AngloSaxon people — all thought this way too…

And all those offshoots of the Christian AngloSaxon civilization all around the world, along with the peoples of the Commonwealth of nations — also sensed that they had to fight alongside my grandfather Winston Churchill, if they were to maintain not just their nationhood, but also their civilization and their long nurtured civility.

So why is it that nobody else amongst the World’s leaders, stood alongside my grandfather during his darkest hours?

Could they not see the dawn of tyranny?


Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.58.54 AM

Finally Franklin Roosevelt, emerged in his glory and started fully acting as the true President of the United States — a Christian Nation, and thus slowly came around to recognizing this existential threat that the National Socialists and their Totalitarian Axis of Evil, presented for all Western Democracies, and especially for America. He finally saw this, under the influence of Churchill’s bombastic tirades and overlong communiques, but in the beginning FDR was an appeaser, as all the Democrats and indeed most of Americans were.

Only the American fighters of the Lincoln brigade who sought to curtail fascism in Spain during the doomed Republican fight there against the combined forces of Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini, alongside those of Stalin — all seeking to snuff out any notion of Liberty amongst the People of the Iberian nations, while rehearsing and training their mighty armies to be unleashed for their combined destruction of Liberty and Democracy throughout Europe and the rest of the World. That is why Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to carve up all the nations in their periphery, starting from the still weeping Poland, and the Baltic states, along the rest of the ancient states and nations of central and eastern Europe…

The Lincoln brigade members and the American flyers who joined England in her desperate hours, are to be commended for being the early pioneers and the early fighters for freedom and democracy, and as they are largely forgotten today — may the soil that covers them, be light upon them.

Still even after the Spanish Republic’s total and complete annihilation and destruction at the hands of the Nazis and the fascists — it was impossible for FDR to grasp all these, mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate, without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing probing, informing and beneficial influence of Winston Churchill — finally even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, started turning around, as he also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Western Democracies, and of America, not necessarily in that order…

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.13.53 AM

FDR slowly came around but in the beginning he was an appeaser of Hitler and Mussolini, as all the American Democrats were at that time…

That was mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing influence of Churchill, the FDR started turning around, and also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Democrats and not of America necessarily…

As he put it: “Events abroad directly challenge three institutions indispensable to Americans, now as always. The first is religion. It is the source of the other two — democracy and international good faith.”

As you can clearly see, FDR, nowhere does he mention LIBERTY and FREE WILL, or NATIONAL DETERMINATION for the subject nations wasting under the NAZI rule.

According to this view, both Liberty and the freedoms that are the inheritance of Americans as individuals, alongside the freedom of America as an independent nation among other free Peoples, have their source in one place — which is the Christian inheritance of Free Will, and Self Determination of all Peoples. This is the true inheritance of this nation and of the whole of the Free Western World.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 2.48.31 PM

Yet, FDR supposed that the Nazis and the Marxists knew this as well as he did, and that is why they were seeking to overthrow not only democracy and liberty, but its Christian source of power as well.

Roosevelt said, that “This was their aim, to achieve an ordering of society which relegates religion, democracy, and good faith among nations to the background, … but the United States rejects such an ordering and retains its ancient faith.”

FDR’s framing of what was at stake made the impending conflict not only a war about freedom, although it was surely that. It was also a war about religion. In fact, in the same address, Roosevelt described the conflict as one between the “God-fearing democracies” and their enemies—those nations that did not fear God, the biblical Amalek. It is striking how far this framing of the war differs from what is taught in most schools and universities today. It is a rare instructor in history or politics who describes the struggle against Nazism and Marxism as one fought between “God-fearing democracy” and its enemies. It is usually said that the war was fought between “liberal democracy” and its enemies.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.25 AM

But Roosevelt seems not to have been aware that leftist liberalism was the cause in whose name hundreds of thousands of Americans were about to give their lives. In fact, the words “liberal” and “liberalism” appear nowhere in the eight pages of his address. This shift isn’t just about word-choice. The fact is that America, Britain, and other Western countries have undergone a dramatic change in self-understanding in the wake of the trauma of the Second World War. Somehow, a war fought to defend God-fearing democracy inadvertently ended up destroying the religious foundations of the victorious Western nations.

Over the course of a few generations, the God-fearing democracies came to see themselves as liberal democracies, and liberalism replaced Christianity as the fundamental framework within which these nations lived and conducted their affairs. We can see the beginning of this change immediately after the Second World War in the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in 1947, that state governments may no longer support and encourage a particular religion or any religion.

Technically, this decision is deduced from the First Amendment of the Constitution as applied through the Fourteenth, but of course, the Fourteenth amendment (1868) had already been on the books for 79 years without anyone recognizing that support and encouragement for religion by the states was a violation of individual’s right to due process. What had changed in the interim was not the letter of the law, but the narrative framework through which the Justices of the Supreme Court, as representatives of elite opinion, understood the relationship between Christian tradition and the American nation. That there has been such a change is obvious from the fact that by the time one reaches Everson v Board of Education (1947), Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, feels constrained to provide a new story of the American founding broadly hostile to government encouragement of religion. Among other things he writes: “It is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.”

He continued thus: “A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.”

In Black’s opinion rendering, “Religion is no longer the source of American democracy and independence” as it had been in FDR’s State of the Union address eight years earlier.

And if anything, religion is now portrayed as a danger and a threat to democratic freedoms, the very form of the American Constitution having been the result of the excesses of religion that drove the first Europeans to settle in America. It is here that we find the transition from a God-fearing democracy to a liberal democracy: One in which religion is perceived as being so great a threat that the federal government must act to ensure that no child in the country is taught religion in any publicly supported school.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.06 AM

Within less than two decades, the Supreme Court had banned not only religious instruction but prayer and devotional reading from the Bible in schools, placing the great majority of the nation’s children in the care of an “idiotic-safe-space” scrubbed clean of any reference to the place of Christianity and Judaism in laying the foundations of the American republic.

Instead of arising out of longstanding Christian tradition, America was reimagined as a product of Enlightenment rationalism, as seen when during the high school years and during all the college years the young people of this country spend inside those leftist holding pens — especially in the so called mandatory education K-12, they hear not a word about the Bible or the common law, but they are peripherally introduced to the pivotal and cardinal philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that are presented as the Holy Gospel of liberal education.

Yet it is inside these public schools, these colleges, and these universities, that we are provided with the public space in which the American mind is molded, into a morosed vessel of misinformation.

And so what is seen as legitimate in these institutions of learning — it is what ends up being the legitimate discourse in the public life of the country if only a generation later…

Yet, we all know that a nation that honors its religious traditions in the schools will end up honoring traditions in the broader public sphere. Whereas a nation that heaps dishonor on its religious traditions by banning them from the schools will end up dishonoring its traditions in the broader public sphere as America consistently does today.

Today, the meme “Why Rationalism Does Not, Cannot, and Will Not Work” is a commonplace and awfully tired trope, used by all, and especially amongst erstwhile liberal as well as conservative mass media commentators, and the journalistic talking heads, who constantly harp away, by saying that sadly, the demolition of traditional concepts and norms is being driven by Democrats-Democrats, Leftists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, cultural Marxists, or just the confused Socialist Left, and its brethren the Democratic Socialists — residing inside all four (Yes Four) sectors of our Government. [Notably in the big four equally strong centers of power and foundational sectors of our government and society — I have included the Media, alongside the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.]

Because this travesty of thought although especially prevalent inside our schools, our colleges, and our universities — it still fully blossoms in the place where it finds its apotheosis, inside the Mass Media Entertainment and Brain Washing Machine Centers masquerading as today’s Journalism.

And that is truly the saddest thing going on today in our culture — the overtaking of all of our journalism, by socialist & marxist entertainers, pretending to “high fallutin” ideals of fairness and impartiality as those bygone men and women of yore who were members of the classical journalistic ethical breed.
Today, all the pseudo-journos, lead with their feelings and not with the truth — and still are foolish enough to preach Marxist principles to the American public, thinking that people will swallow such drivel easily.

And because of that, they are an easy target for criticism because they say explicitly that their aim is to critique the concepts employed by the existing Constitutional & Democratic Republic American power structures, with the express and stated aim of undermining them.

But the Marxists, and the Socialists, and the neo-Marxists’ agendas, are not sufficient as an explanation of what we’re seeing taking place in our culture wars today, because even in the universities, where the Marxists are strongest, they remain a tiny minority. Further, in government and among the public, they have not, until very recently, been anything more than a curiosity, and could not by themselves have affected the sweeping civilizational changes that have been under way for several decades now…

Think, for instance, of the total and complete elimination of any references to God, to the Bible, and towards prayer, from the American schools. Think of the public embrace of new sexual norms, the easy divorce and all out support for even late term abortions. Or think about the collapse of Western nations’ will to pay back their debts, balance their budgets, or strengthen their borders and thus regulate immigration and unfettered & catastrophic waves of migration. In these cases, as in many others, it wasn’t the Marxist minority that determined the course of events, but the Uniparty system that destroyed the U.S. and the UK with their acquiescence and complicity in letting these matters of such grave importance for our AngloSaxon Western Civilization nations, slip away…

Indeed, these things happened because they were supported by a broad liberal public, and were promoted by its elected representatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties in America, and on both the center-left and center-right in Europe. The key to understanding our present condition, then, is this: If liberals had been willing and able to mount a vigorous defense of inherited political and moral norms against the conceptual revolutions proposed by the neo-Marxist left, these challenges would have been defeated easily.

But liberalism has proved itself either unwilling or unable to successfully defend almost any inherited political ideals or norms once a focused attack on them has been under way for twenty or thirty years. Why is liberal political thought systematically incapable of defending inherited traditions? Virtually all of liberal thought today— including that of “social liberals” such as John Rawls; and that of “classical liberals” or “libertarians” such as Robert Nozick — is based on Enlightenment rationalist political theories that were purposely designed to be independent of all inherited political traditions. In fact, the central claim of Enlightenment political theories was that they were based on “reason alone,” which meant that they could, in principle, be understood and agreed upon by anyone, regardless of the particular religious or national traditions in which they were raised. Reason alone was said to be all you needed to derive and wield ideas like individual freedom, equality, consent, and universal rights—the central ideas in the toolkit of contemporary leftist liberalism.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 12.00.35 PM

The trouble with these Enlightenment rationalist claims is that they aren’t actually true. In fact, individuals exercising “reason alone” do not come to any kind of stable consensus about anything. As the great English political theorist John Selden wrote already in the 17th century, reason alone is capable of coming to virtually any conclusion.

And this brings us to the uncertainty and inconsistency with which the free and unadorned application of reason has always been burdened…. No one of any education can be unaware that in ancient times even the masters and practitioners of right reason, i.e., the philosophers, took part in endless discussions about good and evil, and the boundaries that separated them, in which they were completely at odds with one another.

There was no one to put an end to these disputes.

The number of sectarian groups multiplied, and so many new doctrines sprouted up that even though the study of philosophy was based upon the most careful reasoning possible given the intelligence and talents of its practitioners, the number of its schools would easily have reached the apocryphal figure of 288, if every difference in doctrine had been formalized. … Thus people who have set about seeking the universal principles of living well have arrived at very different conclusions, among which everyone considers his own to be the best, and usually either condemns or criticizes everyone else’s. …

Hence both Zeno and Chrysippus, as well as the Persian Magi, considered relations with one’s mother and even with one’s daughter to be permitted, just as were relations with other men; and the philosopher Theodorus said the same about theft, sacrilege, and adultery. And yet the jurist Ulpian (who was not even a Christian) and others of the pagans said explicitly that these are crimes against nature; while Theodotus, Diagoras of Melos, and some other well-known writers completely undermined all the fear and respect that rein in humanity by claiming that the gods did not exist. Add to these Plato, the most divinely inspired of all philosophers, who believed that women should be held in common and people should be able to have sex with almost anyone they want; and the others who thought that all possessions should be shared as though the law required it.

Yet for us the modern practical philosophy of Madison and Jefferson informs our Republic’s best conversations, as is evidenced herewith:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” –James Madison

Or here:

“Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms… If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”         –James Monroe

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.22.52 PM

But in antiquity, these modern rationalists did not exist and instead we had the teachings of Archelaus, Aristippus and Carneades, according to which nothing at all that is just,  depends upon nature; rather, what we call “just” is based in fact on written law, and on the preferences or interests of human beings…. And yet we hear everywhere that law (especially natural law) is right reason; and everyone agrees with this sentiment, even those who disagree fiercely about what “right reason” is. … We should therefore use with caution, and not be too quick to depend upon, the unfettered and simple application of analytical reason alone, which is often thought to be so unpredictable and unstable that what one person sees, particularly in this kind of investigation, as a very evident principle, or a conclusion which follows from a principle, will often seem to another person of equal intelligence to be obviously false and worthless, or at least inadmissible as truth.

This is just what happened all the time among those heroes of the discipline who used free and untrammeled reason to argue about the nature of good and evil, the shameful and the honorable, as everyone knows who is even slightly familiar with their writings.

This is why Tertullian says this about the philosophy of the gentiles, i.e. about “Using the kind of reason which they generally called “right” that it reserves nothing for divine authority, since it makes its own opinions into laws of nature. Considering the variety of philosophical schools and sects, you are not likely to find anything as unclear and contradictory as these “laws of nature.”” Tertullian’s words were published in 1640, but they might as well have been written today.

So for me it is best we go towards our own enlightened founders here as said thus: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”         –Thomas Jefferson

Today, the enlightenment-inspired liberals insist that “reason alone,” exercised through the sole instrument of open debate in the universities and in the public sphere, will lead everyone to their preferred conclusions about politics and morals. The reality, however, is that the exercise of free human reasoning leads to Marxism or to a quasi-Darwinian “white identity politics” just as easily as it leads to social liberalism or libertarianism.

And tomorrow, it will lead somewhere else entirely, abandoning the results of today’s reasoning as relics of a bygone and benighted past. We can now understand the causes of the present trajectory of public life in the Western nations. Until the eve of the Second World War, these were still, in many respects, traditional societies.

True, these “God-fearing democracies” respected Enlightenment philosophy and liked the idea of “having to do your own thinking” (as FDR put it). But it was not “doing your own thinking” that had produced the basis for a stable nation. It was Protestant religious and political tradition that determined the fundamentals of the political order.

The power of the Enlightenment’s “critique” of all inherited tradition continued to be balanced and contained by the force of Christian tradition. Within two decades of the conclusion of the war, this balancing force had collapsed. In despair over its horrors, Americans and Europeans were now prepared to embrace Enlightenment, and to accept whatever political truths might be dictated by reason alone.

Indeed, the revolution unleashed in this way, did have certain positive consequences and some rather funny ones too.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.24.37 PM

Among these I would count the elimination of state-sanctioned racial segregation in the American South, and many other items could certainly be named.

But the new era of what Selden called “free and untrammeled reason” as the sole guide for our understanding of what is good and right has thrown us into a perpetual revolution that is devouring all inherited wisdom and common sense. As is now obvious to many, this revolution has no natural stopping point. If its course cannot be deflected, it will end with the destruction of the Western democracies and their replacement by a despotism sufficiently vicious to be able to put a stop to the revolution by force.

Dr Churchill


In recent decades, American and European elites have devoted themselves to the project of rethinking society from scratch.

What were once linchpin concepts such as family and nation, man and woman, God and Scripture, the honorable and the sacred, have been found wanting and severely damaged, if not overthrown. The resulting void has been filled by new doctrines, until now mostly neo-Marxist or libertarian in character. But a racialist “white identity” politics in a Darwinian key is gathering momentum as well. All three of these approaches to political and moral questions are, in a sense, creatures of the Enlightenment, claiming to be founded on a universally accessible reason and to play by its rules. This is another way of saying that none of them have much regard for inherited tradition, seeing it as contributing little to our understanding of politics and morals.

Yet, because contemporary political doctrines claim to play by Enlightenment rules, conservatives seeking to stem the tide of the revolution have often felt that they would be on the strongest possible ground if they appealed to universal reason themselves: Catholic scholars, for example, have led the effort to develop an updated political theory based on natural law. Whereas Straussians, to cite another prominent school, have sought to elaborate the theory of Lockean natural right, fortifying it with the assertion that the American Declaration of Independence commits the United States to such a view as a kind of official ideology of the state. These efforts have generally been conducted by individuals who are personally sympathetic to political conservatism—that is, to the preservation of the inherited political and moral traditions of Western nations. And yet it is striking that these attempts to revive natural law and natural right defend a conservative political understanding that is itself created in the image of their opponents:

Namely, the rationalist school of Enlightenment political theory — Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise, Rousseau’s Social Contract, Spinoza, Kant — insisted that it was speaking in the name of a universal reason that is supposed to be accessible to everyone, in all times and places, and to provide the one correct answer to all foundational political questions. In just the same way, present-day “conservative rationalists” insist that their own political thinking is the product of universal reason, accessible to all, and leading to the one true answer on political things. Missing from such conservative rationalism is any significant place for tradition — any reason to prefer political and moral concepts that have held good and done good for our ancestors and for us over centuries, if not thousands of years.

And although conservative rationalism can boast of certain impressive achievements, as a general matter it is fair to say that conservative rationalism has failed: It has not visibly retarded the progress of the revolution that has so damaged the most basic of inherited Jewish and Christian concepts.

But beyond this, by endorsing the methods and assumptions of Enlightenment rationalism, conservative rationalism has contributed something to the calamity, leaving the traditions that once upheld the political order in America and other Western countries — understood as the inherited customs of particular nations — largely without defenders. This is a decisive point, because traditions of ideas, regardless of their content, are never disembodied things that float free of the families, tribes and nations into which real human beings are born and in which they are educated. Our ideas, no matter how much we may develop and revise them or rebel against them in part, are still the product of the traditions we inherit, or adopt later in life, because conservative rationalists mistake their ideas for universal thoughts that can be accessed universally, they pay little attention to way in which the traditions of nations are formed and what it takes to strengthen them or even to maintain them. Their students are therefore largely unaware, for example, that it is not freedom, but honor and self-restraint that are primarily responsible for the solidity of national traditions.

Yet, we ought to know that without understanding and practice in these things, “conservative rationalists” cannot in fact conserve much of anything, and often end up taking part, on a daily basis, in the general undermining of the very things that they say they wish to conserve.

Conservative rationalism has led not to a flourishing of the conservative impulse in America, the UK, and other Western Greco-Roman civilization steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions nations — but rather to its extinction.

Therefore it is high time now to regain the Classical Liberalism of Winston Churchill, of Ronald Reagan, of Maggie Thatcher and of Jack Kemp — because they had it right in the first place.

A God fearing people living in Freedom and Dignity with Liberty and Rights for all is what the “City of Human Liberty, in the sunny uplands of Freedom, Law, and Democracy” is what I, and am sure most of you all, aspire to live in.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.39 AM

Yet in these days of Culture Wars, let thus remember that “The Harder the Conflict, the Greater the Triumph” –George Washington

So when Americans celebrate the 4th of July this week with hot dogs and fireworks, I would like to take a moment to look past the visual imagery and the smells of barbecue, in order to focus on what our founding fathers fought for in the Revolutionary War and in all the subsequent conflicts including Civil and Uncivil wars and even the culture wars of today:

They fought the hardest for Life, Liberty and for the Pursuit of Happiness, but also for taking the risks associated with these noble pursuits…

“Those that are willing to give up essential liberty in order to gain a little temporary safety — deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin

Yet today, it seems that these inalienable rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as they stem from our Constitution, are being eroded with each successive administration and with law making anti-constitutionalist judges and even with most Supreme Court decisions and rulings.

And it seems to me that with big government — if we aren’t already there, tyranny seems to be coming, closely followed by the Holy Inquisition…

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.36.27 AM

So maybe, this Fourth of July as we stand at the crossroads as a Nation — we must decide if we will allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by tyranny or if we will come together and stand up for the principles of our Constitution.

Do we allow the Cultural Wars to overrun the eternal issues that make Life worth Living for any generation, such as the preservation of life, that of liberty and that of the pursuit of happiness?

Now, if you want to do something to further liberty, democracy, and the keeping of our Republic for the next generations in this country I highly recommend checking out the Lincoln Party here at http://www.LincolnParty.Net


Happy Fourth dude…

Now after reading all this — feel free to go light up some fires with your mental firecrackers, and help people see the Light.

Please do not be afraid to light up fires into the explosive brains of your friends and family…

The children of tomorrow will Thank You for that.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 2.34.23 PM

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: