Posts
Today Bill O'Reilly had a confrontation with the women from the TV show The View. While on the show promoting his book Pinheads & Patriots Mr. O'Reilly mentioned that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. This drove Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to angrily storm off the stage. The reasoning behind their anger was that Mr. O'Reilly did not specify that the attacks were done by extremists. They felt that he was painting all Muslims with the guilt of 9/11. In his defense, Mr. O'Reilly stated that 10 years after the attacks we should no longer have to specify that the attackers were "extremists."
This event has led me to ask one question. If we have to call the attackers of 9/11 "Muslim extremists," then why aren't the crusaders called "Christian extremists?" For nine centuries now Christians have had to bear the guilt of atrocities that were done by a few Christians. Additionally, it is common for Muslims to cite the Crusades in order to justify their hatred of Christians and Westerners. In fact, Muslim extremists believe that they are just revenging what was done to their ancestors during the Crusades. It is common for even moderate Muslims living Christian countries in use the atrocities of the Crusades in order to gain sympathy for their causes. It has also been used to eliminate or reduce Christian influence in those countries. For example, the soccer team Inter-Milan was threatened with a lawsuit by Muslims because the team’s jerseys reminded them of the uniform the crusaders used to wear. In England, is prohibited in some situations to wear the national symbol, the St. George's Cross, because England's Muslim population see it as a symbol of the Crusades. So here we are 900 years after the last Crusade and Christians are still being blamed for the actions of what were Christian extremists.
Now it can be argued that it was all of Christianity because the Crusades were called for by the Pope and other Christian leaders. But this argument can also apply for the 9/11 attacks. It cannot be denied that for at least three decades many Islamic leaders have called for a Jihad agianst the West. Most terrorist attacks in Western Europe were in response to those calls. Additionally, it must be recognized that the Crusades occurred during an era when kings had absolute rule over their subjects. So although many of the knights who led the Crusades were volunteers the average Christian soldier was often conscripted off of the estate the knight belonged to. This is quite contrary to today's Muslim extremists who kill by their own volition. It is true that the crusaders did receive support from the Christian nations of Western Europe but so did the 9/11 attackers. While Afghanistan was their home base, the majority of the attackers were Saudis and it is not implausible that their organization, Al Qaeda, did not receive financial and/or the logistical support from Iran, Syria, and others.
So if political correctness means that we must specify that it was Muslim extremists who attacked us on 9/11, then we should demand that Muslims and their multiculturalists allies stop referring to the crusaders as Christians. We should demand that they start using the term "Christian extremists" and that they shall no longer force the Christians of today to pay for the crimes Christian extremists committed over nine centuries ago.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
“We Are Not Defined by Our Borders”: A Historical Perspective
Today a federal judge blocked portions of Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law that was set to go into effect tomorrow, July 29th. By blocking select portions of the law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has rendered the controversial, yet popular, anti-illegal immigration law toothless. This ruling appears to re-affirm the attitude that the federal government has towards illegal immigration- that “we are not defined by our borders.” This is the slogan that President Obama has been using since May and I am sure that Obama and whoever came up with the slogan are patting themselves on their backs for being so original, so enlightened, so avant garde. It sounds so appropriate for our post-nationalist world. After all, we are all “citizens of the world” now. We are now a multicultural society; no longer tied to such outdated, outmoded ideas such as borders, national identities, and sovereignty. In other words we are defined by…? Well, I do not know what we are defined by but, whatever it is, it must be better since it is considered progress by those know more than we do.
Unfortunately, for President Obama, this is not new, enlightened, nor avant garde. It has been done before. Not only in the world, but also in the United States. Correction: not actually “The United States,” but within the borders of what would become the United States. What needs to be understood is that the indigenous people along the Atlantic coast unknowingly took the same approach when the Europeans started arriving. I say unknowingly because, unlike the people of today, they did not have the concept of landownership or national sovereignty, thus they had no concept of borders. This is a shame because if they had then maybe they could have avoided four long centuries of suffering. But history is history and cannot be changed.
What history can do, though, is to provide lessons. One of those lessons is that nothing good comes to a country that does not protect its sovereignty. In most cases the results have been catastrophic for the established civilization and society. Along with the indigenous peoples of North America we can add the Meso-Americans of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, the Indians of India, the Pampa Indians of Argentina, and the inhabitants of just about all of Africa. In all these cases the multicultural, open-border approach ended with the original inhabitants losing their cultural identities and being forced off their lands, enslaved, or even exterminated. It was not uncommon for many of these cultures to endure all of the above at the hands of the newcomers.
I know, some of you are thinking, “the newcomers where from the great European imperialist powers. The indigenous people were kind and loving people who were one with the earth and everyone in it. There was no way they could have defended themselves from such aggressive and barbaric people like the Europeans. Besides, we are a more advanced and enlightened society. That could never happen today. This is why multiculturalism works now.”
Unfortunately this is completely inaccurate and is dangerous to believe. First of all, the great European countries did not have colonies because they were powerful. They became powerful because of they had colonies. They did not do D-Day style amphibious assaults on the beaches. They arrived in small groups of explorers and colonist. (In 1620 The Plymouth Rock colony was established by only 120 colonists of whom almost 40% were women and children). Contrarily, the indigenous populations greatly outnumbered the Europeans and were completely capable of eliminating the settlements. Additionally, the cultures of these people were often warrior based and fully capable of defending themselves from the newcomers. In the case of the Aztecs, their civilization rivaled that of Rome and Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs’ principle city, was larger than London was. Technology wise, both were about equal. Although the Europeans did have firearms they were greatly inaccurate, lacked range, and took time to reload. In most cases a soldier would get one shot off before resorting to his sword whereas a skilled warrior could launch multiple arrows within a short amount of time.
What did allow the Europeans to gain a foothold and then control was that they had help from people like Pocahontas and Malinche (a native woman who helped Cortez in his conquest of the Aztecs). These people helped to convince the indigenous leaders and people that the new arrivals were not a threat. That, by bringing new knowledge, the newcomers would add to the existing culture. These Native Multiculturalists were convincing enough that their leaders soon established alliances with the Europeans. Contrary to the PC history we are taught, it was these alliances that allowed the Europeans, whose numbers were still relatively small, to defeat the unfriendly, but maybe wiser, tribes and nations.
As for the last part, that today “we are too enlightened for that to happen”, it is the most dangerous misconception (or dare I say lie) that we tell ourselves. The truth is that colonization and imperialism is going on today, albeit still in its early unorganized stages. Being in its early stages does not make it less of a threat to western civilization. It is wise to remember that the Plymouth Rock colony was started with only 120 colonists. The fact is that today’s colonization is occurring right under our noses in a place we would not even consider possible: Europe. Like last time it is from east to west. Unlike last time it is not Christians from Europe, but Muslims from the Middle East. They may not be arriving on sailing ships and wearing pilgrim clothes but it is colonization nonetheless. As in the previous examples, the multiculturalists (modern day versions of Pocahontas and Malinche) started telling everyone that there was nothing to be afraid of; that the newcomers would bring the richness, diversity, and a cosmopolitan flair that the society lacked. Like the leaders of old, the new leaders saw an opportunity to align themselves with the newcomers and to use them to crush their opposition. So they created plans and programs to reduce the requirements that prevented or limited the influx of their new found friends. They embraced the multicultural gospel that destroyed any chance of their national character and identity to survive. Sadly, like so many self-serving leaders of history, they never realized that they were sowing the seeds of not only their demise, but also that of their country.
Today Western Europe is no longer the bastion of liberal democracy it use to be. 600 years after the renaissance it is now slipping back into a dark age. This time it is driven by uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism. Now these once great freedom loving nations are turning into pseudo-Islamic states. As Sharia (Islamic Law based on Medieval principles) takes hold well established freedom are being eliminated…societies are being changed and not for the better. Remember, it took until the 1880s (about 250 years) before the Native Americans were completely subdued. Europe has only been experiencing its colonization for about 40 years. It will be interesting to see how well the “Christian” Europeans are faring in 2260.
The question is, are we going to follow their example? Are we going to let the Pocahontases and Malinches of today convince us that there is no real threat to our way of life or are we going to let history be our guide? It may be too late for Europe but it is not too late for America.
Unfortunately, for President Obama, this is not new, enlightened, nor avant garde. It has been done before. Not only in the world, but also in the United States. Correction: not actually “The United States,” but within the borders of what would become the United States. What needs to be understood is that the indigenous people along the Atlantic coast unknowingly took the same approach when the Europeans started arriving. I say unknowingly because, unlike the people of today, they did not have the concept of landownership or national sovereignty, thus they had no concept of borders. This is a shame because if they had then maybe they could have avoided four long centuries of suffering. But history is history and cannot be changed.
What history can do, though, is to provide lessons. One of those lessons is that nothing good comes to a country that does not protect its sovereignty. In most cases the results have been catastrophic for the established civilization and society. Along with the indigenous peoples of North America we can add the Meso-Americans of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, the Indians of India, the Pampa Indians of Argentina, and the inhabitants of just about all of Africa. In all these cases the multicultural, open-border approach ended with the original inhabitants losing their cultural identities and being forced off their lands, enslaved, or even exterminated. It was not uncommon for many of these cultures to endure all of the above at the hands of the newcomers.
I know, some of you are thinking, “the newcomers where from the great European imperialist powers. The indigenous people were kind and loving people who were one with the earth and everyone in it. There was no way they could have defended themselves from such aggressive and barbaric people like the Europeans. Besides, we are a more advanced and enlightened society. That could never happen today. This is why multiculturalism works now.”
Unfortunately this is completely inaccurate and is dangerous to believe. First of all, the great European countries did not have colonies because they were powerful. They became powerful because of they had colonies. They did not do D-Day style amphibious assaults on the beaches. They arrived in small groups of explorers and colonist. (In 1620 The Plymouth Rock colony was established by only 120 colonists of whom almost 40% were women and children). Contrarily, the indigenous populations greatly outnumbered the Europeans and were completely capable of eliminating the settlements. Additionally, the cultures of these people were often warrior based and fully capable of defending themselves from the newcomers. In the case of the Aztecs, their civilization rivaled that of Rome and Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs’ principle city, was larger than London was. Technology wise, both were about equal. Although the Europeans did have firearms they were greatly inaccurate, lacked range, and took time to reload. In most cases a soldier would get one shot off before resorting to his sword whereas a skilled warrior could launch multiple arrows within a short amount of time.
What did allow the Europeans to gain a foothold and then control was that they had help from people like Pocahontas and Malinche (a native woman who helped Cortez in his conquest of the Aztecs). These people helped to convince the indigenous leaders and people that the new arrivals were not a threat. That, by bringing new knowledge, the newcomers would add to the existing culture. These Native Multiculturalists were convincing enough that their leaders soon established alliances with the Europeans. Contrary to the PC history we are taught, it was these alliances that allowed the Europeans, whose numbers were still relatively small, to defeat the unfriendly, but maybe wiser, tribes and nations.
As for the last part, that today “we are too enlightened for that to happen”, it is the most dangerous misconception (or dare I say lie) that we tell ourselves. The truth is that colonization and imperialism is going on today, albeit still in its early unorganized stages. Being in its early stages does not make it less of a threat to western civilization. It is wise to remember that the Plymouth Rock colony was started with only 120 colonists. The fact is that today’s colonization is occurring right under our noses in a place we would not even consider possible: Europe. Like last time it is from east to west. Unlike last time it is not Christians from Europe, but Muslims from the Middle East. They may not be arriving on sailing ships and wearing pilgrim clothes but it is colonization nonetheless. As in the previous examples, the multiculturalists (modern day versions of Pocahontas and Malinche) started telling everyone that there was nothing to be afraid of; that the newcomers would bring the richness, diversity, and a cosmopolitan flair that the society lacked. Like the leaders of old, the new leaders saw an opportunity to align themselves with the newcomers and to use them to crush their opposition. So they created plans and programs to reduce the requirements that prevented or limited the influx of their new found friends. They embraced the multicultural gospel that destroyed any chance of their national character and identity to survive. Sadly, like so many self-serving leaders of history, they never realized that they were sowing the seeds of not only their demise, but also that of their country.
Today Western Europe is no longer the bastion of liberal democracy it use to be. 600 years after the renaissance it is now slipping back into a dark age. This time it is driven by uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism. Now these once great freedom loving nations are turning into pseudo-Islamic states. As Sharia (Islamic Law based on Medieval principles) takes hold well established freedom are being eliminated…societies are being changed and not for the better. Remember, it took until the 1880s (about 250 years) before the Native Americans were completely subdued. Europe has only been experiencing its colonization for about 40 years. It will be interesting to see how well the “Christian” Europeans are faring in 2260.
The question is, are we going to follow their example? Are we going to let the Pocahontases and Malinches of today convince us that there is no real threat to our way of life or are we going to let history be our guide? It may be too late for Europe but it is not too late for America.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Is preserving life worth the loss of individual freedoms?
The debate on health care has once again raised one of the greatest criticisms against those with conservative principles; that they do not care about the welfare of others. That they will let people die so that they can go on living the privileged life they hold so dear. To a degree, I guess, this is correct. I mean the crusade to eliminate death at all cost has always bothered me. I have always felt that if people want to engage in an activity that threatens or shorten their lives then they should have the freedom to do so. But with this freedom comes the responsibility of recognizing the consequences of their actions and if that activity should lead to an early demise then so be it.
This may sound cruel and heartless but only if we limit ourselves to being worried about the people who are inhabiting the planet at this very moment. My concern is greater than that and it expands all of human existence. It comes from the understanding that for most of its history mankind’s story is one of slavery, bondage, and servitude. That those with power controlled the powerless to such a degree that they could, just by their word, sentence people to death. It also comes from the stark realization that it is when individual freedom is sacrificed that the value of life comes to have so little meaning.
Yes, there was Greece, or more accurately Athens, where democratic ideas first took root and then the constitutionally controlled Roman Republic. But it must be recognized that these were anomalies in the history of mankind. The majority of the world’s civilizations, such as those found in the bible, are more known for their records of oppression then they are for freedom (or in today’s terms: Human-rights). Even outside of the bible we see that human life had very little value. Slavery was common throughout the world up until the mid-1800s when the British Empire declared war on the “uncivilized” practice. The sacrifice of individuals for the greater good was seen in its extremity in ancient America where people where ritually killed in order to please an unhappy deity. On one such occasion in 1487 the Aztecs sacrificed 80,400 prisoners in a bloodbath that lasted non-stop for four days.
Of course the argument is that that was ancient history. We have evolved into a more enlightened and sophisticated people. In fact, the 20th century, during which those of us over ten were born, could be called the bloodiest in history. Totalitarian regimes killed hundreds of millions of people and enslaved whole societies. There are people still alive who witnessed the Nazi program that lead to the extermination of 12 million people and the tens of millions more who were to perish in Stalin’s “workers paradise.” The fact is that this will always be the result whenever the principles of individual freedom are sacrificed.
This is why I put “conservative” or, more accurately, American principles over life and welfare. I recognize that what was started in 1776 was an experiment unlike any other in history. True, it did get its roots from the great thinkers of the 18th century Scottish enlightenment (when most of the people of the world were still suffering under some form of bondage) but it took great Americans to put theory into practice. I also recognize that for those living today 234 years seem like an eternity but in reality it is a small sliver of man’s history. A small sliver that brightly shines in all the darkness that preceded it.
So you see, I do care about people’s lives. The difference is that I accept the fact that death is part of living and it cannot be outlawed. That people will make choices that put their lives at risk and they must be allowed to do so. By trying save everyone we run the risk of losing the principles that not only has preserved life but has also made the pursuit of life an alienable right! A right that says that we, as individuals, determine what we want to do with our lives. Finally, by putting the principle of individual freedom above life itself, I do not limit it to those who are fortunate enough to happen to be on the planet at this time. I am preserving it for my children and generations that are to follow. And that, my friends, is greater than life itself!
This may sound cruel and heartless but only if we limit ourselves to being worried about the people who are inhabiting the planet at this very moment. My concern is greater than that and it expands all of human existence. It comes from the understanding that for most of its history mankind’s story is one of slavery, bondage, and servitude. That those with power controlled the powerless to such a degree that they could, just by their word, sentence people to death. It also comes from the stark realization that it is when individual freedom is sacrificed that the value of life comes to have so little meaning.
Yes, there was Greece, or more accurately Athens, where democratic ideas first took root and then the constitutionally controlled Roman Republic. But it must be recognized that these were anomalies in the history of mankind. The majority of the world’s civilizations, such as those found in the bible, are more known for their records of oppression then they are for freedom (or in today’s terms: Human-rights). Even outside of the bible we see that human life had very little value. Slavery was common throughout the world up until the mid-1800s when the British Empire declared war on the “uncivilized” practice. The sacrifice of individuals for the greater good was seen in its extremity in ancient America where people where ritually killed in order to please an unhappy deity. On one such occasion in 1487 the Aztecs sacrificed 80,400 prisoners in a bloodbath that lasted non-stop for four days.
Of course the argument is that that was ancient history. We have evolved into a more enlightened and sophisticated people. In fact, the 20th century, during which those of us over ten were born, could be called the bloodiest in history. Totalitarian regimes killed hundreds of millions of people and enslaved whole societies. There are people still alive who witnessed the Nazi program that lead to the extermination of 12 million people and the tens of millions more who were to perish in Stalin’s “workers paradise.” The fact is that this will always be the result whenever the principles of individual freedom are sacrificed.
This is why I put “conservative” or, more accurately, American principles over life and welfare. I recognize that what was started in 1776 was an experiment unlike any other in history. True, it did get its roots from the great thinkers of the 18th century Scottish enlightenment (when most of the people of the world were still suffering under some form of bondage) but it took great Americans to put theory into practice. I also recognize that for those living today 234 years seem like an eternity but in reality it is a small sliver of man’s history. A small sliver that brightly shines in all the darkness that preceded it.
So you see, I do care about people’s lives. The difference is that I accept the fact that death is part of living and it cannot be outlawed. That people will make choices that put their lives at risk and they must be allowed to do so. By trying save everyone we run the risk of losing the principles that not only has preserved life but has also made the pursuit of life an alienable right! A right that says that we, as individuals, determine what we want to do with our lives. Finally, by putting the principle of individual freedom above life itself, I do not limit it to those who are fortunate enough to happen to be on the planet at this time. I am preserving it for my children and generations that are to follow. And that, my friends, is greater than life itself!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Modern American Dream: May it Rest in Peace!
One of the greatest shortcomings of being human is our sense of perspective. In life this means that we often falsely believe that the way we experience life is the way life has always been experienced. A prime example of this is the current version of what is called the American dream. As a recent U.S. News & World Report article explains, this version is "a series of unofficial tenets: A good education guarantees a good job, hard work will bring prosperity, and 40 years of 40-hours-a-week work earns a comfortable retirement." For those of us born post-World War II this has been the dream that we have come to expect. That by getting a decent education, usually in the form of a degree, and being a dedicated faithful worker for the next 40 years our employer and in the government would provide for us in our later years. In other words, as the article puts it, workers began to "believe that somebody owes them a comfortable life just because they try hard."
Unfortunately, for those who believe in this version of the American dream, its death bell is ringing and has been ringing for over 30 years. As I highlight in my book Believers & Doubters it started with the ERISA Act of 1974, which established our current 401(k) plans. This effectively wiped out the then common pension plans that provided employees with fixed retirement income until death. Since then the bell has steadily been tolling as globalization and economic realities marked the slow death of this modern version of the American dream. Hospice care in the form of the government providing what business is no longer able or willing to provide has kept this dream on life support. But now in the current financial and economic crises this dream is effectively dead.
I know that pronouncing the death of the American dream is disturbing to anyone who cares not only about their own future but also the future of their children and the country. But I do not believe that we should be saddened or lament in the passing of this version of the American dream. First of all, it was never financially viable and from the beginning was doomed to collapse under its own weight. Secondly, it never was the real version of the American dream since it traded freedom for security, independence for safety. This was never the objective of the American dream, which emphasizes freedom and independence. The idea of being shackled to an employer by the chains of a salary and benefits is completely contrary to the principles of the American dream.
To truly understand this it is necessary to step out on our own experiences and to examine those of pre-World War II generations. We all know that the United States has been the destination of immigrants since before it became a nation. But what brought those desperate people to our shores? Was it because they desired to exchange an aristocratic master for a capitalist one? Clearly job security was not the objective for these people. Just imagine what it took these immigrants to leave home at a time when it was not uncommon for the average person to pass his life without ever setting foot outside of his village or township. They had to travel to a port and then spend up to two months on a perilous ocean voyage. Even arrival at the embarkation ports did not provide safety and security. Once off the ships most did not know where their next meal was coming from much less what the next day would bring. More often then not they arrived with little on their backs and less in their pockets. What they did have was a vision of the American dream that thousands of immigrants still have to this day but that we, as Americans, have long forgotten.
Of course immigrants from distant shores weren't the only people searching to live the American dream. Even as the Industrial Revolution was transforming the great Eastern cities into the manufacturing centers they were to become thousands upon thousands of Americans decided to risk life and limb to go west. They hitched up their horses and covered their wagons to head into the unknown frontier territories. On the journey they had to overcome imposing natural barriers such as the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi river, and the Great Plains of the Midwest, which was nothing but a “sea of desert.” This migration of "restless spirit" continued through World War II as thousands displaced by the Great Depression sought opportunity in California's growing defense industry. (This last migration marks the start of the twisting of the American dream as the experiences of the Great Depression led more and more people to look to others for safety and security.)
This demonstrates that the American dream was never about security or safety. The goal of these people, whether they be immigrants from around the world or pioneers that won the West, was the desire not to be cared for by a new master but to be the master of themselves. They rejected the idea of seeking safety and security if it cost them their independence and their freedom. I believe they would look upon what we now call the American dream as little more than servitude. They would be ashamed of the timid fearful people we have become; people content to surrender all their hopes, dreams, and ambitions for perceived security.
At this time in history we have two choices. The first is to continue to seek safety and security at the expense of our freedom and independence. The second is to go back and look at what our forefathers did. To learn the principles that guided them and made them and our country the greatest in the world! It is our choice to make. Will we be the generation that revives the real American dream or the generation that sacrifices it in hopes of keeping alive a version that falsely promises security?
If you personally decide that the American dream is worth preserving and keeping then I recommend my book Believers & Doubters. The principles and philosophies in the book are the same ones that have guided independent-minded Americans for generations.
Unfortunately, for those who believe in this version of the American dream, its death bell is ringing and has been ringing for over 30 years. As I highlight in my book Believers & Doubters it started with the ERISA Act of 1974, which established our current 401(k) plans. This effectively wiped out the then common pension plans that provided employees with fixed retirement income until death. Since then the bell has steadily been tolling as globalization and economic realities marked the slow death of this modern version of the American dream. Hospice care in the form of the government providing what business is no longer able or willing to provide has kept this dream on life support. But now in the current financial and economic crises this dream is effectively dead.
I know that pronouncing the death of the American dream is disturbing to anyone who cares not only about their own future but also the future of their children and the country. But I do not believe that we should be saddened or lament in the passing of this version of the American dream. First of all, it was never financially viable and from the beginning was doomed to collapse under its own weight. Secondly, it never was the real version of the American dream since it traded freedom for security, independence for safety. This was never the objective of the American dream, which emphasizes freedom and independence. The idea of being shackled to an employer by the chains of a salary and benefits is completely contrary to the principles of the American dream.
To truly understand this it is necessary to step out on our own experiences and to examine those of pre-World War II generations. We all know that the United States has been the destination of immigrants since before it became a nation. But what brought those desperate people to our shores? Was it because they desired to exchange an aristocratic master for a capitalist one? Clearly job security was not the objective for these people. Just imagine what it took these immigrants to leave home at a time when it was not uncommon for the average person to pass his life without ever setting foot outside of his village or township. They had to travel to a port and then spend up to two months on a perilous ocean voyage. Even arrival at the embarkation ports did not provide safety and security. Once off the ships most did not know where their next meal was coming from much less what the next day would bring. More often then not they arrived with little on their backs and less in their pockets. What they did have was a vision of the American dream that thousands of immigrants still have to this day but that we, as Americans, have long forgotten.
Of course immigrants from distant shores weren't the only people searching to live the American dream. Even as the Industrial Revolution was transforming the great Eastern cities into the manufacturing centers they were to become thousands upon thousands of Americans decided to risk life and limb to go west. They hitched up their horses and covered their wagons to head into the unknown frontier territories. On the journey they had to overcome imposing natural barriers such as the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi river, and the Great Plains of the Midwest, which was nothing but a “sea of desert.” This migration of "restless spirit" continued through World War II as thousands displaced by the Great Depression sought opportunity in California's growing defense industry. (This last migration marks the start of the twisting of the American dream as the experiences of the Great Depression led more and more people to look to others for safety and security.)
This demonstrates that the American dream was never about security or safety. The goal of these people, whether they be immigrants from around the world or pioneers that won the West, was the desire not to be cared for by a new master but to be the master of themselves. They rejected the idea of seeking safety and security if it cost them their independence and their freedom. I believe they would look upon what we now call the American dream as little more than servitude. They would be ashamed of the timid fearful people we have become; people content to surrender all their hopes, dreams, and ambitions for perceived security.
At this time in history we have two choices. The first is to continue to seek safety and security at the expense of our freedom and independence. The second is to go back and look at what our forefathers did. To learn the principles that guided them and made them and our country the greatest in the world! It is our choice to make. Will we be the generation that revives the real American dream or the generation that sacrifices it in hopes of keeping alive a version that falsely promises security?
If you personally decide that the American dream is worth preserving and keeping then I recommend my book Believers & Doubters. The principles and philosophies in the book are the same ones that have guided independent-minded Americans for generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)