Fireside Chat: Duty Part II

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine understanding.

Proverbs 3:5

There are consequences for short-term pleasures. When a man decides to push aside responsibility at work, he moves more of his duty onto his co-workers. When he decides to stay home, watch television, and forget his commitment to his family, he says that his spectatorial needs are more important than theirs. When a man decides to quit his job without having another lined up, he feels liberated. However, by liberating himself, he places his family at the mercy of the world. By freeing himself from the responsibilities of his position as the head of the table, he dooms his family, friends, and country. The truth is simple: if you want a strong nation, you need strong men; if you wish for strong men, you require a culture to explain that his self-worth comes from providing for his family. However, when the truth is inconvenient, we exclude it, consequences be damned. Men must understand their place in this world. If a country loses men, they also lose women, children, and the world.

Fireside Chat: Duty

Duty is the cold, bare anatomy of righteousness.[1]

            At times, the way that men look at their responsibilities is misguided. When he exclaims, "I have to go to work," he is acting out of the prism of duty. When he labors over his house, possessions, and available domain, he usually explains himself as doing what he has to do. When he witnesses the women and other men enjoying their lives while adhering to the same duties he is laboring at, he tends to draw anger and jealousy towards them. He fails to realize that he is living life with a cracked lens. As William George Jordan explains:

The man who gives one hour of his life to loving, consecrated service to humanity is doing higher, better, truer work in the world than an army of Roman sentinels paying useless tribute to the red tape of duty.[2]

Instead of saying, "I have to go to work," exclaim with thankfulness and joy, "I GET to go to work." Instead of saying that "I have to pay the bills," "I have to fix the faucet," or "I have to get my wife an anniversary gift," say to yourself that you get to do these things because you are now capable of doing these things. When you stop looking around at life, seeing nothing more than a long list of obligations, see your life as nothing more than endless opportunities to give thanks to God for allowing you to do these things in the first place. Remember that human life almost reads like a poem. It has its rhythm and beat, its internal cycles of growth and decay. A man must see life as an opportunity, not as an obligation.

[1] William George Jordan, “The Red Tape of Duty,” in The Secrets to Power, Mastery, and Truth (Semper Virilis Publishing, 2019), 24.

[2] Ibid, 25.

Fireside Chat: What Can We Control?

Every man is the son of his actions. – Cervantes

            Things that are within our power are:

            Our opinion

            Our aim

            Our desire

            Our aversion

            Things that are outside our control are:

            Body

            Property

            Reputation

            Office

            Misery is, in effect, attributing one’s value towards those factors which are outside our domain, and striving to control them. One has power over one’s opinion because it is within one’s power to control one’s mind. One’s aim has been constructed, projected, and attempted by the individual, independent of any other factor. One’s desires are decreed through one’s aversions, which serve as barriers to leading one’s desire toward one’s aim in life. However, as much as one would like to think so, one’s body is dependent on nature, not one’s ambitions. Trust me, one day you will be completely whole, with no crippling factor on your person; the next moment, you will be fortunate if you can stand up again. Property is exposed to the external factors of taxation, natural disaster, and war. Try as we may, there is nothing one can do to make their domain completely safe and secure. Even more perilous, one’s reputation is only partially affected by one’s actions; the remainder is the result of good and vicious men who surround you, and which camp others decide to listen to. Finally, one’s office is a determinant of reputation, the most unstable concept in existence.  

            Most men will see this list and decree that they can surpass nature’s dependent factors outside his control, bend them to his will, and force them to serve his purpose. To this, I say, good! You have now understood what it means to be a man. A man understands what is directly under his control, i.e., his opinion, his aim, his desire, and his aversion. He also desires to control nature, itself. For as long as there have been Men, the human race has continued to expand its domain throughout the world, and it has been through the attempt to control those factors outside our control that Man has advanced, knowing that he will never completely control nature itself. It is the dragon that man knows he will never defeat, but he fights anyway, not for the glory of others, but for the ascending of his humanity.

Fireside Chat: 2023

This book almost never got written. To be honest, even the continuation of this website nearly never happened. To those who know me already, you already know the reason for this. To those who have just heard of me (first off, welcome and thank you for devoting your precious time to something I wrote), I’m a disabled veteran. I broke 39 bones in my body, have a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and am doing well if I can make it to work in the morning. I initially wanted to become a College Professor, so I graduated from the college I began my journey at and continued to Georgia College and State University. It was there that I decided I was not cut out to be a professor. The reason was simple: I could not stand the arrogance, the political divides that cut far and wide, and the blatant affronts that were everywhere I looked. Instead of teaching the classics, there were Food Way programs. Instead of encouragement of critical thinking, it was made obvious that I was participating in an indoctrination factory. Instead of professors who encouraged others to reach the heights that they themselves have achieved, I was blatantly informed that it would be nearly impossible for me to achieve tenure. After a year of my life wasted here, I decided to leave.

            I realized something over my time away from academia, something that I wished someone would have told me years ago: I could make more money than these professors could dream of if I entered a trade. At the time of this writing, I am making more than the average instructor, and due to being necessary for my place of employment to function, I have achieved a version of tenure in itself. I also realized that my initial idea of what academia was had been foolish; I could write historical books and sociological texts without a 100,000-dollar piece of paper! The only difference was that I would not be held to an academic field littered with academics who wanted nothing more than to hold onto the miniscule amount of power they think they have. I was never told that it was possible if I had not gotten a Ph.D. behind my name. Now, I feel more at piece building at a sawmill, mostly because my salary pays me enough to take care of my family. I am at peace with my life for the first time since I was injured nearly 5 years ago.

            This brings me back to writing again. I didn’t feel ashamed of my writing not being up to the academic standards anymore. In fact, I felt that I could do MORE without academia. I felt that now, I was given the opportunity to reach out to others through my writing being uncensored and disassociated with the bloated pyramid scheme of academia. Now, I’m back, and I’m ready to continue to provide the best content I am capable of creating, something that I would devote time to.

            Thank you for your support, as well as your patience.

Fireside Chat: We Need Masculinity

A plant which is frequently moved never grows strong. – Seneca

            If a boy has stability, he will have a successful life. If a boy has a father in his life, then he will know what to do to become a man himself. If a boy learns that a man requires strength, courage, mastery, and honor, then he will be a shining light in the secular age. If he is heralded by another boy, the cycle will continue. However, in the modern era, men are deemed vile. Instead of a defender, a man is seen as misogynistic if he safeguards himself or his family. Instead of being deemed venerable for speaking his mind, standing up for what he believes in, and not giving an inch of his virtues, his actions are deemed privileged. The truth of the matter is simple: emasculation is commanded by the modern world. For the men who have bent the knee to this misandry, in the 24th chapter of Proverbs, it is written: “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.” A man needs to take responsibility for himself, rekindle manhood in boys, and provide constancy for him. In this manner, the mentoring of the next generation, and the next, can continue.

Fireside Chat: Authoritarianism

Everything not compulsory is forbidden according to liberals. This is because, to an extent, authoritarianism is adroit. In Federalist 20, Hamilton and Madison elucidate that “The surrounding powers impose an absolute necessity of union to a certain degree, at the same time that they nourish by their intrigues the constitutional vices which keep the republic in some degree always at their mercy.”[1] In the first book of Kings, Rehoboam forsook the council of the wise and discoursed with men who were devoted to him since boyhood, and vowed to chastise the children of Israel with scorpions instead of alleviating their load by serving them.[2] Rehoboam went so far as to erect an idol, ordain that the children of Israel serve their golden calves, and erected a priesthood not of the children of Levi.[3]Rehoboam’s excarnation led to the usurpation of the throne due to his tyranny, placing Josiah in his stead, removing the accidie. When the tyrannical lead, they insist that their control of the culture, as well as their sovereignty, is absolute. As John Stuart Mill warned:

Representative institutions necessarily depend for permanence upon the readiness of the people to fight for them in case of their being endangered. If too little valued for this, they seldom obtain a footing at all, and if they do, are almost sure to be overthrown, as soon as the head of the government, or any party leader who can muster force for a coup de main, is willing to run some small risk for absolute power.[4]

If the populace no longer cares for involvement in their governments, then the institutions will make the public slaves to the machine of government.

[1] Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, “Federalist Paper 20,” in American State Papers (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1952), 77.

[2] I Kings 12: 1-15.

[3] I Kings 12: 27-33.

[4] John Stuart Mill, “Representative Government,” in American State Papers (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1952), 350-351.

Fireside Chat: Man's Strength Through Faith

A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man without trials. – Seneca

If a man is to improve himself, he must be willing to be assumed imprudent. Every novel feat will result initially in failure. Every trial will show a man how much he can take before he realizes that he didn’t break; he will struggle to carry the weight, increasing his strength in whatever he endeavors to accomplish. Every man eventually reaches the point where he will have to face trials that will transform his worldview forever. Men eventually become slaves to their freedom, a mon avis. A man must realize that, to live a free life, he must bow to the altar of liberty continually, consequences be damned! A man shall be free indeed when his days are not without a care nor his nights without a want and a grief, but rather when these things girdle his life and yet he rises above them naked and unbound. Man has two masters—God and himself. By kneeling before the Lordship of our Creator and reversing his accidie, man will truly understand emancipation.

Fireside Chat: Hardship Bequeaths Merit

In the 24th Chapter of The Book of Proverbs, it is written:

“If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.”

A man of ideals acquires strength when he struggles to carry the millstone of his life. A man of ideals experiences faith when he stares the demons of his phase in the face, unflinching, unmoved from the stench of brimstone. A man of ideals idolizes ideas heralded by other men who carry the fire of grit. He does not complain when he experiences hardship, for he fathoms that God has granted adversity to augment his tenacity. He learns the worth of thrift through poverty, kinship from isolation, and amity from seclusion. God grants these gifts not to tatter a man’s existence, but to give him tools to erect a life which is all his own. It is in this way that the natural can be turned into the spiritual: through sacrifice. Without this a man will lead a divided life.

Fireside Chat: Order of Merit

Written by Charles Babbage in his book “Decline of Science in England.”

Amongst the various proposals for encouraging science, the institution of an order of merit has been suggested. It is somewhat singular, that whilst in most of the other kingdoms of Europe, such orders exist for the purpose of rewarding, by honorary distinctions, the improvers of the arts of life, or successful discoverers in science, nothing of the kind has been established in England. [At the great meeting of the philosophers at Berlin, in 1828, of which an account is given in the Appendix; the respect in which Berzelius, Oersted, Gauss, and Humboldt were held in their respective countries was apparent in the orders bestowed on them by the Sovereigns of Sweden, of Denmark, of Hanover, and of Prussia; and there were present many other philosophers, whose decorations sufficiently attested the respect in which science was held in the countries from which they came.]

Our orders of knighthood are favourable only to military distinction. It has been urged, as an argument for such institutions, that they are a cheap mode of rewarding science, whilst, on the other hand, it has been objected, that they would diminish the value of such honorary distinctions by making them common. The latter objection is of little weight, because the numbers who pursue science are few, and, probably, will long continue so. It would also be easily avoided, by restricting the number of the order or of the class, if it were to form a peculiar class of another order. Another objection, however, appears to me to possess far greater weight; and, however strong the disposition of the Government might be (if such an order existed) to fill it properly, I do not believe that, in the present state of public opinion respecting science, it could be done, and, in all probability, it would be filled up through the channels of patronage, and by mere jobbers in science.

Another proposal, of a similar kind, has also been talked of, one which it may appear almost ridiculous to suggest in England, but which would be considered so in no other country. It is, to ennoble some of the greatest scientific benefactors of their country. Not to mention political causes, the ranks of the nobility are constantly recruited from the army, the navy, and the bar; why should not the family of that man, whose name is imperishably connected with the steam-engine, be enrolled amongst the nobility of his country? In utility and profit, not merely to that country, but to the human race, his deeds may proudly claim comparison even with the most splendid of those achieved by classes so rich in glorious recollections. An objection, in most cases fatal to such a course, arises from the impolicy of conferring a title, unless a considerable fortune exists to support it; a circumstance very rarely occurring to the philosopher. It might in some measure be removed, by creating such titles only for life. But here, again, until there existed some knowledge of science amongst the higher classes, and a sound state of public opinion relative to science, the execution of the plan could only be injurious.

Rebuttal: The Lure of Black Martyrdom

While scrolling on the bathroom wall of the world (Twitter), I came across a rather interesting opinion piece titled “The Lure of White Martyrdom” by Michael Harriot. As I began to read, Harriot has erected a powerful tale which, surprise, was against former President Donald Trump shortly after riots in Washington, D.C. As the story continues, Harriot paints a picture proclaiming that Black Lives Matter is “simply the youngest descendant of a foe that has bedeviled America since before there was an America.”[1] Harriot continues the piece by stating that “attaching oneself to Black people’s desire to be free, equal, or even human has always been seen as a seditious act worthy of violent retribution.”[2] Harriot continues this chronicle by stating that being equal in society was unconstitutional. Harriot quotes Federalist Paper 54:

“The Federal Constitution therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixt character of persons and of property…This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied.”[3]

Harriot could not resist a jab at James Madison when he proclaimed that Madison was the “hero, ‘Father of the Constitution,’ and human trafficker James Madison when debating the value of Black lives in Federalist Paper No. 54.”[4] Harriot goes so far as to compare the actions of the former President as a “throwback to George Wallace sending state troopers to bar Black students from integrating the University of Alabama.”[5] The final scorn lain at the feet of white people is that Black people must either revolt or consider “accepting the violent backlash and the collective scorn of a country whose Constitution calculated the value of a Black life at 60 percent of a white one.”[6]

            First, if Harriot did a quick Google search, they would notice that former President Trump did not order anyone to be gassed for a photo op. According to CBS News:

…during protests against racial injustice and police brutality in Washington, D.C., instead found the U.S. Park Police had the authority to clear the park and surrounding areas and did so to allow a contractor to install anti-scale fencing after several nights of violent clashes. U.S. Park Police also did not know that Mr. Trump would potentially be leaving the White House and crossing Lafayette Park until "mid-to-late afternoon" on June 1, hours after the contractor had arrived to begin the installation, according to the report.[7]

More damning to Harriot’s yarn, the Park Police gave “three warnings telling the crowd to disperse, though acknowledged not all could hear the warning, and some police units began moving to clear protesters before the third and final warning was given.”[8]

            Moving forward, Harriot is correct in that Madison wrote what he quoted. However, he pays no attention to everything else which was written before and after, leading to the reason why the 3/5 clause was implemented in the first place. In his essay, before Harriot’s quote, Madison writes:

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side.[9]

When the 3/5 clause was established, Madison explains that slaves can be people or property. People determine seats in the House of Representatives, and if the slave states could count their property as people, they would have more power in Congress. By accepting the count of 3/5, Congress was attempting to DECREASE the potential control of slave owners. Harriot does not mention that, shortly after the part of Federalist 54 Harriot quoted, Madison states:

And it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with other inhabitants.[10]

            When it comes down to it, Harriot did no research, save heeding to race hustlers and copying their concepts on what is and is not fact. The facts have been cited by myself. Harriot has sources, which are just other sources from the same company he works for! There is an inherent bias in the article, and he is trying to stay relevant by bashing someone over an action that did not happen the way he believed it did, going on two years ago while attempting to appeal to the very race hustlers who have formed his identity.

[1] Michael Harriot, “The Lure of White Martyrdom,” Intelligencer, 31 January 2022, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-lure-of-white-martyrdom/ar-AATk4FQ?ocid=msedgntp.

[2] Ibid.

[3] James Madison, “Federalist 54,”American State Papers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 170.

[4] Harriot, “The Lure of White Martyrdom,”.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Melissa Quinn, “Watchdog finds clearing of protesters from Lafayette Park wasn't for Trump photo op,” CBS News, 9 June, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-photo-op-lafayette-park-protesters-report/.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Madison, “Federalist 54,” 170.

[10] Ibid.