The reason we study history is because certain patterns repeat themselves. And this is where our education system has been failing us so terribly for decades, in part because of “multiculturalism.” Circa 1990, it became fashionable to condemn the teaching of history in our society as too “Eurocentric” and this academic trend, along with a general contempt for “dead white males,” had the effect of demoting the study of the history of our own culture in favor of “inclusive” history about African, Asian and Latin American societies. But this involves a misunderstanding of why we study history at all. The peasant living under a hereditary monarchy, or a goat-herder in a nomadic tribal society, would have no use for the study of history. In a non-democratic polity, it is only the leadership caste which has need to study history, as a guide to statecraft. However, in a republic, where every citizen is eligible to participate in the decision-making process — at the very least, as a voter — the study of history as part of a general education becomes much more important. How are we to participate intelligently in politics if we don’t know history? And the reason we study ancient Greece and Rome, rather than the Mayans or the Chinese or some other culture, isn’t because of racism or “Eurocentrism.” It’s because Greco-Roman civilization produced the earliest models for representative government, and because these civilizations left behind a written record, including such valuable resources as Thucydides.
At the beginning he asks “Have you ever read Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War?” Yes, I have. I also recommend it.
Source: History and the High Price of Forgetting
The norms of yesteryear are as applicable today as they were when first established by our ancestors. The farther we “progress” away from them, the worse our lives and civilizations become.
This should be obvious even to a Democrat.
Source: An ‘Ever Better’ Ideology? What Is Progressivism?
Ladies, you’re free to insist on your rights and privileges all you want. I’ll fully support your right to do so. However, there are men out there – more than a few of them – who regard revealing women’s clothing as an open invitation to make use of what its wearers are advertising. They don’t give a damn about your individuality or your femininity or your freedom of choice. As far as they’re concerned, you’re a “ho” or a “bitch”, and you exist to satisfy their needs. That’s all.
Source: Fashion, meet reality. It’s not nice.
Working my way through Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I find this quote interesting given that the Democrats have just submitted a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. They really do want to run roughshod all over us.
The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present such extreme perils to the American republics that the dangerous measure which is used to repress it seems to be more advantageous than prejudicial. And here I am about to advance a proposition which may remind the reader of what I said before in speaking of municipal freedom: There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted. In aristocratic nations, the body of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are in themselves natural associations, which act as checks upon the abuses of power. In countries in which these associations do not exist, if private individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary substitute for them, I can imagine no permanent protection against the most galling tyranny; and a great people may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, with impunity.
— Alexis de Tocqueville, Observations on American Life and Government, from Democracy in America
The detail that conservatives tend to forget is that when one party violates a contract, the other party is no longer bound by all of its terms. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and the dealer refuses to turn it over you, you aren’t “sinking to their level” by refusing to hand over your money. If you contract an employee who never shows up for work, you aren’t “repaying evil for evil” by withholding his wages. The same is true when dealing with people who are deliberately uncivil to civil people — it fundamentally changes what the rest of society owes them.
In other words, the aggressor makes the rules. We don’t ‘stoop to their level’ by fighting aggression by their rules.
Source: When The Left Uses Civility As A Weapon, Drop It And Fight Back
After many labeling the sign as “anti-LGBT” expressed outrage, the church did not buckle or apologize to observes who were offended by the sign, arguing that it is called by God to warn sinners and lead them to repentance.
Truth hurts. Good for the church for not buckling.
Source: Church sign reads ‘LGBT is hate crime vs. God, repent,’ draws protest