The damage to the social infrastructure of American communities, over the 13 1/2 years of the Clinton/Bush era, has created a true crisis for the American Conservative. The neglected border is one aspect. The failure of those in the highest Federal Offices to even identify with the most rudimentary foundations of the original Settler societies that produced an American nation or any of its more significant parts--a failed identification, which largely underlies that neglected border--is another. Yet clearly contributing to each of the above, while equally destructive to the chances for a redemption of the unique American ethos of the Founding Fathers, has been the continuing deterioration of public education, each year turning out an ever greater percentage of students without a clue as to what those Founding Fathers actually believed, or why! Then there is the declining birthrate of White, rooted, Americans.
The net result? Radically changing demographics, which make our cause daily more difficult; daily more desperate. We can no longer hope to prevail by simply talking among ourselves, or via public demonstrations, large or small--not alone by rallying our existing forces! The need is a major effort to reach the millions upon millions of mainstream Americans, who have been misled to believe that the course of the past two generations of American history has been idealistic, an extension of the American tradition, directed by reasonable leaders; beneficial, in an altruistic sense, to all fair minded peoples. In point of fact, it has been no such thing. But how does one chip away at what has become accepted dogma?
The answer must be to see and seize opportunity, wherever it presents itself. Instead of telling the "Liberal" loud mouth, that he is a "stupid bastard," or simply ignoring those who spout Leftist shibboleths, one should begin to address those who may show a willingness to accept Leftist dogma, yet to a degree short of total fanaticism. By building and employing an understanding of Truth in its fullest context, one might try something like the contextual approaches that follow, whether to business associates, relatives, fellow workers, fellow students or whomever. [Note, to be effective in conversation, don't deliver your thoughts as a monologue. The suggested remarks are largely in the form of questions to elicit responses--not as rhetorical devices; not as "put downs." You should try not to sound patronizing. Take one point at a time. Allow the person addressed to respond. Once you gain his interest, you have a chance to make your points, as you reply (calmly and amicably) to his comments]:
"Aren't you at least a bit troubled by the way ancient concepts of liberty reflected in the Covenants of Magna Carta intended to safeguard existing property rights, rights to acquire property, and the rights of inheritance through lines of descent, from Governmental interference, have been totally reversed? The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflected a 'hands off' policy, sacred since Magna Carta. Didn't the 'Civil Rights Acts,' in seeking to direct decision making for the benefit of those other than the property owner, overturn that tradition and completely alter the concept of both 'liberty' and property, by defining the uses of private property as something to be controlled by Government in order to enforce a new social theory? How does a concept of Government, which can require people to hire or rent to those the Government thinks they should hire or rent to, fundamentally differ from a Nazi concept that Government may require one not to hire those out of favor with the Government?
"Doesn't this sort of political intrusion into private decision making sacrifice an important element of the individual's right to dissent from mob thinking in his own affairs, so essential to American principles? And is the emphasis not misdirected? If your concern is that people treat minorities with kindness rather than hostility, would it not be better to address that--what actually concerns you--by seeking to persuade, rather than have Government effectively confiscate private decision making over the uses of one's own property?" ("Throwing out the baby with the bath water?")
"Parts of what was to became America were originally settled by religion based communities, coming hither specifically to establish religion based communities. Is it not a repudiation of the very essence of the true American tolerance for religious freedom for a Federal Court to prohibit a local community from honoring their religious traditions, whether through School Prayer or a display of the Ten Commandments? At what point did those who came here to create religion based communities lose their rights to do so--or to maintain the ones they inherited?
"If you favor taking away the rights of people in local communities to publicly display their sacred symbols or observe their Faiths in public structures, do you believe that the Federal Government should try to force the Amish in Pennsylvania or Orthodox Jewish sects in Brooklyn, to give up religion driven cultural identities; or is your intolerance just directed at mainstream American Christians? I do not wish to be antagonistic, but aren't you suppressing a basic freedom if you deny the right of any community in America to even honor God, in a voluntarily attended community meeting?" [Note, no literal reading of the First Amendment would possibly support such a denial!] Isn't there something terribly wrong with a public mindset, which would turn off the microphone for a High School Valedictorian, simply because she mentioned God in her Valedictory address?
"Should we not consider the full context of present conditions, in order to develop a sound immigration policy? Can we ignore already crowded conditions around America's cities, or our dwindling natural resources? Would it be fair to those whose families have no other home but America--those who have built America with their blood, sweat, toil and tears? Is there any moral difference in our working to preserve the natural resources of America for the lines of descent of her rooted families, than there is for a parent working to send his own children to College, rather than putting the same money into a fund to provide scholarships for third world indigents? Is it not a primary moral duty, for all forms of life, to first take care of their own? Why should there be an American duty or policy to put the interests of the rest of humanity ahead of those of our own people?
"How does what President Bush refers to as a 'Melting Pot' actually work? Is it only a coincidence that those Americans most directly descended from the Founding Fathers tend to be those most keen on preserving the cultural values of the Founding Fathers? That conversely, those communities with the largest percentage foreign born, tend to be the most antagonistic to traditional American norms? Why should we not carefully screen all immigrants, both for intelligence and acceptance of American values--values as defined by men such as Washington and Jefferson, not by apologists such as Clinton or Bush?"
"Have you ever read the Constitution through as an entity, examining the symmetry to understand how the parts relate to a conceptually clear general structure for a Federation of still sovereign States--each of which retained control over those issues, which we refer to as 'Social Issues' today, as well as over most political questions? Did you observe how really clear the intention of the framers was set forth? For example, all of the Federal power to legislate is granted to Congress by the very first operative clause of Article I--none to the Courts or Executive. The specific areas in which Congress may legislate are set forth in Article I, Section 8; the limitations on those specific powers are set forth in Article I, Section 9; the areas where the States may not also legislate, are set forth in Article I, Section 10. How could it be much clearer?
"The Constitution is equally definite (Article VII) that once ratified it is 'Established between the States so ratifying'--not over the people in common. Do you remember how very different were those States? Some of them were settled by definable groups of people who had been engaged in killing or being killed, in various Civil Wars in England and Scotland, of or by members of groups who had settled in other States. Is it even conceivable, that their descendants would have agreed to surrender direct control over the social values of their local societies to a new Central Government, with powers equivalent to those of the Government that they had just repudiated in the Revolution? Or to establish Federal Courts with power, over time, to assume virtually total control over local institutions supposed to reflect the values of their local communities? Can you find anything in the Constitution, which would even suggest a desire to have a uniform view of religion, of social custom, of school attendance or curricula, or of health, safety or morals, imposed upon all Americans?
"On the other hand, far from a general imposition of Federal Standards over State and local standards, the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, provides that electors for the Federal House of Representatives shall be determined State by State, according to the qualifications established by each State for the more popular house of its own State Legislature. Would such a provision be conceivable, if the Founders intended to set up a monolithic authority, with monolithic political or social standards, for all Americans?
"Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Does it not treat the moral authority of any Government as dependent upon a compact between the people and that Government? Have you read the specific grievances, that the Founding Fathers believed justified their Revolution--the bulk of the Declaration? Do these not go to interference with local rights, customs and property; to the denial of local Courts to determine local questions; to interference with their business dealings? Do these not treat such failures as violations of the legitimate purpose of Government? Is it conceivable, that eleven years later, many of the same Founding Fathers would propose a Constitution such as ours, and not expect it to be interpreted according to the same theory and considerations, which they had just vindicated on the battlefield?
"Would they ever have imagined that the Congress would be called back into special session, in 2005, to try to overrule a Probate Court in Florida, deciding a Florida case, involving a family in Florida, but no issue even suggested anywhere in the Federal Constitution? Would it have been conceivable to those descended from settlers who had come here for the purpose of living in communities peopled by those holding their same theological views, that a Federal Court in a later time would claim that the Constitution prohibited prayer in local schools, or public displays of the Ten Commandments? Or that Congress would enact a law in 1964, which prohibited an employer from taking religious views or ethnicity into account in hiring an employee in a position of trust?
"Is not the enforcement of one standard, not only for community decision making but for private decision making across the varied landscape and patterns of settlement throughout the vast sub-continent controlled by the United States, a complete reversal of the original intent? Is it consistent, in any way, with the mutual respect and good-will that animated the Founding Fathers in setting up a Constitutional fabric, which left all decision making pertaining to local matters to the States and local communities, and all pertaining to purely personal matters--so far as the Federal Government was concerned--to the individual?
"Is it conceivable that anyone would have subscribed to a concept that was in fact a total negation of what the American people had just fought for?"
[Note: Similar arguments may be employed in discussions of such issues as race & foreign policy. Anyone who has traveled widely, should be aware of the many similarities in cultural traits, which distinct and definable ethnic groups display in settlements of their own, around the world, regardless of differences in climate, neighborhood & neighbors. It is a tragedy that has already destroyed some magnificent outposts of Western civilization--Rhodesia being an obvious example--that so few in the West even understand that denying the uniqueness of a people is not idealistic, but pathologic. Another clear example of the pathology of such denial would be provided by considering the breakdown in the family structure in both the White & Black communities in America, immediately following the great push for integration in the late 1950s & 1960s--the common factor being the denigration of any race based community concept, resulting in a sharp drop in positive motivations derived from pride in identifiable lines of descent.
It is not suggested that one slavishly adopt any precise wording for making a point. Anyone who takes on this project should adopt concepts to language with which he or she is most comfortable. Your remarks should reflect your personality, not our personality! The above are only suggestions to illustrate modes of attack likely to achieve practical results. And consider: Being perfectly frank about what you are doing--that is, asking the "Liberal" to look at the fullest context of his ideas or of a problem--so that he may be certain that he is on the right track--may actually help bridge the divide, if offered in a non-antagonistic manner--with the bridge drawing him over in your direction, not the other way around. No one of intelligence, who is not a hopeless neurotic, wants to feel that he is ignoring something essential to a real understanding of the dynamics of human action.]
Our Novel: The hero, a young Conservative who thinks like Donald Trump; the principal antagonist, The New York Times!>>
Return Of The Gods
Conservative Debate Handbook--All Chapters
Conservative Intelligence Center
Absurdity At Google
Tactics For Victory
What Drives The Trump Haters
"Who We Are?" (Trump Supporters)
Trump: The Issue
Donald Trump--Metaphor For American Conservatism
Reality Is Not A Grievance
"Gift" That Keeps On Taking
How You Define A Problem May Define You
Answers To Anti-American Lies
Prosperity & Peace Depend On Mutual Respect
Crimea's Return To Russia
Another Variation On Demonic Theme
Variations On Demonic Theme
Perspective Governs Values
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"
Compassion Or Compulsion? (Egalitarianism)
Jason Richwine & An Assault On America's Future
Agenda Serving Bullies?
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry
Missing Link To Reality
Whither American Conservatism?
Obama Or America--Irreconcilable Differences
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose
Social Reform: Confusion & "Unintended Consequences?"
Cloud Dancing Revisited--A Spreading Contagion
Blame & Envy--Demagogues' Path To Power
"Diversity": Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!
Conflicting Social Premises
Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly
Debt Default In America
Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential
Pursuit Of "Diversity": A Return To Babel?
Gold & Money In America
Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America!
Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought
Denial Of Reality
A Place For America?
America, Built On Experience & Reason
Cloud Dancing--Social Medium For Scoundrels, Neurotics & Dolts
Keynesian Harvest, 2008
Gaming The Question--Staple of Demagogues
"Liberal" Or "Mipip?"
"Social Justice"--Not Social & Not Just
Sociopathic: Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal
Addiction: An Economy Dependent Upon Easy Credit
Function Of Money--A Medium Of Exchange
Congress & The Regulation Of Commerce
Price Of Egalitarianism
Race & Ethnic Politics--America, 2008
Liberty: The Basics
Reason Or Compulsion?
Dancing Judas Goats
Death Of Community
Shameful: President Bush On Immigration
2006--George Bush Grovels To NAACP
George Washington vs George Bush (Foreign Policy)
Faces Of Fanaticism
Introduction, Truth Based Logic
Literary Corner (Selected Writing)
Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide
Conservative Resource Menu--200+ Items