Wednesday, September 27, 2017

National Unity, Part Three

The NFL (and just what "nation" are they the National Football League of?) is passively promoting disrespect for the nation of these United States.

You may argue with this, but the flag doesn't represent the men and women who died to protect this nation or their communities.

The flag represents the nation.
The aggregation of the citizens.
America is not a gene pool, or a patch of land defined by the land it sits on.
America is a set of ideals embodied by the Declaration and the Constitution.

Among these ideals is the right to express your political views without fear of prosecution.

Think about that.

The NFL players, coaches and owners who endorse disrespecting the flag, and that is exactly what they are doing, are rejecting the symbol of the aggregation of rights that allow them to do so.

So if the rights embodied in the Constitution and ensigned by the Flag were to be removed, the government could come in, like communist China, and put a bullet in the back of the brain pan while they kneel.

This is, of course, a direct result of a poor understanding of the United States and it's history.

To say that this country has a history of oppression of certain races is to ignore that the Constitution and the organization of the nation has over time corrected those abuses.

That's what the flag stands for!

And yet they reject it.

"Dumb Jocks" does not cover it.

These people have been indoctrinated with a philosophy that rejects our national heritage and philosophy of government.
What comes of that rejection, should it come to fruition?

Oppression that they cannot imagine.

Respecting the Flag is the one time (like the watering hole of legend) where we come together, do not attack each other, but recognize the ideals that allow us to disagree.

A unity of disagreement. It sounds incongruous.
But it has worked for a couple hundred years now.

The only time it didn't resulted in a bloody Civil War.

Not a good path to take.


  1. "I don’t think a lot of people was(?) educated" - LeBron James

  2. Hi Ed,

    Your post is quite insightful.

    The behavior you describe is shameful. But they have not shame. Why?

    Reading what you've written this morning reminded me of something from Emanuel Greenwald's Reformation Primer which seems to speak to what's going on. What do you think?

    Apologies for the length.

    We read history to our profit, when we look behind the facts, to the causes that led to them, and when we trace events to the principles that produced them. We speak of the spirit of the age, and many persons who hear or read of St. Bartholomew’s Day, ascribe it to the spirit of that age, and as the spirit of our age is different, they think we have nothing further to do with it. But the spirit of every age is the result of the principles that are dominant in that age. The spirit of our age is tolerant, because the principles that are predominant in the breasts of men, are so. The predominant political principles are those of American freedom, and the governing religious principles are those of Protestantism. This is admitted by every one. No intelligent observer fails to see this. The principles of political liberty announced July 4 1776 in Philadelphia, are to-day, the aggressive political principles that are imperceptibly giving tone to government and law all the world over. And the religious principles confessed at Augsburg June 25 1530, have become predominant in the world, have softened the fierce spirit of Romanism itself, and they hold its persecuting power in check, to-day, by the tolerant spirit of the age, which is their natural and blessed fruit. We wish to call particular attention to this position. We would give all possible emphasis to the declaration that the spirit of the age, is the result of the dominant principles of the age. And the political spirit of this age is that of liberty, because the dominant political principles are those of freedom; and the religious spirit of the age is that of tolerance, because the dominant religious principles are those of Protestantism. This position is so strong, that I think it is impossible successfully to assail it.

    The spirit of the age becomes then the test of the character and working of the political and religious principles of the age. The despotic political principles, and the bitter, intolerant religious principles of the age of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, account for the sanguinary spirit that led to, and justified, the horrible scenes that were then witnessed in Paris, and throughout France. Is not this a just and logical conclusion? Where is there any error in the reasoning? Every thinking, and fair-minded man must admit that I am right in my argument. It follows then that the spirit of that age proves that both despotic government in politics, and Popery in religion, are false in theory, and wrong in practice. Let the same principles both in politics and religion prevail now, that prevailed then, and we will see the same spirit of the age that prevailed then prevail now, and the same sad and horrible scenes will be enacted now, that were enacted then. Bring back the dominant principles, and you will also bring back the dominant spirit, and you will have again the persecution that flows from such spirit of the age. – Emanuel Greenwald

    1. Alec, you quoted wisdom offered men still in, and enjoying the fruits of, the Age of Reason.

      Today is an age where the [scratch] Left [insert] Sinister media casts aspersions upon logic and reason by asserting those great tools are traits of "white privilege," then simultaneously forcibly denying equal time to rebuttals.

      Why do elites, having weaseled control of our institutions, seek to destroy remorselessly all that the institutions were created to protect? An insight into a probable answer coming up next.

    2. Another man asked:
      "I believe we are all born with a conscience that only demented people can deny. The immense tragedy of our time is that so many people are committed to a great crime across the board. Who dissents? A few. How did this come about? What caused this odd death of conscience?"

      I responded:
      It is my long held opinion that there has been a paradigm shift in morality.

      Where once the conscience of an upright human was troubled when causing injury, let alone death, to others, there is now fostered, in very many ways, the widespread belief that if large numbers die then the humanity that remains will have that many more scant resources with which to sustain itself longer.

      Bottom line: Once the concept of the sanctity of human life has been sufficiently supplanted at the highest levels of governance with the concept that those in authority (someone must play the role of God in that He does not exist) must plan for the survival of all humanity, then the conscience of which you speak has been redirected into one that is self-satisfied that it is doing what needs be done.

      And any who still retain an old fashioned conscience need to be expunged.

    3. The hubris exhibited by the power elite would bring death and destruction upon us all, and they'd be cheerful about it.

    4. Pascal,

      Agree completely.

      Even if we're no longer in the "Age of Reason", nor have been for some generations, there still is absolute truth - and logic - which are provided by a generous Creator. The war against the ability to think clearly is one of the most terrible scourges going on -mostly invisibly- in what is still called the USA.

    5. Alec, without reading comments after your post yet, I would summarize thus: What you sow you will reap.
      And I had to look up St. Bartholomew’s Day. Thank you.

    6. Pascal, yes morality is being warped and twisted.
      I attribute it to man rejecting the God of the Bible and instead worshipping a god of their own devising.
      And man creates some pretty cruel gods.

    7. Yes Alec. He crated us a large cerebrum so that we may emulate Him with creativity, each to our own gifts. Those who wish to lord it over us wish us to be as dumb beasts as they can inculcate us.

      That scourge of muddled thinking is now protected by PC social engineering, forcing the rational to shut-up lest the truths they attempt to tell hurt the feelings of those the elites wish to remain ignorant. And that not even truths you might call religious teachings -- though they want that quashed too -- but simply things like "don't do that because here is the list of dangers." Imagine being arrested for blocking a child from being hit by a bus for the crime of getting in the way of a needed lesson. Don't laugh. I believe such insanity is on the horizon.

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. Yes, Ed. Cruel gods such as Sustainability. Because without belief in God, "God will provide" is viewed as wishful thinking at best.

      Pagan Man in the old world, Mayans and Aztecs in the new, feared overpopulation. It was Abraham's friendship with God which rebelled and gradually overran those cultures with human sacrifice at its core, and its fears, and fostered civilizations that honored, at least in theory, the idea of neighborly love. It was that better civilization which brought modernity and plenty.

      I've put it this way before. Judeo-Christianity has a live and let live morality (human life sacred). Sustainability has a live and let die morality (human life has value based only on its usefulness to society.) Utilitarians, once shed of the old moral anchors, may move on to their likely ruthless pinnacle with clear conscience.

      And here's the nightmare few speak of. That latter morality always carried with it the threat of embracing cannibalism. With the value of body parts rising, and the level of useful education falling, the bulk of humanity is in grave danger of being viewed as little more than spare parts, where anyone is apt to be sent to the butcher at the despot's whim.

  3. "To say that this country has a history of oppression of certain races is to ignore that the Constitution and the organization of the nation has over time corrected those abuses."
    That's quite debatable but let's ask another question.

    Why was it disrespectful for Kaepernick to kneel and use the moment as an opportunity to reflect on the country's contemporary values.
    He simply kneeled. There were no gestures or disruption or anything that conveyed disrespect unless you consider reflecting on the true state of our values disrespectful.

    The bulk of what happened the other day is that the chief contemptor of our values couldn't keep his mouth shut but decided to taunt and make the players choose sides.

    I see it as a lingering Trump backlash against uppity blacks.
    But it's an opportunity for cheap cliches on both sides.

    1. "That's quite debatable"
      We didn't end slavery and Jim Crow laws promulgated by the Democratic Party?
      "Why was it disrespectful for Kaepernick to kneel "
      Because the anthem was being played and the normal thing to do is to face the flag and stand with hand over heart.
      He decided not to. That was disrespectful.
      That's like you talking while I'm giving a speech others want to hear. Whatever your motives, it's disrespectful, of me and the audience.

    2. As I recall it the "states rights" folks used the constitution as an instrument to support segregation just as fundamentalists used the old testament to justify segregation.

      It's not as superficial as the right would have us believe.

    3. "As I recall it the "states rights" folks used the constitution as an instrument to support segregation"
      And those were democrats.
      And Christians led the fight for abolition and integration. Only segregationist democrats used the bible (wrongly) and they were a minority.
      No broad brushes please.
      And I appreciate you comments.

    4. Here's where it starts to go off the rails, Ed.
      You make reference to the Dixiecrats as if they represented the full scope of the Dem party and didn't partially morph into such fine fellows as Beauregard Sessions.

      You want to claim abolition for Christianity (and no right thinking person would deny the importance of Oglethorpe and Wilberforce, for instance) but many in the forefront of the American abolitionist movement were Unitarians like Emerson (not considered Christian) or agnostics like William Lloyd Garrison.

      I use the broad brush defensively to establish a point of entry that may (or may not) reveal the complexity of the issue.
      It's messy.

    5. You of course are right that not only Christians were responsible for abolition.
      Since I'm a "fundamentalist" and my denomination is considered that and is famous for it's integration from it's inception, I took a little umbrage.
      Beauregard Sessions?

  4. I'll be concerned about disrespecting the flag, when proponents of the militaristic displays of "patriotism" concede that the taxpayer funded subsidization of professional sports and the egregious violations of the United States Flag Code, are routinely violated in deference to obscene 'political correctness'.

    Until such time, I have as much sympathy as I do towards the average Leftist, millennial snowflake.

    1. All wrongs concern me, and I don't neglect one, because the other exists.
      But I must confess to having a difficult time understanding your meaning.
      I myself often comment in a shorthand that I know the references to, but find that others don't.
      And I'm tired. :)

    2. I mean, we've allowed patriotism to become an almost mandatory militarized display, bordering on religious boondoggle stadiums built for private enterprise, by fleecing the taxpayer. Add to that the cost of the flyovers and other theatrics....and Conservatives should be outraged. But they don't seem to be...they seem to be outraged that people are committing acts of political incorrectness, by taking a knee [ironically a long held symbol of submission and deference].

      The addendum to that is the lack of outrage at American flag bikini's, napkins and other fashion or disposable detritus....quite contrary to the U.S. Flag Code, Chapter 1, Title 4 of the US Code.

      This is all only corollary to the notion of free speech and the patriotic nature of dissent.

      I hope that better explains what I meant.....I also am nearly knackered with exhaustion on a daily basis, so when I have time for extra-curricular thoughts....they may not appear sober.

      - CI

    3. I got it.
      Interesting take, that we may be demanding blind obedience to saluting the flag.
      I understand your concern over the flag code, also. But I think in many minds, it's modified by intent.
      A flag t-shirt is usually worn out of respect.

    4. Fair points.....though intent often serves as a thin blanket for rank hypocrisy. This issue is really about emotional gratification versus emotional injury. You stated somewhere above that standing for the anthem was the "normal" thing to do. The people taking a knee are guilty of breaching a social norm to be sure....but as their not causing a disruption, it's not an apt analogy to compare it to talking during a speech. I don't place my hand over my heart, I stand at the position of attention, doubtless some might construe that as violating the norm.

      Now, while I don't get terribly worked up about standing in deference to a symbol....I do take personal offense to blatant disrespect to people:

      Are these incidents the same, different? Probably depends on the person.

      - CI

    5. Perhaps a better analogy would be a speech where the president is speaking and a member of the waitstaff places his hands over his ears. It's not disruptive in the sense that he dropped a platter, but the visual is disruptive because of its blatant disrespect. The wait staff is paid to be there and so is the NFL player.
      The TOTUS reference is similar. No chanting, or yelling, but a jarring disruptive visual of disrespect none the less.

  5. That post, my friend, sums it perfectly

  6. Yea, but I want to know about the 90 percent or the 90 degrees, or the 90 somethings.

    1. The Tower of Pisa doesn't lean if you look at it from another angle about 90º from where you were looking.
      I know. I was there.

    2. Saying the Tower of Pisa doesn't lean is a very Democratic viewpoint. :-)

  7. Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to There is no fee, I'm simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and found this article insightful. I'll be sure to give you comcplete credit as the author. If "OK" please let me know via email.