Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Blueprint For Preventing "The Death Of The West": Phase Two
ToogoodReports ^ | May 21, 2002 | Isaiah Flair

Posted on 05/21/2002 12:34:08 PM PDT by Starmaker

What follows is a sequel to last week's report, which listed numbers 1 through 7. Both are in response to Patrick Buchanan's controversial book, The Death of the West.

Together, last week's article and this one put forth the blueprint of exactly how to prevent the cultural demise of The West.

All 16 items can be realized by concerted political action: it's a matter of putting the money and sweat into political races, and when the right people win, staying on them throughout their terms.

8. PARENTAL PRIMACY:

In many states, parents are losing ground. Their daughters and sons are being indoctrinated into morally-relativistic perspectives by groups like GLSEN, which are in many cases paid by schools to conduct "workshops"... these are the same schools which ban Christian clubs and the Boy Scouts of America.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that 85% of parents in every poll endorse their own right to veto their teenage daughters' abortions, groups like NOW, NARAL, VFC, Rock For Choice, and Planned Parenthood continue to contend that this life-changing surgical nightmare should be implemented over the objections of even good parents. Are we in Communist China now?

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and those of her ilk keep proclaiming that "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child". What she and those of her ideological stripe mean is that the "village" (The State) should have control of how everyone else's children are raised.

Her creeping, totalitarian war on parents is coming soon to a "village" near you.

The reality is, parents need to fight any attempt to divest them of full control of raising their own children. Except where the parents are engaging in criminal actions or neglect, the parents should have full control of their children's medical care, education, raising, and associations.

Hillary Clinton and the Feminist Left strongly disagree. The United Nations also strongly disagrees. If you want the right to parent, to raise your children in the way they should go, you're going to have to fight for it.

9. EDUCATION:

Notwithstanding what was mentioned in #8, many schools are more concerned with "subverting patriarchy" than they are with teaching kids to read, to write, and to do science and math.

The popular and predominant schools of educational pedagogy decry "facts" as a patriarchal concept; thus, they are shifting away from solid, content-based curriculum and towards the soft, murky "constructivism"-type approaches.

Such approaches leave students confused, hostile, restless, and uneducated.

Solution?

Homeschool where possible.

Top-quality private schools, second: getting your kids the best education possible is worth any financial sacrifice.

And finally, every public school needs to be a charter school, free to develop their own school-specific policies and curriculum. This is one way to break the grip of the most powerful union in the world, the morally liberal National Education Association.

Each charter school, and any private school, should be paid for by education tax credits in the full amount of reasonable tuition, with no strings. Do your state legislators support charters and vouchers? Give them a call...

10. ENGLISH/GRAMMAR:

There is nothing wrong with a nation having a singular national language. Indeed, having one is a necessary prerequisite for a nation to avoid balkanization and fragmentation.

In the United States of America, our de facto national language is English.

Thus, English fluency should be a requirement of citizenship; schoolchildren for whom English is not their native language should be taught English to the point of full conversational fluency, and this should be done as quickly as is humanly possible.

All schoolchildren should learn grammar.

The government, and all agencies thereof, should conduct all transactions in English only.

11. PRIVATE PROPERTY:

One of the foundations of Marxism is the transfer of private property, or the value of that property, to The State. There should be no property taxes on private residential property, or on family farms, whatsoever.

Owning private property is, contrary to the dictates of Marxism, good for the soul.

The government taxing private residential property and family farms is bad.

Legislators in your state will listen to you if you stay in contact with them about lowering real property tax rates. And the lower the rates get, the closer they are to the ultimate target rate of zero.

12. PRINCIPLES OVER POWER:

We live in a Constitutional Republic. Within that Constitutional Republic, measured democracy flourishes. However, there is a difference between measured democracy and mob rule.

Mob rule requires sublimating or oblivating core principles, such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When those core principles are buried, stepped upon, and forgotten, the "mob" elements can, indeed, rule.

That is why it is critical to stand for principle in every walk of life, and to teach the next generation to do the same.

13. THE WORK ETHIC:

There is in America and worldwide a massive phenomenon called "victim-pathology". It is a form of Marxism. It entails select, politically favored groups pronouncing themselves victims, and getting special treatment by so doing.

This has to be opposed.

Any group with a legit beef wants equal treatment, not special treatment, funds, and government offices particular to their group over-and-above everyone else.

Also, victim-pathology is socially dangerous: for if a group gets subsidized with special treatment, funds, and government offices particular to their group because they've identified themselves as victims, they have a massive incentive to intensify their own victimhood status.

Which requires labelling another group "oppressors", and demonizing them.

Secular humanists do this to parents.

Feminists do this to men.

Etc.

It means an incredibly balkanized, totalitarian, "us vs. them" society, which is exactly the quagmire we've been racing into for the last 40 years of the Modern Era.

14. STATE'S RIGHTS:

The Federal government was never meant to be the end-all and be-all of all decisions. Has anyone in Washington D.C. read the line that goes, "Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"?

It doesn't seem to be something that most RINOs or Dems would recognize.

15. SOVEREIGNTY:

The United Nations, the World Health Organization, the WTO, and every other World group should be divested of any U.S. money that they believe they're entitled to.

Where the U.S. wants to make international agreements, the U.S. should do so one country at a time.

Where the U.S. wants to engage in international philanthropy, it should do so unilaterally.

16. NATIONAL SECURITY:

The United States is the world's last superpower. In the Clinton era, it was easy for some to suggest that we didn't really need all that much military might, because we had peace. Yet, it is our military might that buys any measure of peace that we had, have, or ever will have. We must value the members of our armed forces, and provide these dedicated, hardworking folks with the most intense training, highest standards, best intelligence, and best equipment conceivably possible. Peace through strength: there is no other way.

On our own borders, north, south, east, and west, we need to make sure that no one enters illegally. Such an assurance will require a lot of work, and a lot of manpower, and significant resources. All worth investing.

#17...Submit one to isaiah_flair_2002@hotmail.com … Send it in, we'll check it out.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Isaiah at isaiah_flair_2002@hotmail.com .


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/21/2002 12:34:09 PM PDT by Starmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
FYI
2 posted on 05/21/2002 12:38:25 PM PDT by Ff--150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starmaker
I always found those attempting to legislate morality (see preceding 1-7 paragraphs too)... well... kind of funny. In a wicked way, of course.
3 posted on 05/21/2002 12:48:47 PM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
Bookmarked for tonight. I appreciate the ping.
4 posted on 05/21/2002 1:37:38 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Starmaker
Buchanan (P24) "Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an ideas that they have given up - that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them off into the world to continue the family and nation - can prevent the Death of the West."

Collapse of the Moral Order (p 43)
"What force can resist the siren's song of a hedonistic culture......promoted by all who speak to the young."

Includes quote of Alexander Pope.

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen,
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

5 posted on 05/21/2002 2:21:17 PM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
"Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an ideas that they have given up - that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them off into the world to continue the family and nation - can prevent the Death of the West."

I agree with this statement, with a caveat.

Our modern world has torn many women out of the home, leaving their children to be raised by strangers. This is not good, and a return to the basic principles would be better.

However, as shown in the past, this concept has been carried to the extreme, so that the ONLY thing women were considered good for was having and raising kids. Thus, they were considered too weak to handle working, too emotional to deal with stresses outside the home, and too limited in intellect to be educated. They were the property of men, destined to be only pretties, and had no value to the culture other than breeding potential. They had NO rights, and NO resources beyond those given to them by men. (Or not, as the case often was.)

Therefore, while I agree that women should value homemaking and motherhood, and their work in the home valued in return, I DO NOT want a return to the concept that that is all they are good for.

Some women are not cut out to be mothers; some do not have children, or are past the child-rearing stage. Thus, the abilities, potential, and contributions of all women must be recognized, above and beyond that of wife and mother.

Without this, the "West" cannot be revived.

6 posted on 05/21/2002 2:47:44 PM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: serinde
If women as a group don't turn back to the greater good of having children, our country is doomed. So when you postulate some women are not good as mothers you miss the point. You maintain that women should focus on other achievement rather than child bearing. You miss the point and reinforce the losing feminist ideal.
7 posted on 05/21/2002 4:06:15 PM PDT by born yesterday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: born yesterday;lorianne;Good Tidings Of Great Joy;Nick Danger;Paul Atreides;Senator Pardek...
P I N G !!!
8 posted on 05/21/2002 9:32:13 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Starmaker; 4ConservativeJustices; Ff--150; A Vast RightWing Conspirator; ex-snook; serinde...
What follows is a sequel to last week's report, which listed numbers 1 through 7. Both are in response to Patrick Buchanan's controversial book, The Death of the West.

Was that first part which he mentions posted at Free Republic? If so, would someone post a link?

9 posted on 05/21/2002 10:12:14 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
Most of what is said here would be beneficial. I don't know whether any of it could be done. It seems that the liberal agenda has taken effect in progressive proportions of successive generations such that there are not enough people left to undertake such tasks. There is even too much disagreement among members of this forum to create and adopt a platform. Consequently, within the present absence of leadership I doubt such things are possible. My suspicion is that the present condition is beyond salvation.
10 posted on 05/21/2002 10:25:45 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Korth;ff--150
I don't see anything referencing FR on the link above (1st line of article).

Face the facts, their is little accountability or responsibilities for a vast majority of Americans. The "state" (in a very derogatory way) has assumed (taken, as in theft) ownership of many of the individuals responsibilities - a be-all do-all government. The sole purpose of our federal government should be to protect us from foreign invasion and maintain international relations. What little jusisdiction it has within our borders is limited to items enumerated and affecting ALL states. Sadly, that is not the case, as the federal government has made prostitutes of states - selling out in return for federal monies.

Just after the Constitution was ratified, the state of Georgia was sued by a non-resident (contrary to federalist promises during ratification). The state lost Chisholm v Georgia, and in response, Georgia enacted legislation making it a capital crime (meaning immediate death - and no clergy allowed to be present) for a state official to comply with the illegal decision. The states immediately crafted the 11th amendment to prevent this from happening again. The relationship then was proper - the federal governemnt was corrected - it was a servant of the states - not the master. Take away the right of the Federal government to tax incomes and property, and their ability to dole out your money for pork projects benefitting a select few, and the stranglehold can be removed. Allow the states to exercise their proper role as guardians against a federal behemouth and tyrants - the 10th Amendment is there for a reason.

IMHO, of course.

11 posted on 05/22/2002 6:24:09 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I don't see anything referencing FR on the link above (1st line of article).

I didn't say that there was. I asked if that first part had been posted at Free Republic.

12 posted on 05/22/2002 6:55:39 AM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Yep. It's linked on words - 1 through 7.

This might be it if you don't see the link spots.
http://www.toogoodreports.com/column/general/flair/20020514.htm

13 posted on 05/22/2002 7:21:44 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: born yesterday
You maintain that women should focus on other achievement rather than child bearing.

No, I said that achievements other than child bearing should not be ignored, not that they should be focused on. To focus only on child bearing has in the past de-valued women's other talents, and this should not occur again.

So when you postulate some women are not good as mothers you miss the point.

No, that is part of my point. If the only value women have is their motherhood, what value would you give those women that cannot (or should not) be mothers? Are they worthless and useless to society if they are not mothers? In the past they have been.

And to repeat a major point - I firmly believe that mothers should receive recognition and value for their work, which is often not currently done. However, I do not want to see that value perceived as their only value to society.

14 posted on 05/22/2002 7:37:26 AM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Yep. It's linked on words - 1 through 7

That is a link to the original article. I asked if it had been posted at Free Republic.

15 posted on 05/22/2002 7:43:52 AM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Starmaker
It's all about consumption and self consumption, whether political, ideological or material. In this coming liberal world where people are allowed to eat people (read, mothers are allowed to consume their children instead of instituting jurisdictional confidence and dominion within their children), who is going to end up eating whom is the question. One thing is for sure, the communists whose power (read, consumption) comes at the end of a barrel, are the immediate beneficiaries of this predatory/consumption world.
16 posted on 05/22/2002 7:50:45 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Giant Apricots
At least I don't have to spend money on his book now.
17 posted on 05/25/2002 9:12:24 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson