The most memorable homily I've witnessed was concerning "blessings that only fathers receive."
God gives us what we need. "The bird of the air neither reap nor sow nor gather into barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. The lily of the field neither toils nor spins, yet not even King Solomon in all his splendor was adorned as they are. Are you not worth much more than they, ye of little faith? Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and these things will be added unto you."
Fathers receive blessings that others do not, because God knows that their children must be fed. I don't have kids, but I've been broke as a joke for long periods of time -- and yet, somehow, my dogs always had chicken and venison to eat.
My point is that lack of money isn't the impediment to caring for others that it's so often made out to be. The fear is much worse than the reality and, indeed, one of the primary reasons for having faith rather than fear is that, in retrospect, we can see that things always work out. Even though we can't imagine how things will work out ahead of time, in retrospect we can see that they worked out fine, often better than we could have imagined. Such is the grace and providence of God.
Like anything, it comes down to having faith over fear and seeking *first* His kingdom and his righteousness.
So my grandfather ran a ranch with a dozen hands with families and another half dozen hands that lived in the bunkhouse. He said you could get twice as much work out of a married hand with a good family as you could out of a single hand. He said it required leadership to get those families. my grandfather believed that women need a certain level of economic security in order to be sane. And that unless a woman was dumb as a box of rocks, she was going to look at a young farmhand and accurately predict that he was not going to be capable of guaranteeing her stable economic support. This made the woman crazy and the woman crazy the unreliable. So my grandfather considered his job to communicate to the woman that if her husband was loyal and hard-working, she and her kids will be taking care of there would be feasts on Thanksgiving and Easter and a tree with presents. This was his provision of the house. So when my grandfather hired a new hand, he would put them in the oldest house and inevitably in the first week or two something would break. my grandfather would leave the hand the husband in the field working and he would take the other men and they would go fix whatever needed to be fixed. This includes a particularly memorable event where the roof which had been supposed to been done before that Family moved in leaked and Grandfather literally took every single bodied man down to the teenagers so that he could fix the roof that day, but not the husband. He stayed in the field doing the fairly simple job that had been assigned.
My grandfather, saw all the things that are happening as a failure of leaders to understand how to create loyal followers and motivate them to stick around. apparently up until the 1960s most companies in America paid a fairly substantial bonus to a man getting married and another fairly substantial bonus when he had his first child. In several companies that my grandfather respected even after the companies no longer paid the bonuses the managers would continue to pay those bonuses up until the mid 80s because they thought that it created a much better workforce.
Wow, I agree that there’s a social element I think that most of the economic issues are where is the economic support coming from? It’s not coming from the elder generation which traditionally provided these key injections of cash and other types of support
Yeah, though I hasten to add that my grandfather wouldn’t have said it was a responsibility like the modern work thinks of it, sacrificing for some abstract moral duty. Rather, it was a responsibility in the same way that it’s your responsibility to put oil and brake fluid and even gas in your car.
If you don’t do these things, the car will break and you’ll have to either fix it, which is way more expensive or get a new one. He would have considered “leaders“ who didn’t understand these principles to simply not be serious people.
I think you and Fortissax’s may have misunderstood each others point: he missed that your point was to criticize those who over intellectualize in theory making to solve the demographic and fertility crisis instead of taking steps to solve these issues in the real world(one of the most straightforward examples being that of building a family) and you also emphasized that it is important for leaders(in all levels) to have heirs and families, this is all true and fair, however you seem to have missed the point of Fortissax tried to make in answer too: it isn’t that young men don’t wish to build families, it isn’t even that young women don’t wish to build families, but that there seems to be a large disconnect between both sides expectations which is compounded by the terrible economic, cultural, spiritual and social conditions of our age, one of the clearest examples of this which is cited by Fortissax is the great commonality of divorce initiated by women in modern western society, obviously it cannot be all the female population, and there’s little room for doubt that “good wife material” exists somewhere, however the mere presence of this statistic and social reality is enough to completely undermine the trust of the male population in the female populations willingness to uphold a marriage and in the capacity of the institution of marriage to be maintained and upheld by their government, law system, social institutions and religious institutions as well as economic reality.
I think both of you would really benefit from a direct dialogue on the subject which could later be published and may give us some insight into possible outcomes and even possible solutions.
As someone who has helped several people get married, I would say that the biggest obstacle to getting married nowadays is the lack of help. Literally no one considers it their job to help our young people get married. And by help, I mean help not to preach sermons or make Facebook posts I mean, literally help two people actually get married.
This is the crux of the issue to me. It was easy to get married when the entire adult culture was in, one way or another, supportive of it. Now parents, much less other adults, are very hands off on their kids getting paired off. Like they somehow see it as beyond their scope, inappropriate.
Not just hands off, but actively discouraging their children from marrying. When I got engaged at 26, my mother blew up. She accused my husband of cradle robbing, and insisted she thought it was better I waited a few years to establish my career. I had Christian conservative school counselor advised me not to get married until I was 30. Our culture gives staggeringly bad advice to its young women.
Very good defense of yourself. There is a difference between leaders and followers; leaders lead by example, and leaders are agents of change. Yes, it is bad for the followers now; that's why we need good leaders.
"Based" porn studio would take a 30 minute porn film and turn it into 29:55 of man coming home, wife cooking, eating dinner with the kids, cleaning up, and then cuddling while watching TV.
The :05 of porn is them heading upstairs and sharing a kiss before going to bed.
I think the most obvious cause of both the lack of children AND the precipitous drop in family size in general is not really economic, it’s spiritual. The standard of living in the western democracies is light years ahead of what it was back in the early decades of the 20th century. Families were large back then for several reasons: contraception was crude and unreliable, religion and economic and societal pressure ensured most people married, divorce was expensive and difficult to obtain even if you had the money, and there were additional costs in social opprobrium. No one really regarded the production of children as either a religious duty or a social duty because no one thought about ‘reasons’ for children at all. Children followed marriage and sex (not necessarily in that order) as night follows day whether you could afford them or not, and regardless of either your inclinations or suitability as parents. We seem to have forgotten that for 99% of human history having children was simply a given. Fast forward a century. Now we can control our fertility. Now ‘reasons’ to have children become important. Now the cost of children can be quantified in terms of our ‘lifestyle’ (a word I hate and a very modern concept), and naturally in terms of our ability to exercise our personal freedom to the max. The twin gods of freedom and lifestyle, and the visceral urge to constantly compare yourself to others, is put on steroids by social media. Look to the recent phenomena of the DINKS (dual income no kids) played out daily in the social media postings of narcissists ‘living their best lives’. I despair.
"When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pros and cons, the great turning-point has come." - Spengler
Completely agree. My own revelation/reorientation started with marriage and children. Liberation requires restraint - and obligation towards others. Then I converted to Catholicism. I'm an academic. I have written a great deal on political economy and all sorts of 'grand visions'. But my real success will only me measured by the successful marriages of my kids, and the number of grandchildren - and the extent to which they internalize and reproduce communitarian, family centred Christian values
“[C]hildless thinkers” might be a proxy for intelligent, high status people who are attempting to play the “game of distinction”, while camouflaging their game playing as concern for the community and nation, when in reality it may only be their attempt to encourage other (lower status) people to play the “game of faith, citizenship, & patriotism”, which the “distinction game players” can then benefit from, undeservedly. I think the duty you might be implying is this, “show us, first, that you believe these things by putting them into practice in your own life, before you tell us to carry them out, so that we know you are not trying to use us merely to further your cause in your high status “game of distinction”.
I'll start off by saying I agree with you. Men who are not interested in raising (i.e. leading) children because of the inconvenience they may experience are not qualified to lead others. Similarly, men who have the tools at their disposal but can't seem to put the pieces together should also be drawn into question. And, of course, raising children who follow Christ is listed as a qualification for Church leadership (if you have children, that is).
That said, there are men who do not have children who are well suited to lead. It would be difficult to say the apostle Paul was not a leader. Perhaps you could put him in the "priest" category, but he was clearly able to draw other men to himself and accomplish great things through personal suffering. He calls other men to his same path so that they don't have "worldly concerns" and can more fully follow Christ (arguably, to lead the Church).
Conversely, some of the greatest leaders ultimately failed to produce a worthwhile heir (David). In fact, it seems very few "great men" (depending on your definition) were able to lead their children effectively (something I'd love to see someone write about).
Finally (and I'm sure this isn't the intent of your article), as someone who is unable to have children, yet has found a wonderful, godly wife, I wouldn't make my impotence the measure of my leadership potential. I think this is an issue of desire and capability to lead. Certainly, a man who has raised quality children who are willing to follow him has some significant points on his resume, but that doesn't mean the man without children is unsuited for the job. The why really matters.
Again, I expect we're on the same page here, and I'm very happy to see the goodness of rearing children be preached so heartily. "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth." (Ps 127:4)
Very reasoned response. I think you make a good point around impotence as infertility seems to be on the rise and is a factor for some families inability to have children. If you guys so desire, I pray that you guys could have children whether through fostering, adoption, or volunteering with kids (if that is a desire y'all have as a couple).
The problem with this article is that you are wondering why a large portion of words on the internet are created by people too caught up in words. Of course that will be the case! Look in the real world and you'll see most people influenced by these ideas are practicing. (and I'm not biased by being in parent circles: my wife and I have not yet been blessed with a child).
These people will be at best a Gorky and at worst a Streicher, why do you care if they're leader material?
I'm new to this whole substack thing. I came here because it seemed to have quite the collection of Dissident Right "thought leaders". Unfortunately, the substack Dissident Right appears to be inundated with atheists. Thus, its destined for failure.
Atheists, by definition, reject God and do not believe in anything. "We came from nothing and when we die we will return to nothing." Not exactly inspirational. Atheism is a lot like Libertardianism, do whatever makes you feel good. Its hard to imagine a more selfish, anti-social and counterproductive dogma for people who supposedly want to create a better civilization than the degenerate secular Leftist garbage we have now.
If you do not have a foundation, you cannot create anything that will last. We claim to be students of history, unlike the Left which wants to wipe out history. Every single successful civilization in history had a population unified in their religious beliefs. Once those beliefs were abandoned, those civilizations crumbled.
Life is hard. There are many trials and tribulations. If there is no point, if life is meaningless, then why bother to have children? If you believe that life is nothing but hard times and then you die, wouldn't it be immoral to put another human being through that for no reason?
The Dissident Right will never succeed if it has nothing to offer people other than masturbatory thought exercises. We need a base. We need a foundation. Luckily, most of us on the Right already believe in God. We believe in the Good, the Beautiful and the True. We believe Jesus Christ is Lord. Now we need leaders to help spread the Word and help lift America out of the ashes of its degenerate secularism. There is no other realistic way forward.
Right, amen, it is true — having children intentionally and honorably (within marriage) is an act of ideological courage. We say “the future will be here, and I wish to help make it a more lovely, liveable, and human future for my people and community.” All the talking and writing we do is secondary to that physical presence of our own love and care, which exists through our children.
I’ve had a similar, or parallel, thought. All American men should receive some kind of military accession training (“basic” training), then be discharged back to civilian life. This might reduce some of the fantastically foolish thinking with regard to the application of violence by the government.
As an aside, I DO throw shade when writers and commentators say foolish things about war and policing, when they have no practical experience with these professions.
Good point - perhaps we expand upon the existing federal law around the “militia”, adding a requirement, or option, for “militia training”. It might be less than (in time/commitment), or distinct from, the active federal duty training pipelines.
There is a lot already written in the US Constitution on the militia, we would just be passing laws in accordance with the constitution. Yes, militia is less vigorous than the professional army, so it has less of the downsides of an army. You can have a full time job and still be part of the militia, that's what makes it the militia and not the army. It's like the riot police on call. Also, training more people to properly use firearms will most likely make guns rights more popular (2A W). Also, militia service could be a duty of citizenship. Don't want to serve in the militia? Just renounce your citizenship, it's very easy! Many a soyboy libtard will take up that offer.
Oh yes, I was an active duty Infantry Officer - I am very familiar with the practicalities of organizing a militia. I just haven’t visited the laws defining the militia recently. I’ll be revisiting this.
We have an "unorganized militia" of able bodied men 18-45. The national guard is not a militia, but an army (per court decisions). US governments have violated the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2A.
Yes. I remember passing 45 years of age and thinking, “yeah, uncle Sam can’t grab me up as part of the organized militia.” But don’t worry - uncle Sam likely can call me back into service because I was once a regular Army commissioned officer. Isn’t that special!
Like Trump or not, he is what we have for public leadership in these times. He has raised a productive family and he has been far better for this country than either his predecessor or successor, low bars though they may be. Baron will have the opportunity to show his mettle in due time.
It's not about liking trump or not. It's about being aware of the game. Biden and Trump are on the same side. If Trump gets into office, that means they are going to use him for their own ends. Trump is a stooge just as much as Biden was.
In theory, leaders having children and families is a good thermometer on how well he will lead, but its a double-edged sword. The Bible talks about how having a family brings more problems in your life and splits your priorities compared to someone who is single. It also puts another target on your back and another avenue of attack by enemies.
But the advantage of having a family is it forces you to build character which is missing. There are a ton of wierd, horrible, cartoony, reality-warping, bad takes by so-called leaders who could not operate a lemonade stand.
The most memorable homily I've witnessed was concerning "blessings that only fathers receive."
God gives us what we need. "The bird of the air neither reap nor sow nor gather into barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. The lily of the field neither toils nor spins, yet not even King Solomon in all his splendor was adorned as they are. Are you not worth much more than they, ye of little faith? Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and these things will be added unto you."
Fathers receive blessings that others do not, because God knows that their children must be fed. I don't have kids, but I've been broke as a joke for long periods of time -- and yet, somehow, my dogs always had chicken and venison to eat.
My point is that lack of money isn't the impediment to caring for others that it's so often made out to be. The fear is much worse than the reality and, indeed, one of the primary reasons for having faith rather than fear is that, in retrospect, we can see that things always work out. Even though we can't imagine how things will work out ahead of time, in retrospect we can see that they worked out fine, often better than we could have imagined. Such is the grace and providence of God.
Like anything, it comes down to having faith over fear and seeking *first* His kingdom and his righteousness.
I share this view, which you’ve put beautifully.
So my grandfather ran a ranch with a dozen hands with families and another half dozen hands that lived in the bunkhouse. He said you could get twice as much work out of a married hand with a good family as you could out of a single hand. He said it required leadership to get those families. my grandfather believed that women need a certain level of economic security in order to be sane. And that unless a woman was dumb as a box of rocks, she was going to look at a young farmhand and accurately predict that he was not going to be capable of guaranteeing her stable economic support. This made the woman crazy and the woman crazy the unreliable. So my grandfather considered his job to communicate to the woman that if her husband was loyal and hard-working, she and her kids will be taking care of there would be feasts on Thanksgiving and Easter and a tree with presents. This was his provision of the house. So when my grandfather hired a new hand, he would put them in the oldest house and inevitably in the first week or two something would break. my grandfather would leave the hand the husband in the field working and he would take the other men and they would go fix whatever needed to be fixed. This includes a particularly memorable event where the roof which had been supposed to been done before that Family moved in leaked and Grandfather literally took every single bodied man down to the teenagers so that he could fix the roof that day, but not the husband. He stayed in the field doing the fairly simple job that had been assigned.
My grandfather, saw all the things that are happening as a failure of leaders to understand how to create loyal followers and motivate them to stick around. apparently up until the 1960s most companies in America paid a fairly substantial bonus to a man getting married and another fairly substantial bonus when he had his first child. In several companies that my grandfather respected even after the companies no longer paid the bonuses the managers would continue to pay those bonuses up until the mid 80s because they thought that it created a much better workforce.
Wow, I agree that there’s a social element I think that most of the economic issues are where is the economic support coming from? It’s not coming from the elder generation which traditionally provided these key injections of cash and other types of support
Brilliant story. Leaders have responsibility for the physical and spiritual health of their followers.
Yeah, though I hasten to add that my grandfather wouldn’t have said it was a responsibility like the modern work thinks of it, sacrificing for some abstract moral duty. Rather, it was a responsibility in the same way that it’s your responsibility to put oil and brake fluid and even gas in your car.
If you don’t do these things, the car will break and you’ll have to either fix it, which is way more expensive or get a new one. He would have considered “leaders“ who didn’t understand these principles to simply not be serious people.
Your grandfather seems like he (was?) a very wise man, and good of heart.
That’s a wise grandfather.
Boomers ruin everything
I think you and Fortissax’s may have misunderstood each others point: he missed that your point was to criticize those who over intellectualize in theory making to solve the demographic and fertility crisis instead of taking steps to solve these issues in the real world(one of the most straightforward examples being that of building a family) and you also emphasized that it is important for leaders(in all levels) to have heirs and families, this is all true and fair, however you seem to have missed the point of Fortissax tried to make in answer too: it isn’t that young men don’t wish to build families, it isn’t even that young women don’t wish to build families, but that there seems to be a large disconnect between both sides expectations which is compounded by the terrible economic, cultural, spiritual and social conditions of our age, one of the clearest examples of this which is cited by Fortissax is the great commonality of divorce initiated by women in modern western society, obviously it cannot be all the female population, and there’s little room for doubt that “good wife material” exists somewhere, however the mere presence of this statistic and social reality is enough to completely undermine the trust of the male population in the female populations willingness to uphold a marriage and in the capacity of the institution of marriage to be maintained and upheld by their government, law system, social institutions and religious institutions as well as economic reality.
I think both of you would really benefit from a direct dialogue on the subject which could later be published and may give us some insight into possible outcomes and even possible solutions.
As someone who has helped several people get married, I would say that the biggest obstacle to getting married nowadays is the lack of help. Literally no one considers it their job to help our young people get married. And by help, I mean help not to preach sermons or make Facebook posts I mean, literally help two people actually get married.
Yes! Meddlesome matchmaking is a healthy hobby. Also being very proactive about asking new parents how you can help
I am speaking of some way more profound than mirror meddlesome matchmaking.
Post up:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/helping-them-them
This is the crux of the issue to me. It was easy to get married when the entire adult culture was in, one way or another, supportive of it. Now parents, much less other adults, are very hands off on their kids getting paired off. Like they somehow see it as beyond their scope, inappropriate.
I’m thinking of writing a post on the issue. And it seriously not just the parents it’s the entire community.
Me too! It’s been on my mind for awhile. I’m looking forward to seeing what you write!
Post up:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/helping-them-them
Not just hands off, but actively discouraging their children from marrying. When I got engaged at 26, my mother blew up. She accused my husband of cradle robbing, and insisted she thought it was better I waited a few years to establish my career. I had Christian conservative school counselor advised me not to get married until I was 30. Our culture gives staggeringly bad advice to its young women.
that's terrible.
We had the same thing!
Very good defense of yourself. There is a difference between leaders and followers; leaders lead by example, and leaders are agents of change. Yes, it is bad for the followers now; that's why we need good leaders.
"Based" porn studio would take a 30 minute porn film and turn it into 29:55 of man coming home, wife cooking, eating dinner with the kids, cleaning up, and then cuddling while watching TV.
The :05 of porn is them heading upstairs and sharing a kiss before going to bed.
I think the most obvious cause of both the lack of children AND the precipitous drop in family size in general is not really economic, it’s spiritual. The standard of living in the western democracies is light years ahead of what it was back in the early decades of the 20th century. Families were large back then for several reasons: contraception was crude and unreliable, religion and economic and societal pressure ensured most people married, divorce was expensive and difficult to obtain even if you had the money, and there were additional costs in social opprobrium. No one really regarded the production of children as either a religious duty or a social duty because no one thought about ‘reasons’ for children at all. Children followed marriage and sex (not necessarily in that order) as night follows day whether you could afford them or not, and regardless of either your inclinations or suitability as parents. We seem to have forgotten that for 99% of human history having children was simply a given. Fast forward a century. Now we can control our fertility. Now ‘reasons’ to have children become important. Now the cost of children can be quantified in terms of our ‘lifestyle’ (a word I hate and a very modern concept), and naturally in terms of our ability to exercise our personal freedom to the max. The twin gods of freedom and lifestyle, and the visceral urge to constantly compare yourself to others, is put on steroids by social media. Look to the recent phenomena of the DINKS (dual income no kids) played out daily in the social media postings of narcissists ‘living their best lives’. I despair.
"When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pros and cons, the great turning-point has come." - Spengler
Completely agree. My own revelation/reorientation started with marriage and children. Liberation requires restraint - and obligation towards others. Then I converted to Catholicism. I'm an academic. I have written a great deal on political economy and all sorts of 'grand visions'. But my real success will only me measured by the successful marriages of my kids, and the number of grandchildren - and the extent to which they internalize and reproduce communitarian, family centred Christian values
I relate very much to your situation
“[C]hildless thinkers” might be a proxy for intelligent, high status people who are attempting to play the “game of distinction”, while camouflaging their game playing as concern for the community and nation, when in reality it may only be their attempt to encourage other (lower status) people to play the “game of faith, citizenship, & patriotism”, which the “distinction game players” can then benefit from, undeservedly. I think the duty you might be implying is this, “show us, first, that you believe these things by putting them into practice in your own life, before you tell us to carry them out, so that we know you are not trying to use us merely to further your cause in your high status “game of distinction”.
Further simplification: set an example (childless thinkers) - we’ll decide afterwards if you merit being treated as a leader.
I'll start off by saying I agree with you. Men who are not interested in raising (i.e. leading) children because of the inconvenience they may experience are not qualified to lead others. Similarly, men who have the tools at their disposal but can't seem to put the pieces together should also be drawn into question. And, of course, raising children who follow Christ is listed as a qualification for Church leadership (if you have children, that is).
That said, there are men who do not have children who are well suited to lead. It would be difficult to say the apostle Paul was not a leader. Perhaps you could put him in the "priest" category, but he was clearly able to draw other men to himself and accomplish great things through personal suffering. He calls other men to his same path so that they don't have "worldly concerns" and can more fully follow Christ (arguably, to lead the Church).
Conversely, some of the greatest leaders ultimately failed to produce a worthwhile heir (David). In fact, it seems very few "great men" (depending on your definition) were able to lead their children effectively (something I'd love to see someone write about).
Finally (and I'm sure this isn't the intent of your article), as someone who is unable to have children, yet has found a wonderful, godly wife, I wouldn't make my impotence the measure of my leadership potential. I think this is an issue of desire and capability to lead. Certainly, a man who has raised quality children who are willing to follow him has some significant points on his resume, but that doesn't mean the man without children is unsuited for the job. The why really matters.
Again, I expect we're on the same page here, and I'm very happy to see the goodness of rearing children be preached so heartily. "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth." (Ps 127:4)
All good counterexamples. I don't intend this to be an 'iron law' - just a useful heuristic for our particular moment
Very reasoned response. I think you make a good point around impotence as infertility seems to be on the rise and is a factor for some families inability to have children. If you guys so desire, I pray that you guys could have children whether through fostering, adoption, or volunteering with kids (if that is a desire y'all have as a couple).
The problem with this article is that you are wondering why a large portion of words on the internet are created by people too caught up in words. Of course that will be the case! Look in the real world and you'll see most people influenced by these ideas are practicing. (and I'm not biased by being in parent circles: my wife and I have not yet been blessed with a child).
These people will be at best a Gorky and at worst a Streicher, why do you care if they're leader material?
I'm new to this whole substack thing. I came here because it seemed to have quite the collection of Dissident Right "thought leaders". Unfortunately, the substack Dissident Right appears to be inundated with atheists. Thus, its destined for failure.
Atheists, by definition, reject God and do not believe in anything. "We came from nothing and when we die we will return to nothing." Not exactly inspirational. Atheism is a lot like Libertardianism, do whatever makes you feel good. Its hard to imagine a more selfish, anti-social and counterproductive dogma for people who supposedly want to create a better civilization than the degenerate secular Leftist garbage we have now.
If you do not have a foundation, you cannot create anything that will last. We claim to be students of history, unlike the Left which wants to wipe out history. Every single successful civilization in history had a population unified in their religious beliefs. Once those beliefs were abandoned, those civilizations crumbled.
Life is hard. There are many trials and tribulations. If there is no point, if life is meaningless, then why bother to have children? If you believe that life is nothing but hard times and then you die, wouldn't it be immoral to put another human being through that for no reason?
The Dissident Right will never succeed if it has nothing to offer people other than masturbatory thought exercises. We need a base. We need a foundation. Luckily, most of us on the Right already believe in God. We believe in the Good, the Beautiful and the True. We believe Jesus Christ is Lord. Now we need leaders to help spread the Word and help lift America out of the ashes of its degenerate secularism. There is no other realistic way forward.
Right, amen, it is true — having children intentionally and honorably (within marriage) is an act of ideological courage. We say “the future will be here, and I wish to help make it a more lovely, liveable, and human future for my people and community.” All the talking and writing we do is secondary to that physical presence of our own love and care, which exists through our children.
I’ve had a similar, or parallel, thought. All American men should receive some kind of military accession training (“basic” training), then be discharged back to civilian life. This might reduce some of the fantastically foolish thinking with regard to the application of violence by the government.
As an aside, I DO throw shade when writers and commentators say foolish things about war and policing, when they have no practical experience with these professions.
Could be done with the militia. It would also be very good to use a militia because they would be under State control, not federal.
Good point - perhaps we expand upon the existing federal law around the “militia”, adding a requirement, or option, for “militia training”. It might be less than (in time/commitment), or distinct from, the active federal duty training pipelines.
Keep the ideas coming.
There is a lot already written in the US Constitution on the militia, we would just be passing laws in accordance with the constitution. Yes, militia is less vigorous than the professional army, so it has less of the downsides of an army. You can have a full time job and still be part of the militia, that's what makes it the militia and not the army. It's like the riot police on call. Also, training more people to properly use firearms will most likely make guns rights more popular (2A W). Also, militia service could be a duty of citizenship. Don't want to serve in the militia? Just renounce your citizenship, it's very easy! Many a soyboy libtard will take up that offer.
Oh yes, I was an active duty Infantry Officer - I am very familiar with the practicalities of organizing a militia. I just haven’t visited the laws defining the militia recently. I’ll be revisiting this.
We have an "unorganized militia" of able bodied men 18-45. The national guard is not a militia, but an army (per court decisions). US governments have violated the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2A.
Yes. I remember passing 45 years of age and thinking, “yeah, uncle Sam can’t grab me up as part of the organized militia.” But don’t worry - uncle Sam likely can call me back into service because I was once a regular Army commissioned officer. Isn’t that special!
I think I understand the pic of Barron Trump, but considering the interest his father represents, it might strike the wrong note
I wouldn’t read too deeply into it, this whole piece was thrown together pretty quickly ha
Like Trump or not, he is what we have for public leadership in these times. He has raised a productive family and he has been far better for this country than either his predecessor or successor, low bars though they may be. Baron will have the opportunity to show his mettle in due time.
It's not about liking trump or not. It's about being aware of the game. Biden and Trump are on the same side. If Trump gets into office, that means they are going to use him for their own ends. Trump is a stooge just as much as Biden was.
His first term didn't indicate that which is why he must be destroyed.
Ah! I hadn't a clue. So, who is the profile on the coin? Caligula? 😜
Alexander the Great
In theory, leaders having children and families is a good thermometer on how well he will lead, but its a double-edged sword. The Bible talks about how having a family brings more problems in your life and splits your priorities compared to someone who is single. It also puts another target on your back and another avenue of attack by enemies.
But the advantage of having a family is it forces you to build character which is missing. There are a ton of wierd, horrible, cartoony, reality-warping, bad takes by so-called leaders who could not operate a lemonade stand.