Come On, Take It, a blast from the past from January 2014

Posted on by accordingtohoyt

Come On, Take It, a blast from the past from January 2014

Yesterday, on a private forum a friend of mine who here will go under the name Sam Anderson said the following:

Patriotism is good. Nationalism through a patriotic lens, seeing your country as worthwhile, as having prospects and things to be proud of, is not only acceptable but necessary for the health of any nation. But MOST especially the United States, because it’s one thing for the French to be ashamed of being French, but at the end of the day, they’re still going to be French. France is established on ethnic and historical foundations, and even if the French think they suck, there can still be citizens of France. Just not very long, since self-loathing aligns you, first metaphorically, then inevitably in practice, with enemies who ALSO loathe you.

But an American just CAN’T believe in nothing, CAN’T reject the philosophy underpinning America, and be one. Philosophy IS America. There’s nothing else to base it on, and there’s no “philosophy on the side” option. There’s no “shared values” or that bullshit. There’s a piece of paper that lays out precisely how the government functions, tells it what it doesn’t get to do, and tells YOU to go shift for yourself. Now yeah, maybe you can quibble with a point or two of it. Lots of people did then, too. But people who reject, wholesale, that that makes sense as the foundation of a country- who complain about negative rights, who call the constitution outdated- de facto, aren’t American, the same way you couldn’t be a Catholic but not believe in G*d. Aphilosophical American is a contradiction in terms. The most they can do is live somewhere between Mexico and Canada. We’ve got a lot of that kind of “American”.

But nationalism is only a problem when it starts to supersede rather than represent a people. The American people, left mostly to their own devices, with most of their own money and most of their own time, even if they only SORT OF try to adhere to their founding principles, can turn the world upside down. It’s not because of any particular genetic, ethnographic, economic, or so on reason. You could do it with anyone… they’d just have to agree to the challenging but rewarding terms of freedom, which historically much of humanity would rather trade for security. But America, the national body- the government bureaucrats meant to represent the people, who increasingly act in contravention of same- that America cannot find its ass with both hands. It’s just the resurgence of a far inferior product coming back under a much more successful and respected brand.

One of the lines you can draw between right and left is, when a conservative roots for America, they mean the individual entrepreneurs, athletes, artists, and scholars- the millions of little people who even now, every so often, by the grace of determination, judicious risk taking, and hard work, manage to do a few really big things. When a liberal roots for “America”, they back the bully-boys in the government with the private jets… the big institutions that nevertheless manage routinely to fuck up thousands of little things.

THAT’S the form of nationalism that’s toxic.

Let’s go back to what Sam said “Philosophy IS America.”  If you don’t believe in the founding principles, you’re not an American.  You’re at best a permanent resident who grew up here and behaves generally within the law.

We’re a volitional citizenship.  Yes, if you were born here, you are LEGALLY an American.  You can legally be a lot of things that you’re not even close to being in reality.  Take all the college people running around screaming they want to be protected from micro-micro aggressions.  They are legally adults.

My younger kid is also legally an adult, and although closer to an adult than most of the micro-aggressed, he still lives at home and has never had to provide for his daily upkeep.  He’s a legal adult, but not an adult like say any of you who have to work for a living.  (We let him only because he’s taking two stem degrees concurrently and not taking accommodations for his sensory issues.)

Do I think it was a mistake of the founders to allow citizenship of birth in a nation of volition?  You bet your beepy I do.  They got so much right, though, and they were only human.  They couldn’t believe anyone born here, enjoying the blessings of liberty could possibly wish to believe that a system where “we belong to the government” is better.

They were wrong.  In a way, again, understandable, since they’d given their life, their fortunes, their sacred honor for this endeavor and many lost it.  (Read a book called Signing their lives away, if you haven’t yet.)  On the other hand, not understandable, since they knew how revolutionary their system was.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?  You must be mad.  The government as a servant to the sovereign citizen?  Cooee, what world do you come from?  Separation of powers to make it difficult to “get things done”?  Mister, you must be one of them escapees from the asylum.

And yet — and yet — some of us are very much citizens of the volitional nation.  We embrace the vision of the founders, we work to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.  We took an oath, and we keep it.

Come on.  Go ahead and take it.  Take it by yourself in the privacy of your heart; take it with your family; take it with a co-worker. Re-take it if you already did it. And mean it now more than ever.
Go on and take it!

Take the oath.  Then keep it.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen [or a moonstruck admirer for those on the right and left who think those people abroad have a better idea- sah]; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

166 thoughts on “Come On, Take It, a blast from the past from January 2014”

  1. And by taking this oath (which is in large part the same as that taken by the military and by law enforcement officers), you immediately qualify yourselves to join the Oath Keepers should you desire to. The oath has no expiration date or conditions, so once you take it, you should consider yourself bound by it unless you formally and openly renounce it.

    2. The “true faith and allegiance” part makes me cry like it did when I actually took the enlistment and commissioning oaths in the Army.

      This blog post is so profoundly true that all I can offer are my tears to say “Yep. This. In spades.”

  2. This is why I prefer The Star Spangled Banner as the national anthem, despite the performance difficulties of the song. (Pro tip: Start at the lowest point that you can. Unlike most common songs, it doesn’t start in the middle of the song’s range.) America the Beautiful is all about the land, but it’s not the land that defines the country.

      2. That’s one of its virtues… its incredible flexibility (there’s a great punk version out there somewhere) ….. of course, it had good ancestors:

        Love the comments:
        ===
        America: Can I copy your homework?
        Anacreon: Sure, But don’t make it obvious
        America: National Anthem

        If you’ve ever been to a major league baseball game, you know this tune is still basically a drinking song.

        Imagine a few drunk brit blokes from the 1800s accidentally stepping into a time machine and transported to an american sporting event, right as the national anthem begins

        I like how this was deliberately written to be incredibly difficult to sing – if you get it wrong, you buy the next round
        ===

        Yep, no others can do what it can do; we’ve got the BEST National Anthem. Only fitting!

        1. Melodies get recycled a lot. I’d bet we’re not the only country that swiped something and set new words to it.

          2. “Deutschland, Deutschland über Alles” is stolen from an Austrian paean to the Habsburgs. Written by Hayden, so steal from the best. Then stolen for the hymn “Glorious things of thee are spoken.”

            1. There’s a funny bit in a YA novel that I loved, growing up – Constance Savery’s “Enemy Brothers” wherein an early teenage kid from an English family who was kidnapped as a baby by a German wanna-be-mom is returned to his English family a year or two into WWII. And the church where he has been dragged by his family has “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken” as one of the Sunday hymns. The kid has been raised as a Nazi … and makes the expected assumption as to what words ought to be sung to that tune.

            2. The church we used to attend (long story) liked to do “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee”. I had a very hard time refraining from singing “Freude, Schone Gotterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium”. (Sorry, I don’t umlaut… 🙂 )

              On rare occasions, I had to refrain from singing “Deutschland”, und so weiter.

              At lest Ludwig was

              1. Ja. The first time my current place of worship did “Joyful Joyful” after the symphony chorus did the 9th . . . There was some giggling and German during the non-recorded part of the service. A number of the symphony chorus members sing in that church choir. (Which might explain why the church choir does so well with German and Latin.)

              2. “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee” AND “Alleluia, Alleluia! Hearts to Heaven and Voices Raise”

                The first in ordinary time and the second in the Easter season, fortunately.

        2. I once had someone trying to mock the National Anthem as “just a re-worded drinking song”. I didn’t say my reaction out loud: “and your point is?”. (This was during one of the “rubber hose” sessions of SERE training, so a little discretion was called for).

        3. Oh my… Plinking the Anthem on last year’s Forbidden 4th. 😀

          And the Founding Fathers version… (not the one I wanted, but a crackup)

          Dan Vasc has one too, tho didn’t quite hit those high notes. And had to pick a lung out of the mic afterward. 😛

          1. No vocals, but Jimi Hendrix did one for Woodstock. Haven’t reviewed this in maybe 50 years, but…

          2. I do wish he’d started a bit lower, but that’s because I really like when folks singing that song start at subterranean rumbles levels.

    2. I still think that if it has to be changed it should be changed to America, Fuck Yeah!

      (not least because I want to watch the entire rest of the world’s collective fainting spell)

    3. I love our national anthem, too. It’s easier to sing than people give it credit for, just start as low as you can and learn to sing the high part.

      Or just be loud and make everyone around you smile. It’s closer to a worship song than a performance, anyway.

  4. Fault me if you want but in today’s America, with today’s lawmakers and today’s selected officials, the only part of that oath I can accept is I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    1. It’s very sad that so many institutions and people have proved themselves to be unworthy of trust this last year. It feels like we suddenly discovered that our society has been built on shifting sand instead of bedrock.

  5. I took the oath in 1969, went to RVN ’71 – ’72 as a helicopter pilot. I retired from the army in 1976 due to medical issues from RVN. I grew up reading things like Plato, the Federalist papers, anti-Federalist papers, and modern writers like Verne, Wells, Asimov, Heinlein, Arthur Conan Doyle, Piper plus a host of others. As a bit of a nerd I also read Hitler and Marx and a ton of military history. By the time I was in the army I had figured out that socialism (especially in its communist form) was a dead end but I was educated in a Catholic school that had access to some really great books, including the Church fathers. I consider myself blessed to have had this background, to have been allowed to defend my country, and to have been free to raise our children to be faithful Catholics and loyal Americans. Too bad that education is hard to come by today.

  6. because it’s one thing for the French to be ashamed of being French, but at the end of the day, they’re still going to be French.

    Well….. yes… The later obviously implies the former. /s

    And that was before their philosophers were allowed out of the padded rooms.

    the same way you couldn’t be a Catholic but not believe in G*d.

    Soooooo, about that Francis guy?

    If you don’t believe in the founding principles, you’re not an American. You’re at best a permanent resident who grew up here and behaves generally within the law.

    Third option: faking it until no longer necessary to fake it.

  7. Many of us have already taken a similar oath:

    “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Commissioned officers take this one:

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Seems the National Guard take a slightly different oath:
    I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of (applicable state) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (applicable state) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. (So help me God).”

    and officers in the National Guard have this one (which is a whole lot more complicated):
    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

    There is no duration defined in the Oath itself. Theoretically, that means the oath is perpetual, until someone with authority to do so absolves you of it, or you renounce it. Typically an enlistment contract is anywhere from 2 to 6 or more years, depending on the the branch of service, the specialty the member is filling, and any other benefits and enticements.

    I took the oath of enlistment 5 times during my career. I can tell you all right now that I will never unquestioningly follow the orders of the President or any officers ever “appointed over me”.

        1. This is not dissuading me in the least from the Oaths as Mind Programming model.

          Actually using the word “legalistic” in the description is just the cherry on top.

          1. *polite expression* You want it should be “do what you feel like at the moment”? That organization really does no good for continued survival, even cats manage better.

            1. No…… that was my whole question about Oaths; that as far as I could tell they were supposed to be unbreakable* chains of logic forcing someone into something they precommitted to. But that lead to conclusions that I didn’t want to make so I asked a week or so ago and was corrected that there was much more wobble in the idea than I thought.

              This goes right back to that original formulation.

              * as unbreakable as anything human can be.

                1. That will need to digest for a while. The idea of a double sided oath — in the places where oaths actually get used — sounds…… ridiculous.

                  1. I suspect there’s a degree of depersonalization of institutions in your viewpoint.

                    I forget if you’ve seen Captain America’s movies– but basically, the big scene where Cap calls on those who swore to SHIELD to be Shield, when SHIELD had been taken over by HYDRA, were fulfilling the spirit of their oaths by turning on that organization which they had sworn loyalty to– because by the subversion of HYDRA, it had broken faith with being SHIELD.

                    1. I suspect there’s a degree of depersonalization of institutions in your viewpoint.

                      Kind of the point of an institution; to abstract from (and ideally transcend) any of the people in it.

                      I forget if you’ve seen Captain America’s movies

                      CA1&2 were my favorite of the MCU.

                      but basically, the big scene where Cap calls on those who swore to SHIELD to be Shield, when SHIELD had been taken over by HYDRA, were fulfilling the spirit of their oaths by turning on that organization which they had sworn loyalty to– because by the subversion of HYDRA, it had broken faith with being SHIELD.

                      Seems an odd way of characterizing it. HYDRA is a core enemy, though a long forgotten one. There is no contradiction with any oath, no more than shooting a wolf in wool is contradicting an order to protect sheep from the wolves.

                    2. You’re more than halfway there, then.

                      Then though they WERE the ones in charge of SHIELD, they were in a very real way not SHIELD.

                      In a different phrasing, the system/structure of the second party of the oath had violated the oath by becoming HYDRA.

                      Same way that being legally declared “Foxhusband Halfelf” wouldn’t make it so that my oaths to my husband are owed to someone who is not actually him.

                    3. Names are not the thing named.

                      I wish I could make a snarky comment about it being too obvious, but 90% of philosophy and politics is based on the inability or refusal to understand that concept.

                    4. Like I said over at Crossover’s blog recently– part of the problem is trying to use words to convey meaning.
                      Hurry up with the extremely limited telepathy!

                    6. The catch is that we think in words.

                      Do we?

                      I know I sometimes do– or rather, I have phrases appear and then have to unpack them and test the parts– but a lot of the reason I wave my hands is that I don’t think in words, not exactly.

                      Language shapes the concepts, but a lot of folks here have pointed out the feeling of “that is not quite right…but I am not exactly sure why, it just…doesn’t fit right.”

                    7. I live with two people who think in images/numbers. And I think in WRITTEN words. Which isn’t normal. Something like 75% of people think in sounds most of the time. But that’s not everyone and all the time.

                    10. Thought is shaped by habit, so words spoken should have some influence.

                      But I likewise think in stuff that does not necessarily map to words.

                      Example, when I read something, and have the ‘aha’ reaction as my intuition processes thought rapidly? That is definitely not thinking in words. When I think in words, I do not have the extra work of translating thought into words, and then trying to speak or write the words.

                      Thinking in words tends to leave me with an intuitive grasp of how long the thought is.

                      Otherwise, when I start something, I do not know when it will end, should I continue pushing it until completed. Sometimes this results in really long stuff, that could be edited down to reasonable length and clarity if only I had the energy.

                    11. Yeah, I don’t think in images or numbers either.

                      Too much of the time I haven’t the capacity to even follow mathematics.

                      My brain can operate in a way that I’m not aware of my body or pain. I’ve also found that they way I think can change my perception of the light level. Certain shifts are notable because of the degree of brightness noticed afterwards.

                      I tend to describe it as thinking in concepts, which are not necessarily connected with words. ATM, I suspect I have periods where I am thinking, but cannot even manage that level of function.

                    12. Example:
                      “the taste of beer.”
                      For me, it’s roughly a PBR– cold enough that there may or may not be flecks of ice in it. Not flat.

                      Or, the taste of a steak– it’s a well marbled, grain fed angus, probably from a lame calf we couldn’t sell, seasoned with garlic and salt, just barely pink in the middle and the fat on the edge is crispy-brown on its edges.

                      “Potato” is a russet with salted butter, which was rubbed in olive oil and garlic salt before baking, and is so hot it nearly burns your mouth.

                      Yes, my examples are all food, I’m cooking, hush. 😀

                    13. CURSE you on the potato. I MISS potatoes. Sigh. I also love them with an unnatural love.
                      I’m hoping going low altitude the auto-immune will go into remission. Has happened to friends.
                      Honestly? The biggest risk is that I’d live on potatoes like a Russian peasant.

                    14. When/if you get a chance, try the “yellow potatoes.”

                      Especially the “baby” ones.

                      They are “sweet” enough to not need butter– if part of your reaction is the starches (I’ve heard of them contributing) then the most popular golden varieties in the US will be a good fit.

                      (Note: potato color has nothing to do with how much starch and such is in the potato. What the customer expects from a [color] potato, on the other hand, is very important. 😀 )

              2. An important element which I think you’ve overlooked: Oaths are relics from a time when people believed words had power, men had honor and deities involved themselves in daily lives.

                A Roman who swore by Jupiter’s throne was begging for a lightning bolt up his arse if he violated that oath. A Celt who swore by Rosmerta was risking ED, and a Norseman swearing by Woden’s Spear was just asking for trouble.

                Nowadays, not so much.
                ~

                1. I know most people don’t really believe oaths or vows, but the mechanisms are still present despite that. “No one cares” does not change whether someone is an oathbreaker in any way shape or form. It just means they did it for petty reasons.

                  “Most people don’t care” isn’t what I consider a valid excuse: when the time comes to take the marriage vows I had better be damn sure about the Seriousest of Serious Business. And that would be true even in every other person in the world except one thought so.

                    1. I’m talking about the general attitude of the culture. Same as every other person in the discussion saying that lots of people don’t care.

                    2. A… kind of modern sickness… is “Oh, of course I think this is important/don’t think that’s important, but MOST PEOPLE don’t think it’s imporant/do think it’s incredibly important.”

                      I do not trust the impression of “everyone.”

                    5. Those answers are also a small misunderstanding of the question — or perhaps a lack of clarity on my part — because I was never asking if people generally valued oaths…..

    2. Of course one doesn’t obey/follow orders unquestioningly. The protection of the Constitution comes first in the oath, and takes precedence. Issuing illegal orders is a direct threat to the authority of the Constitution.
      Only took the oath once, September 3, 1968, but it is still in effect.

    3. I first took the Oath in 1980 being sworn in as a Contract Cadet in ROTC. Second time in 82 at my commissioning,

      I’ve also administered it many times. The most profound was during the re-enlistment of my NCOIC on the Arizona Memorial in front of the Wall of Names. Strange how dusty such an open air venue can be.

      I also had one occasion where the NCO I administered it to took me aside and showed me his copy of his papers from his previous re-enlistment. It read ” I will obey the orders of the President of the United States unless it is Ted Kennedy”. How he got that through the system I don’t know. I did check and the ones for the time I administered it did not have any alterations (by that time even Ted had figured out he was never going to be Pres).

    4. Naturalized citizens take the oath Sarah printed in the post. Military and government take one of the oaths Mike printed above, or one very similar. But millions of Americans become adult citizens each year just by turning 18, and they take no such oath. Perhaps they should.

      There are various coming-of-age ceremonies for various sub-groups of Americans (confirmation, bar mitzvah, quincenera, Eagle Scout, boot camp, etc) but none which is open to (or expected of) everyone. The only near-universal experience upon turning 18 is to drink some newly-legal alcohol. Perhaps there should be more.

      This does not need to be formalized by legislation. The Pledge of Allegiance was started by a children’s magazine, became a tradition, and was only recognized by law half a century later. We here could create a citizenship ceremony, try it on our own children, publish it, and see whether we can make it catch on.

      I am not a good enough wordsmith to write such a thing. Fortunately, some of you are. What follows are some suggestions for what such a ceremony might include.

      — a respected adult asks the candidate whether he/she is ready to take on the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. Candidate answers in the affirmative.

      — candidate presents proof of one or more accomplishments demonstrating that he/she can make a contribution to the success of the nation. This is in the nature of an offering, but is not actually given to anyone, merely demonstrated. It should demonstrate both effort and skill acquired by effort, but could be almost anything. Some possibilities: a rebuilt car, a week of scratch-cooked meals, a rifle target showing a high score, home-grown fruit or veg or livestock, an occupational license or certification (pilot, commercial driver, welder, nurse/EMT, electrician, mariner, etc), an Eagle Scout badge (or equivalent from Girl Scouts, 4H, JROTC, CAP, VFD, etc), a patent or peer-reviewed paper, a community improvement inspired and led by the candidate, and so forth. The intent is to present accomplishments which are either obvious by inspection or already accepted by adult peers. Profits earned independently (not fast food) should definitely qualify. Meaningful awards for creative work (novel, poem, artwork, movie, computer program, technical gizmo) would qualify, but a random haiku or a chunk of “modern art” might not. Something may need to be added for kids whose talents are not easily made tangible (a great salesman, hostess, teacher, coach, or babysitter). There will be kids whose lives have no room for accomplishments other than raising themselves and their siblings when their parents were absent or too stoned to bother. It’s not clear whether pure schoolwork or team sports awards meet the intent here. Suggestions are welcome.

      — the candidate takes the citizen’s oath, yet to be written but similar to the ones above.

      — the audience of adults accepts him/her into citizenship and promises to aid in case of difficulty. (Inspiration for wording could be found in religious ceremonies such as confirmation or bar mitzvah.)

      — the candidate proposes a toast to the Flag “and to the Republic for which it stands”. The adult audience joins in, “Hear hear!”, and the candidate takes his/her first drink of champagne, wine, beer, or firewater (or grape juice if religion forbids).

      — followed by a celebratory meal, cake, ice cream, birthday presents, and what have you.

      We need something like this to start gluing the country back together again, against the forces which are tearing it apart.

      Thoughts? Suggestions? Improvements?

      1. Sorry for the wall-o-text. Perhaps this should have been a guest post.

        On reflection, the ceremony should also include elements of a catechism or seder. “What do Americans believe?” “That all of us are created equal.” Et cetera.

    5. Did the word “lawful” ever appear before orders in that oath? I thought it did, but maybe that was never the case.

      If not, of course, it will allow violation of the oath at FICUS’ orders.

        1. And if it isn’t any longer, I wonder who pulled the “Hitler and the German army” rewriting it so that you’re swearing to follow FICUS’ EOs whether constitutional or not??

    1. Gasp~ a like-minded person on MeWe?? I haven’t been able to convince many of my “friends” to abandon the Z-berg site so am sitting all alone and what-not over at MeWe…perhaps the light will be seen some day.

      1. You need to get better friends. 🙂 Join the various groups on MeWe: Hoyt’s Huns, Sarah’s Diner, Backroom Politics. You’ll go from sitting all alone to wishing you could get a moment to yourself!

          2. Baby pics, chicken pics, cat pics, sewing machine pics, and general chit-chat ranging from firearms to religion, with all adults acting adultly, which is to say there has been civil discussion of such contentious topics as are normally eschewed in civilized company, such as free will versus pre-destination and whether or not husbands may fire wives’ firearms. (Ok, the latter may have been more friendly teasing.) You will be reminded to rehydrate properly, eat properly, and acquire a passle of bossy siblings, but that may be a feature. There is also ridicule of whatever scammers folks have collected.

            Alternetly: joy in your joys, sympathy in your sorrows, and advice such as the group may wish to offer, wanted or not.

          4. A wallaby-free environment?

            It is a ware wallaby that engages on Facebook, Twitter or their knock-offs.
            ~

          1. That’s what go me onto MeWe. I never had a Devil’s Database account, so was denied the pleasure of canceling it.

        3. There seem to be conditions of entry (or at least quesions) attached to Hoyt’s Huns, and I haven’t been around long enough to know the answers.

            1. The questions make sense.

              Like Dorothy, I went to MeWe and tried to join the Huns. I didn’t know the answers to the last two questions so I felt too shy to join. I’m too new.

              2. Me, just make sure they know who you are from the blog. Maybe threaten them with carp…

            2. >> “I got to see a cat thing EXPLODE until they put in questions, which boiled down to “hey, type something that lets me know you’re not a bot program, and that the only nekkers kitties you’d be posting look like this!:”

              I swear, I took one look at that cat and my first thought was this:

              1. We considered one of those, but went with a cornish rex, because you had to put sun screen cream on the sphynxes.I’ve had enough cats that this was a “no”

  9. What has not been earned is in danger of being cheaply held; for all their prescience this nation’s Founders could not envision a time when freedom could be lightly held, when our nation’s wealth would be so abundant that lives could be led largely free of strife.

    That is hardly their fault, for they were Men of History and in all the world there had never been a society so conceived as to amass such wealth, such power and yet be so unappreciative of our blessings. Ours is a rare and unnatural inheritance and must be zealously guarded, not tossed carelessly into the back of some cultural closet.
    ~

    1. It’s a funny place to be in. My biggest contribution to society at large is to live as a free born American woman, complete with attitude.

  10. The founding fathers also did not anticipate the existence of professional politicians, with an incentive to do anything for more power and money in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
    I regard the Constitution as the bedrock law of the country and I take it literally. Unfortunately our lawyers are not trained to view the constitution as binding but as a “living document,“ which is false. The Founders of our country put every possible thought into the Constitution and it should be followed. I can only imagine how the authors of the Constitution would deal with current politicians; likely as treasonous criminals.

    1. Yes, the “living document” crap is nothing but a straight-up lie. The Constitution is a contract, structured as such, and just as set-in-stone as any contract. It specifies the various responsibilities and authorities of the three parties to it, the federal government, the state governments, and the citizenry.

        1. And lots of people find themselves legally obligated to fulfill the terms of a contract they’ve signed whether then want to or not…

    2. The founding fathers also did not anticipate the existence of professional politicians, with an incentive to do anything for more power and money in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

      Disagree. They most certainly did anticipate politicians who didn’t give a flying leap about what they were and weren’t allowed to do, hence the reason for the checks and balances. The reason that it hasn’t worked as well as it ought to have is that Congress has been generally unwilling to check the executive branch. My guesses as to what the Founders didn’t anticipate is some mix of the following:

      (1) The extent to which the presidency would take over everything and how every politician who manages to get elected to the city council pictures himself as president someday. Thus, the Speaker of the House, for example, doesn’t really mind when the president starts taking more power than he ought to, because said Speaker believes that he’s going to become president, and those powers will be his.

      (2) How powerful partisan loyalties would be despite the absence of a system to enforce them. Congressmen don’t mind the president doing unconstitutional things as long as it’s “their” side that benefits.

      (3) The sheer power of human laziness. The Founders were ambitious men, and they assumed that their successors would be as well. The idea that someone would want the title of “Senator” but be happy to pass on the powers of legislating to various unelected agencies probably would have been inconceivable to them.

      1. The sheer power of human laziness. The Founders were ambitious men, and they assumed that their successors would be as well. The idea that someone would want the title of “Senator” but be happy to pass on the powers of legislating to various unelected agencies probably would have been inconceivable to them.

        Seem to remember a lot of them had estates that they managed/had managed– so they were probably familiar with the classic “ass who has the title but ignores his duties for someone else to do the work,” as well as “the job of a responsible authority is to hire responsible help,” I’d guess that’s part of why the opposition to titles.

      2. I think you’re missing some insigh into the early United States.. Many of the representatives at the Constitutional Convention considered the national government and who ran in to be less important than who ran the various state,governments,and how those states were to be run. The concept of States’ Rights has gone out of fashion in political discourse, but it is still there–witness sanctuary cities and states for various things, from illegal immigration to drugs to firearms laws.

        There’s lots of things the Founders and Framers (who didn’t actually put birthright citizenship into the Constitution as such) didn’t anticpate. Instantaneous communication, quick and easy transportation of goods, servics, and people, an explosion of population from many different cultural backgrounds and assumptions about liberty and the role of government. They deliberately tried to keep the franchise to those they thought would have a stake in governance, people with something to lose.

        It isn’t that the legislature has abdicated its responsibilities to an unelected bureacracy. It’s that they have taken on so much responsibility which was neve theirs to begin with, that they have decided they need help with.

        1. Washington didn’t want us to have alliances. And until WWII, we didn’t. Technically the Allies in WWI were the Allied and Associated Powers — we were one of the associated ones.

          This doesn’t work as well when people can hop the Atlantic and, without that, talk as if we were in the same room.

      3. The founders also did not foresee a Congress that would shift much of its power to the Executive Branch. It seems to me that they did this so they couldn’t be held responsible for actually passing laws when came time for re-election. “Oh, no, that law isn’t *my* responsibility. It was done by the bureaucracy. I had nothing to do with it. Re-elect me!”

  11. I’ll always remember Whitney Houston’s rendition of the Anthem at the Superbowl in 1991. I cry whenever I hear the Anthem done well, but hers brings both tears, and goosebumps, and a sense of pride and hope.

    All of which the communists want to take from us, and which they will fail to do. They’re trying, but they’re failing.

  12. Sarah, I saw your recent Kipling post, I have a question. I have a small YouTube channel where, among other things, I record classic poetry and discussions of same poetry with friends and sometimes a special guest. Those guests have included John C. Wright, Jeffro Johnson, Rachel Fulton Brown, & several others. Would you be interested in joining us sometime? I just posted Kipling’s “Harp Song of the Dane Women” recently, if you like his.

    Thanks

      1. If you’d like to have some idea of what you’re in for, here’s an episode where Jeffro Johnson joined us to talk about a Lovecraft poem:

      2. Hey, something like a Media Post Day might be a good regular feature– fairly easy to do, too, Youtube and such does have auto-insert for videos, right?

        You could even do something like “Call out for media stuff– subject, poetry!” or “Subject, song covers!” and have them written for days when you don’t/can’t/won’t write anything.

  13. “Philosophy IS America. There’s nothing else to base it on, and there’s no “philosophy on the side” option.”

    Here is the fundamental fallacy of Critical Race Theory, of Woke*Amerika – when all is said and done their “basis” for a new, Redeemed America, is a null value. There IS no nation, there are disputatious identity groups with but two things in common: Racism and Marxism (okay, maybe that is just one thing.) Shared hatred of White People is not a bod upon which a polity can be built, even when all white people in the proposed union have perfected self-hatred and anti-Whiteness. And Marxism, as even Bill Maher recognizes, doesn’t work. So any new polity arising from CRT’s destruction of “Capitalist America” will not prosper, will not survive.

    CRT is nullification, not redemption, of our nation.

    A trifle long at forty-six minutes, the above video provides an interesting examination of CRT, of Wokeness, as a new heresy, a religion without redemption. He explores the ways in which the Wokesters have stolen translated elements of Judeo-Christian experience into tokens of their new Faith, a faith which promises Heaven on Earth which, as we all know, is another name for Hell.)
    ~

    1. Over/under on how long it takes for Google to ban the video/the poster and/or both?

  14. “… you couldn’t be a Catholic but not believe in G*d.”

    I have gotten the impression that much of the higher hierarchy of the Catholic Church would disagree with you, although perhaps only in the privacy of their hearts.
    ~

    1. Hmm, I don’t get that impression (of only in privacy) every time I see something from Commie Frank.

      OTOH, I used to be ELCA, so I’m not going to cast stones until I get outdoors.

      1. I don’t know what the heck is going on with Pope Francis. Not doing his job right, for the most part; but the other day he canonized St. Margaret of Castello, with stunningly good timing. So… yeah, I think it’s like one side of his head is doing the bad stuff, and then the other side is doing good stuff while he’s not looking.

        Possibly the German wannabe schism has scared him, so he’s trying to be good.

        [ridiculously huge wiggling shrug of total mystification]

              1. I think his communism is possibly more anthitetical to Catholicism than any other form of insanity.
                I also think that the “good impulses” are actually the bits of Vatican bureaucracy still working.
                FORGET the German threatened schism. He’s DESTROYING Catholicism in America, and whatever remains in Europe.

              2. He was the Borgia Pope, right?

                There was also the confusing reign of Urban VI, Clement VII, and (simultaneously) Benedict XIII, Gregory XII, and Alexander V.

                Of course, that doesn’t make any one (or all of them together) particularly bad at the papacy biz.
                ~

              3. One of the central elements of the theory of Catholicism is that certain teachings by the Pope are authoritative in a way that draws upon a timeless entity with interests outside of the world.

                This is a testable hypothesis.

                A sufficient pattern of prioritizing worldly politics in the short term would argue against that.

                The point of a central standard and authority is the desire to mitigate the harm done by heretical teachings.

                You fundamentally undermine that if you effectively teach that past versions of the authority had promulgated heresy, or if you teach what is obvious heresy by past standards. Consider the thought experiment of a Baptist being appointed Pope, and formally teaching that Luther was right, and that the Catholic Church had been in error since.

                Communism is a heresy, and perhaps even an Anti-Christian heresy. But the element of potential teaching that would break the pattern and be a serious problem is much narrower than that. The East/West split in the Church, the mutual implication of heresy, the issues with icons and statues, etc., were not enough to ruin the Western Church.

                Following the Protestant/Catholic split in the Western church, there was a bunch of commingling of religious and secular political interests in national and international politics. The Popes backed certain regimes, which supported Catholicism as their official sect.

                Now, those regimes are in very bad odor with the communists. Aristocracy with kings and all. The communists teach that the true Christianity is realized in communism, and royal/aristocratic governments are in conflict with that.

                Consistency with the prior teaching suggests that a Christian can legitimately back a royal/aristocratic government, including against communists, without running afoul of Church teachings on human dignity. Perhaps even supporting against communists a government that allows serfdom or slavery.

                Communists teach that you can never oppose the communists for any legitimate reason.

                Saying that Americans cannot secure the border against Mexico by killing minor children as a matter of routine is one thing.

                Sucking up to the communists (because their current worldly power is fashionable) when it is done by disavowing support for previously favored regimes is another. If material wealth isn’t the real priority, then economic inequality doesn’t matter if souls are being saved under the regime. If material wealth is the priority, then hindsight opens up critique of how the church’s influence was impacting the economy, and speculation about the real human costs of that impact. Perhaps a ‘tax’ on a wealthy man hurts more poor people than are helped by the by the Church spending that ‘tax’ in an attempt to help the poor.

                The Catholic Church cannot win by bowing to the winds of worldly politics. Especially not to some of the things the PRC is trying to pull.

                The theory that he is not truly pope sounds useful.

                1. One of the central elements of the theory of Catholicism is that certain teachings by the Pope are authoritative in a way that draws upon a timeless entity with interests outside of the world.

                  If you mean Papal Infallibility, it’s both incredibly limited and has to be deliberately invoked on a relevant topic.

                  Teaching authority is a different one, it’s in a lot of other places and is again limited.

                  I think Jimmy Akin counted up a grand total of like… three times PI been invoked, last century?

                  1. But if Frank was a pope, and if he invoked it in support of teaching his heresies, it would be a problem.

                    Of course, he has been a little careful about how far he pushes, so that may be as hypothetical as the Baptist.

                    Lot of fragments of The Church, many claiming to be The True Church. As a contrarian badly educated in theology, I wonder if we are really correct in concluding that a True Church can exist. Organizational culture with continuity back to Nicea at least does not seem proof to me. If Kings cannot appoint Bishops, then perhaps state sponsorship in the form of not preventing councils by force of arms likewise raises questions about the credibility of those councils.

                    I’m probably just really confused about some of the foundational issues. Would not be the first mistake excessive caution has led me into.

                    1. I have actually been shocked he hasn’t even flirted with invoking Papal Infallibility.
                      Some of the folks who like what he does have done so, but not the Pope himself.

                      As a contrarian badly educated in theology, I wonder if we are really correct in concluding that a True Church can exist.

                      Well, Boss said so, and I’d guess He’d know. 😉

                      If Kings cannot appoint Bishops, then perhaps state sponsorship in the form of not preventing councils by force of arms likewise raises questions about the credibility of those councils.

                      A quick test– is there any other place where you would consider “does not actively prevent three or more from meeting” would be considered support?

                      For what it’s worth, the whole papal infallibility thing is on the tip of my fingers BECAUSE it’s so common, and has been for a very, very long time!

                    2. Terrorists and other murder conspiracies are obvious examples where a failure to prevent meetings is at least similar to support.

                      Slightly relevant, because that polity had a history of seeing Christians as being at least a little bit subversive to public order.

                      Maybe much less relevant than that, because I haven’t thought to check the dates.

                    3. Terrorists and other murder conspiracies are obvious examples where a failure to prevent meetings is at least similar to support.

                      Neither of those are “the government supported.”

                      They are additional crimes.

        2. Hm, maybe that one pope that was trying to get his son to become pope, or some such thing, is exactly where to look– they’re doing Wrong Stuff, but that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING is bad.

          1. “not everything is bad” is the point of having an hierarchy and an institution. It stops things lurching suddenly sideways.
            That said, the church is in as much trouble as the US, to the point one has to wonder if it’s being run by a cabal of its enemies.

            2. From memory, “is it being run by a cabal of its enemies” has been the punchline for jokes about the Church, especially Rome, for literally over a millennia. (The “I converted because if it still exists with THOSE jokers running it, it’s clearly a miracle” was from 900s, IIRC)

            3. Age-old joke that you can tell the Catholic Church is of divine origin because it’s lasted N many years (N, of course, increasing over the ages) DESPITE the very best efforts of the Catholics.

  15. When a liberal roots for “America”, they back the bully-boys in the government with the private jets… the big institutions that nevertheless manage routinely to fuck up thousands of little things.

    Yesterday I ran across a name for Communism from a most unlikely source:

    What the recent Polish events illustrate is something more than that Fascist rule is possible within the framework of a Communist society, whereas democratic government and worker self-rule are clearly intolerable and will not be tolerated,” she concluded.

    I would contend that what they illustrate is a truth that we should have understood a very long time ago: that Communism is Fascism – successful Fascism, if you will. What we have called Fascism is, rather, the form of tyranny that can be overthrown – that has, largely, failed. ‘Facism With a Human Face’

    ”I repeat: not only is Fascism (and overt military rule) the probable destiny of all Communist societies – especially when their populations are moved to revolt – but Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful variant, of Fascism. Fascism with a human face.’

    The year was 1982. The speaker was Susan Sontag. If you’ve read the work that made her name, you know she was looking for a Marxist theory of most of the arts and humanities.

    I also think, looking at the USSR and the PRC she had the correct term. This also means the desire to mock “real Socialism” defenders by claiming the Nazis weren’t real fascism should move on to the fact that Real Fascism is Communism.

    We are facing in those rooters for the bully boys yet another form of Unsuccessful Fascism. They aren’t Nazis, as that is a very time and place specific manifestation of Fascism. Oddly, they do share one of the key characteristics of Nazism that distinguished it from other Fascist movements, an obsession with race and the existence of a master race of white.

    The difference is while the Nazi version of this racism was triumphalist and eugenic, the American Fascists’ racism is paternalistic and agricultural. It knows that its inferior races are useful if guided and carefully bred, including the culling part of breeding you see in animal husbandry.

    I’d brand it Helstromism, another kind of Unsuccessful Fascism.

      1. When she was speaking in 1982 the USSR had lasted longer than Nazi German and Mussolini’s Italy combined. The PRC, PRNK, and other have done so as well.

        Yes, it may have been by subsidy, but for whatever reason they were able to maintain subsidies when the Fascists weren’t. It’s not just admiration, either, as prominent leftists admired Hitler and Mussolini early on.

  16. “[N]ationalism is only a problem when it starts to supersede rather than represent a people. ”

    Nationalism is a problem in polities where there is a disjunction between Sovereignty and Political power. L’état, c’est moi contradicts the theses of the Magna Carta, of the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights, of our own Constitution which recognize that sovereignty resides within individuals and is delegated to the State as agent of the populace. Criticism of this form of nationalism is self-negation, is refusal to accept the underlying structure of our nation. It is fundamentally different from the nationalism of old Europe’s Crowns and the Marxists’ Central Committees, or the Mullah’s Revolutionary Guards: rule by an anointed few without regard to their mandate from the people.

    It is the view of a disgruntled minority incapable of persuading its fellows to follow their chosen path and thus crying the grapes of the nation are soured and must be uprooted.

    Screw ’em. In my nation I am a citizen, in all other nations the option is merely to be ruler or subject.
    ~

  17. “You must be mad. The government as a servant to the sovereign citizen? Cooee, what world do you come from? Separation of powers to make it difficult to “get things done”? Mister, you must be one of them escapees from the asylum.”

    In what sane society does a resident of the faculty lounge and the jaitor who empties that lounge’s trash cas have equal say in who should govern?

    Making it difficult to “get things done” is all nice and good in normal times, but what do we do when there’s a crisis, when the youngsters are shooting pool and memorizing jokes from Capt. Billy’s Whiz Bang? That, my friends, is the road to Sloth and Degradation!
    ~

    2. If only the concerned citizenry had done something about the pool hall before things reached such a dire situation!

    3. “Oh, we got trouble. Right here in River City. That starts with T and that rhymes with P and that stands for POOL, yes, POOL!”

  18. “We never eat biscuits because they have yeast,
    And one little bite turns a man to a beast,
    Oh, wouldn’t it be such a horrid disgrace,
    A man in the gutter, with crumbs on his face!”

  21. I think I mentioned then, as well–
    Chesterton made the same point. And then made a book of it. 😀

    Now a creed is at once the broadest and the narrowest thing in the world. In its nature it is as broad as its scheme for a brotherhood of all men. In its nature it is limited by its definition of the nature of all men. This was true of the Christian Church, which was truly said to exclude neither Jew nor Greek, but which did definitely substitute something else for Jewish religion[Pg 8] or Greek philosophy. It was truly said to be a net drawing in of all kinds; but a net of a certain pattern, the pattern of Peter the Fisherman. And this is true even of the most disastrous distortions or degradations of that creed; and true among others of the Spanish Inquisition. It may have been narrow touching theology, it could not confess to being narrow about nationality or ethnology. The Spanish Inquisition might be admittedly Inquisitorial; but the Spanish Inquisition could not be merely Spanish. Such a Spaniard, even when he was narrower than his own creed, had to be broader than his own empire. He might burn a philosopher because he was heterodox; but he must accept a barbarian because he was orthodox. And we see, even in modern times, that the same Church which is blamed for making sages heretics is also blamed for making savages priests. Now in a much vaguer and more evolutionary fashion, there is something of the same idea at the back of the great American experiment; the experiment of a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies that the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance; a pretty solid substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27250

    Again, I complain, this guy is REALLY HARD to quote.

    Several paragraphs on either side of this should be included…..

    1. The Democrats ARE trying to melt the pot.

      Somehow, they believe they won’t fall into the fire. Or can stay on top of everybody else while they burn.

      1. Have you ever seen a raccoon washing food?

        That really cute, but REALLY excessive, turning over and over and over?

        Chesterton does that with ideas.

        (Same on needing to rest my brain!)

    3. He did, however, miss something at the bottom of the inquisitorial sheet of paper: I swear under penalty of perjury that I have told the truth.

      Hence, if you were what they asked about, they could nab you for perjury, throw you in jail, and then throw you out of the country as a felon.

        1. But he did, as he went on, figure out what the point to it was, his only objection was that it wouldn’t work. The pejury thing would cover that.

Comments are closed.