Not About Winning
year Braves fans would have lynched me writing a piece with that
title. Exiled Rhodesians and despairing American constitutionalists
might take issue with it as well. So let’s examine what "winning"
means to Americans.
last year of the War of Northern Aggression pitted a Union general,
Grant, who knew how to win, against General Lee, a man who knew
how to lose. Which of them fought the better fight? Which of them
is remembered as a man of dignity and honor? A better question might
be, which of them thought it a sound military tactic to burn people’s
homes and farms?
and his master, Lincoln, had no honor, but they won. The history
books excoriate the Union general McClellan, remembered by Lee’s
staff as the cleverest of all the Yankee generals, because he failed
to take "stern" measures against Southern civilians. He
was not prepared to fight a "total war" and so the result
was, he failed to "win." But he died with no hint of dishonor
attached to his name, and that counts for something.
same Federal government decided at the turn of the century, that
America should take her place among the world powers. What better
way than by killing a lot of people? After liberating the Philippines
from the feeble clutches of the Spanish, we proceeded to slaughter
a quarter million of the folks we "liberated." Their ingratitude
still astounds some Americans. It was a taste of "victory"
that should have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans,
but it didn’t.
power that we now were, we used our place on the world stage to
turn a war that was already a general massacre, into an outright
catastrophe for human kind. In his search for "peace in our
time" President Wilson managed to break the stalemate in that
murderous European war and create a situation that virtually assured
that there would be another and worse war to follow. His "genius"
for leadership was such that the United States, having lost one
hundred thousand dead in a war that had exactly nothing to
do with our national interest, would fail even at his own silly
dream of a league of nations. To the rare American who is even mildly
aware of history, Wilson is typically remembered as a great leader,
proving the premise that slaves are born, not made.
pursued a personal agenda. Wilson can be said to have "won."
His countrymen however, might take a different view but maybe not,
since we continue to pursue "peace" through military aggression.
forward to the Second World War. Winston Churchill declined Hitler’s
peace overtures after the fall of France and continued to work furtively
to drag the United States into yet another European military adventure.
Churchill claimed to have spent his life opposing the communists
but in his crazed fanaticism he pursued a policy that drowned the
world in blood and turned over much of Eastern Europe to his former
enemies. How many Jews, Poles and other civilians were killed in
that insane war? How many German civilians, and soldiers of many
different nationalities, including our own, were to die because
of Churchill’s intransigence? Could he not have turned the horror
off, then built up his war machine and followed a policy of containing
the Germans at the channel and in Africa? Did he really care about
Poland, the country over which England ostensibly went to war? The
answer is obvious – Poland was delivered into the hands of Stalin,
who continued the same barbaric policies as Hitler! And Churchill
sat at the table with those sinister men at Potsdam as they sealed
the fate of millions, smoking his cigar and posturing.
Churchill did what he did, simply because he felt like it. Remember,
at that time (1940) Hitler was not practicing genocide and had merely
won a first rate military campaign against the French and British,
with relatively low losses on both sides. Even the air war had not
yet escalated to the terror bomber raids on civilian targets – not
that is, until Churchill ordered his ludicrously inaccurate "area"
bombing against major German cities. Since he lacked the power to
do them any real harm at that time, it’s pretty obvious that he
was trying to provoke retaliation from the Germans. He was sadly,
quite successful. Soon much of the world was in flames.
too thought winning was everything, and did it, he said, for the
German people. Yet who suffered more than the German people whom
Hitler claimed to cherish? As Alan Clark put it in his classic Barbarossa,
"…Hitler’s lust for blood seemed only to grow, when the price
was to be paid in good Aryan coin." God save us all from politicians
who "do it for the people." Hitler and Churchill, like
two vicious school yard bullies, inveighed against each other across
the radio waves and stirred their darker natures with ad hominem
attacks, until there could be no turning back. The dignity of dictators
seems hardly worth dying for but to those men, it was certainly
worth killing for.
everyone, sharpen your sticks and light your torches – this bum
must be talking about appeasement! Am I really? Or am I talking
about what I learned at the US School of Law Enforcement, years
ago? There is a thing called the triangle of violence – at the wide
base of it, no one gets killed – when it escalates to the point
of the triangle – blood flows. Law enforcement types (and diplomats!)
are supposed to keep it down around the base of the triangle – for
truly, sticks, stones (and cruise missiles) may break our bones,
but words? Nah… I used to train labor relations teams (security
guys for strikes) by abusing them and talking about their families,
their race and their bad breath. The ones who got angry were off
the team. Should we not hold diplomats to a similar standard?
many wars are caused by very small men, who find themselves thrust
into very large circumstances? Consider the United States, a military
super power with enough weaponry to knock this planet out of orbit,
like a bloody great billiard ball, and send it spinning off into
space. Then carefully consider the qualifications and the selection
process of the men who command this vast military machine. Better
take a Valium now.
leaders are those who "win" an election, starting with
small elections right up to the recent debacle in Florida. An ability
to say things sufficiently bland to be pleasing to those on both
sides of an issue, an ability to project "gravitas" and
charisma across a TV screen, and an ability to raise money, are
the key ingredients we require of a successful leader. Ronald Reagan
was an effective president (in some ways) because he was
an actor, not despite it.
is a point to this history lesson and it is this: the last just
war waged by Americans was lost in 1865. The principles we fought
for in that war were not however, lost. Those folks who risked all,
and lost, were the spiritual and political heirs of those who risked
all and won, in 1776. From the day the constitution was ratified
until that black day in April 1865, there were in America people
who believed in the principles our founders had fought and died
for. Who spoke on issues like foreign entanglements, and wars of
aggression. There are still a few of us around – but now we are
called "extremists" by those in the majority, and our
republic has morphed into a mobocracy.
was not however, an accident that both Lee and Grant spoke of the
Mexican war as ultimately unjust.
we ask ourselves, how could they have formed that conclusion? Partly
because they were educated so much better than men are today – they
actually understood the basis of our freedom. They understood that
freedom could only exist under the most limited of governments.
They were educated privately in those days – no government schools
censoring history and pushing satanic lies upon hapless children.
Both Lee and Grant subsequently attended West Point, a quintessential
government school. That government schooling is effective is proven
by this sad statistic, over half the men who attended West Point
before the War of Northern Aggression, chose to fight for the oppressor.
To get a feel for how horrific this really is, consider that Douglas
Southall Freeman wrote that nearly forty percent of Virginia’s officers
chose to fight against their own homes and families, after being
trained in that "school." Yet how many of the officers
educated at VMI turned their coat? None?
can infer then, that men of honor, brought up to conduct them selves
with dignity, schooled in history, theology, philosophy, linguistics
and the politics of our founders, can be corrupted at a rate of
about fifty percent by what they learn in college. Corrupted to
the point that they will support a tyrant, mock the constitution,
burn the homes of others and turn their backs on the history of
their own country, and that in only four years. In a school where
the common background of those attending was largely Christian and
morally superior to those of us in this age by a considerable margin.
Now remind yourselves that our children spend all their formative
years in state schools. Columbine and other such incidents reveal
pretty clearly what these kids are learning. Now take the ones who
didn’t blow up the school, who quietly took their Ritalin and nodded
their heads in bovine agreement as they were taught the wonders
of diversity. Put ‘em in a black SWAT costume and you get Waco…
colleges too, have become virtual insane asylums, deconstructing
all that is good, and holding students to a strict code of "ethics"
that harks back to the Red Guard of the unlamented Mao Tse Tung.
Thousands of years of Western civilization reduced to jokes about
"dead white guys." A favorite writer of mine, Joseph Sobran,
likes to debate the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, but sadly
he’ll soon be talking to himself since Shakespeare after all, was
a racist, a sexist, and all the other unkind epithets our masters
of academe shower upon those suspected of having real merit or ability.
So we don’t talk much about Shakespeare any more, it might offend
somebody. This sounds like some kind of a cruel joke but nobody
is laughing. Take a long look at those people who peddle this nonsense
and you will notice something very sad about them – they never smile.
But then, they have little to smile about. Deconstructing the history
of man is a serious task.
of the free press, self-appointed fourth estate and defender of
all that is good? In those early days, before government took over
the schools and crushed the South, media was local. Southern papers
were Southern and Midwestern papers Midwestern – the media reflected
the cultures of the communities in which they were published. Journalists
even then leaned toward the sensational and breathed fire at the
very hint of a war. There was at least, some accountability because
the journalists of that era lived in the communities they served.
we have the horror of a single newspaper, nationwide. Oh yeah, I
know, it goes by different names but take a hard look at the content
and you’ll find it’s exactly the same everywhere. The pathetically
silly and left wing Atlanta Journal Constitution is ideologically
the twin of the boorish LA Times. Both print from the same editorial
slant as the New York Times, mouthpiece of the government.
All of the big city newspapers are staffed by "journalists"
who are quite unable to follow a logic path or string words together
in a coherent sentence. Such posers are ubiquitous in the print
media today, and exist merely to pontificate against those who have
violated the strictures of political correctness, and to function
as the "amen corner" for government.
it interesting that our big media conglomerates are all left wing
to the point of being pro communist, yet are owned by fabulously
wealthy men? I hate to shatter the faith of liberals, but now, as
always, the folks on the left are people of privilege, who want
their socialist strictures to apply to you, not them.
we tie all this together?
is men who lead countries into unjust wars, men to whom too
much power has been vouchsafed. Our founders new this to be
true and tried to build in checks and balances to restrain us
from such folly.
path to such power is one not likely to be taken by men of honor
and decency. Men who strive for power for it’s own sake are
dangerous. Again, the founders were aware of this proclivity
and attempted to build a system of government "service"
rather than "privilege."
schools teach that power should be centralized and to that end
censor history and political thought. They teach that patriotism
should be directed to the government rather than to the country.
The founders believed very much in education yet made no attempt
to form state schools and would have been appalled at those
who consider education a proper role for government.
public media has a symbiotic relationship with government and
routinely extols the state schools, plus assisting in the rise
to power of the worst men, and the deconstruction of history.
Compare Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, journalists and commentators
of the early days in America, to their pathetically inept successors,
and weep. Note that serious analysis of political issues will
not be found on television or in the newspapers; how long the
Internet will remain free is anybody’s guess.
government is overly centralized, putting a dangerous amount
of military and political power in the hands of morally and
intellectually feeble men. Even our generals and admirals have
their heads deep in the trough – so when we ultimately blunder
into the next war, a price in blood will be exacted of us, in
the form of our children. The founders warned us against foreign
entanglements and the danger of large standing armies. They
knew, like Mao, that power comes out of the barrel of a gun,
and created a republic where the guns were to be in the hands
of the people, not the state.
America has contributed greatly to the destruction of entrepreneurial
capitalism by use of lobbyists and lawyers to manipulate the
power of government to further their business aims. The government
regulations our corporate captains of industry complain about
so loudly are largely a Frankenstein monster created in their
own labs. The founders would have been amazed to find that government
has itself become one of the largest corporate interests in
ponder these things and ask ourselves, has there been some awful
conspiracy to erode our freedoms and destroy our fundamental principles?
Sure, lots of them. But men are so fallible that to assume what
has happened to the United States is the result of one or more conspiracies
is downright silly. Napoleon warned us to "…never attribute
to malice what is merely incompetence." The problem is that
men are imperfect critters – the Bible thumpers (like me) are quite
right about that. I won’t waste print arguing it – consult your
encyclopedia. Man’s folly and wickedness has been well documented
over the years. That is why the key is to put chains on the government,
to tie it tightly and minimize its ability to do harm. Governments
are composed of men. That should put up a red flag right away!
folks who clamored for public schools were highly motivated for
what they saw as a good cause – they wanted to do it for the children,
of course. Since it was a good cause, we allowed it to happen,
violating the principles upon which we founded our republic. It
is the same with firearms - The idea of all of us disarming has
a surface level appeal, sort of like watching "Little House
on the Prairie." Yet to buy into the anti gun nonsense we must
reject our history as a country founded by men who believed in carrying
personal side arms. We have to assume that they were either stupid
or wicked. And yep, that’s just what we are hearing from the state
media these days.
we have wicked men subverting the body politic with promises of
largess in place of freedom, we should reject their proffered "gifts"
but we don’t, do we? When we see good people with a cause that makes
some sense, it can be tempting to say "Yeah, maybe there ought
to be a law…" We should resist that temptation to bully our
neighbor but it’s mighty hard to some times. Like when Republicans
and other so-called conservatives actually strengthened the Federal
Department of Education – it feels good so let’s do it. This is
what we get these days, instead of reasoned analysis. When you combine
the bad deeds of the wicked with the foolishness of the good people,
you end up with a great big mess. And that is why government should
be minimal – power should not be concentrated in the hands of anyone,
any group. They will abuse it, all of them, always. With that power
is the power to coerce, and history has proven it to be a power
that will be used, by any and all governments, if not somehow restrained.
It is an irresistible temptation.
irresistible is the temptation of the masses to seek a master. They
usually don’t have to look very far to find one.
have, through our willingness to attack problems from a simplistic,
emotional perspective, handed our freedom over to folks who know
how to crack the whip. We wrote a constitution to protect our freedoms,
knowing that freedom is to be cherished; then we created a nanny
state to care for our needs, gave it our children and our weapons,
and trusted that very state to protect our freedom. When I think
about that I feel like we must be a very stupid group of people,
we Americans. Me included, since I’m sitting here in my office in
my home, knowing full well that I don’t really own it and never
will since I will continuously pay tribute to the state for the
privilege of staying here.
was never such silly infantilism among the founders, who knew that
government had been the source of their problems, and would be again
if they failed to prevent it. That they did fail is obvious – they
had anticipated men of character following them, but alas, it was
not to be. It has all taken a dreadful slide to the left: government,
"art", education – even our use of words is now tinged
with an unspoken suggestion of compliance with oppressive and intrusive
codes enforced by very small men.
it appears we are in a battle, and with a little more thought it
becomes apparent that this battle has been raging since the beginning
of time, and we have been largely unaware of it. What happens next
is anyone’s best guess. The Internet has helped a lot – many people
have been exposed to knowledge by sheer serendipity. The interpersonal
communication of it helps to make up for the loss of community engendered
by suburban sprawl (ain’t it grand?)
we’re in a battle we should first do what our government routinely
fails to do, when going to war, and that is define a clear objective.
To me, that objective is to create a world where my successors will
have the same level of freedom envisioned by the founders of the
United States. I think we all understand by now that freedom is
not a clear personal goal with many people; it never was. The rise
of the Southern Confederacy was the one bright moment in American
history, since the time of the revolution, when a substantial number
of Americans stood up to the usurper and resisted with arms. The
vision is revealed by the letters of the men who fought for the
South, they are full of sentiments relating back to the founders
and what they called the "first revolution," theirs being
the second. They fought a defensive war when invaded by soldiers
recruited from the Northern and Western states by the central government.
This war was lost and a serious attempt made to extinguish the memory
of the principles that motivated the men who fought under the cross
of St. Andrew.
of us today? There are so few of us that arms are hardly an option.
Numerous readers have written to me expressing their deep pessimism
as more and more of our freedoms are corroded. Others wonder, "What
can we do?" Can freedom-loving individuals ever "win"
against the government behemoth?
truth, we can never lose. Freedom is not something to be
won. It is a gift of God and comes from within. Free men can be
killed but not enslaved. We can live free every day of our lives,
in the midst of the most appalling conditions. The future is to
be feared only if we create a future that is less than what our
best efforts can make it. Consider that much of our current mess
is a result of the sloth and ignorance of the American people. What’s
the solution? Why it’s quite simple actually – don’t be slothful
includes never voting for local officials who are willing to accept
money from the central government. A simple enough starting place
– so let’s start on that today.
time to make informed decisions and stop making excuses. A radio
commentator noted that of black activists whining about the so called
"digital divide," all the whiners were quite able to afford
a color TV of sufficient value to be equal in cost to a decent computer.
We live or die by the decisions we make. Many of us know what the
public schools are doing to our children but won’t pull them out
– we claim we are too busy or we lack the money to do so. Fine,
but if that is the case we must not complain about losing our freedom
– we are already in bondage to "stuff."
than complain about the corrupt media we must simply opt out. Don’t
buy their newspapers, don’t watch their TV shows. We have the Internet,
we have the public library, we have two thousand years of civilization
waiting to tell us all we’ll ever need to know. It is a waste of
valuable time to complain that ABC/NBC/CNN is showing a slanted
view of some issue or the other. Of course they are! That is what
they do. Why act surprised by that which we already know to be true?
We can use that time to get on with the job of creating something
complain with all the justification in the world, that our government
is corrupt and war like. But we use their services, we vote for
bums and we tolerate their intrusions into our lives. We don’t have
to though. Consider what happened when OSHA decided to come after
those of us who work in our homes. That was quite interesting and
even inspiring, since OSHA found such a wall of resistance that
they backed down and sought weaker prey. We all know what happened
to Smith and Wesson – they displeased freedom loving gun owners
in America by licking the boots of the oppressor – so long guys!
The tyrannical attempts of state governments and teachers unions
to oppress home schoolers is having the happy effect of forcing
freedom loving people to concentrate in specific geographical areas,
and is doing more to alert Americans to the danger of our dreadful
public school system than scribblers like me could ever do. Our
power increases the more they attack us.
have the power – we must use it and use it frequently. And we must
use it consistently and thoughtfully.
have Christ: the Way, the Truth and the Light; Who is the very source
of all freedom.
it’s not about winning, which assumes some sort of contest with
an ultimate goal – it is about freedom, which is not merely a goal
but also a means to an end. A wall is built one brick at a time.
So is a revolution, and that is what is required. We may accomplish
our goal through the electoral process (not likely), or through
secession (my personal favorite), or worst case, by simply picking
up the pieces when then this farce of a culture finally collapses
under its own weight. What we do today, will most assuredly influence
what we are able to accomplish tomorrow. If our children are the
only ones left who can read, we will have accomplished peacefully
what our ancestors failed to accomplish through force of arms –
we will have taken our country back from those who would enslave
us. Our duty is merely to do what is right – it sounds so simple
because it truly is that simple – evil is always illogical and works
man who finds himself in a fight for that which is right, has already
won at the game of life. The task itself is an honorable one. Perhaps
instead of bemoaning the scope of the opposition, we should be praising
God, who honored us by assigning us to such an important task. This
sort of thing is not of course, for the weak in spirit – there can
be a cost associated with standing up for freedom. To which I say,
are in the habit of signing off with "Deo Vindice" which
means "God is our defender." That being the case, who
can stand against us?
Mr. Peirce [send him
mail] fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith
side, of course).