My last visit to Venezuela was in 2005 during which my cousins took me to visit the massive Las Macaguas Dam in Ciudad Guayana. As we walked the site, we eventually entered, in the “innards” of the structure, a small museum dedicated to the creatures encountered during the years of study and construction of Las Macaguas and also the even greater Guri Dam, the second or third largest in the world — sadly saddled with colossal incompetence resulting in far reaching failures for the entire country.
Corporate media reports, including Wikipedia, blame droughts for these life-threatening failures. However, to put it as diplomatically as possible, droughts did not suddenly show up with Chavez and Maduro. For further reading on the deterioration of Venezuelas electrical grid, refer to my posts on the Cuba-Venezuela nexus, such as here.
As we walked the museum we were awed by the variety and gigantic sizes of the insects on display. Childhood memories flooded back as I recalled seeing many of those or similar specimens live-and-in-color as we tramped about El Pao or fished in the Caroní or Orinoco rivers.
A recent email exchange with George and Richard Scheipe, the sons of a gentleman who taught school in El Pao in the 1950s, brought those memories back. George tells of John Tuohy, one of the “older kids” in El Pao, who had come to visit his brother, Ted Heron, Jr., in Pennsylvania, and had brought a dead giant centipede in his suitcase. The mischievous ones hid the critter in aluminum foil in the backyard and “would torment the local kids, including me, with it.”
These centipedes are the Scolopendra gigantea and are found almost exclusively in South America (but also southern Mexico) with many in Venezuela. They are venomous and their bite can be fatal to small children. In 2014 a 4-year-old in Venezuela died from a bite he incurred when he picked up an empty soda can into which a Scolopendra had hid. In 2015 a 19-year-old man was hospitalized in San Tomé and when he worsened he was taken to a major city for better care. He recovered.
These centipedes can grow as large as 12 inches and are very quick. They are carnivores who feed on any other animal it can overpower and kill, including other arthropods, insects, small birds, lizards, frogs, and snakes. Students have investigated their feeding on bats, something which was not known until relatively recently.
They “climb cave dwellings and hold or manipulate their heavier prey with only a few legs attached to the ceiling.” A study done in southern Mexico discovered that, contrary to earlier belief, bats were killed by these giants pursuant to clever hunting tactics.
It had been believed that the centipedes killed the bats in reaction to being disturbed by the latter when flying in or out of their caves. Careful observation disclosed that the hunters attach themselves to the high walls or ceilings waiting for their prey to fly close, upon which the Scolopendra pounce. “We have observed that, during the trajectory taken by the bats, some perch momentarily. It is during such brief stops that the giant centipede attacks and kills [he who hesitates is lost!].” Also, it is probable that as a bat flies very close to the walls it is also attacked and killed.
I appreciate the recollections of folks who lived in or who have some connection with mid-20th-Century El Pao. Truly we were blessed and had memorable — sometimes frightening — encounters with a unique flora and fauna which so fascinated great explorers such as Alexander Humboldt and others.
That title promises more than I can deliver in a short post; however, I hope to at least be able to address what my memory retains regarding the evolving culture of my childhood years in a jungle mining camp and how it very much reflected the general culture in the United States. The purpose is not to reminisce but to seek to identify our root cultural problem and how to address it.
With regards to “class struggle” so prominent in modern society, please see my post, Class Struggle, as I will not be repeating those comments here, although for a better overall understanding, that post should be considered in tandem with this one.
Cornelius Van Til’s aphorism is true, in my opinion: “Culture is religion externalized.” So, for example, historically, the culture of Europe is drastically different, even contradictory, to that of pre-William Carey India or pre-WWII Japan. The difference relates or related directly to the vastly different dominant religions of each: Christianity versus Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism. Even cultures which arose under a predominantly Protestant Christianity differ markedly from those arising under a predominantly Roman Catholic Christianity. Witness northern versus southern Europe, or North versus South America.
Nevertheless, every major Christian confession, regardless of denomination, makes claims to objective truth; such is not the case with other major religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism, other than categorical statements affirming, at best, dubious claims, such as “all religions are the same”. They most certainly are not, as even my Hindu friends will admit upon reflection.
El Pao’s culture in the 1950s was undeniably Christian, although its population was marked by Roman Catholics, Protestants, non or infrequent church-goers. We also had one or two atheists. Outside of El Pao, I remember genuinely friendly relations with Jewish people in Caracas. Our general Christianity did not generate Anti-Semitism, but rather a tolerance increasingly rare today.
All, even those who denied Christianity, lived according to Christian societal norms.
If I were offered Hobson’s Choice of either living in Mexico City today or living there before Cortes’ arrival in 1519, I would not hesitate to choose to live there today, since I do not particularly care for Aztec human sacrifice, whether my own or anyone else’s. I believe the reader would also choose likewise. We do incline towards self-preservation, after all.
And what makes the difference between Mexico today and Mexico before Cortes? In a word: Christianity.
Unlike the era of the Great Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, the crisis in religion today is not denominational or doctrinal (although I do not minimize such serious matters).
The crisis in religion today, as Harold O. J. Brown put it, is in the “radical sensate approach to truth”. That crisis goes well beyond the walls of any church or denomination and into all of society, culture, and civilization.
In El Pao, although we had our doctrinal differences which were cause of strong, even bitter, disagreements, we all generally agreed that we were to live according to the Ten Commandments; that there was such a thing as objective truth; that we were created by the Triune God to Whom we were accountable; that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh; that Christmas celebrated the Incarnation; that the world was never the same thereafter; that society would not survive a denial of these eternal verities….
We recognized our fallen nature, which would be evidenced in sin and unfaithfulness. But overall we sought adherence, however imperfectly, to God’s Law, although sometimes with grumbling.
This began to change openly (at least to my friends and me) in the late 50s and early to mid 60s. I remember in 1966 an American teacher who received his monthly issue of Playboy magazine; I also recall a friend who showed me where his father hid his own monthly issues.
The aforementioned teacher was also very insistent in cramming Darwin’s evolutionary theories down our throats.
The relationship between the playboy outlook, with its myriad and increasingly degenerate manifestations, and Darwinism is not coincidental: the latter prepares the soil which enables the former to flourish. Of course, pornographic literature preceded Playboy by centuries; however, there is a major difference between the culture in England and the English colonies in 1750 and that of England and the United States in the latter 20th Century: in broad strokes, the former still believed in objective truth and understood that such literature was offensive to God and destructive to society; the latter does not believe in objective truth nor God nor the necessity of morality to the proper functioning of society.
For instance, in the 18th and even 19th centuries, folks had to exert themselves — sometimes traveling across state or even national boundaries — to get hold of bawdy material. By the latter 20th, such material was not only readily available, it was thrust into children’s faces at the grocery checkout, because the conviction that unfettered depictions of such degenerate behavior was contrary to the moral law of God had largely disappeared.
It was no coincidence that, preceding or concurrent with such changing norms, we also witnessed an increasing intolerance of the Christian religion. That is not accidental. The writings of Marx and Engels and Nietzsche, the godfathers of Communism, Nazism, and Fascism — all anti-Christian to the core — are frightening in their depictions glorifying man without God. To wit:
“The New Testament is the gospel of a wholly ignoble species of man … These little herd-animal virtues do not by any means lead to ‘eternal life'” — Nietzshe
“We … reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatever as eternal, ultimate, and forever immutable moral law …” — Engels
“We say: morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society … which is creating a new communist society … We do not believe in an eternal morality.” — Lenin
“The proletariat can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages …” — Marx
“The state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” — Marx
“A revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon another … [and] must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.” — Engels
Why are we surprised at Stalin’s gulags, Pol Pot’s killing fields, Mao’s forced famines against tens of millions, Castro’s murders, and Hitler’s gas chambers? They were merely faithful followers of their founding, anti-Biblical prophets and literature. They did not “pervert” Communism or Fascism or Nazism or Nihilism: they successfully imposed such on millions. And their descendants, mostly in western corporate and university boards and faculties, are busy imposing the same.
How can they succeed?
By the foolish submission of millions to a “radical sensate approach to truth”.
What does this mean in practice?
Brown and Sorokin are helpful here. They trace three phases in culture: the Ideational, the Idealistic, and the Sensate. The first sees spiritual truth and values as virtually the only truth, with God and the Scriptures “as the highest and truest realities”. The second is a compromise between the ideational and sensate, but inclines more to the ideational in that it places a higher value on eternal verities while not ignoring physical realities. The third is interested only in the material things and is accompanied by a rapid degeneration in culture “not only in the technical sense that they no longer form part of a well-functioning integrated whole, but also in the sense that they are morally blameworthy and merit condemnation.”
History has no record of a system of liberty, tolerance, and harmony having been created from a sensate approach to truth. Conversely, the historical record is littered with the remnants of peoples and institutions who perished because of their founding upon or descent into such an approach to truth.
As a first or second grader in El Pao, I vividly recall my teacher talking about her belief that there are levels or grades in hell. She said that Hitler would certainly receive greater punishment than a common thief who did not repent. Such musing by a teacher today is inconceivable.
As a seventh grader in El Pao, my “Playboy-reading” teacher barely hid his unbelief, but nevertheless respected the Christian norms of the culture in which he thrived. For example, in a discussion about the Beatles, he said something along these lines, “I won’t deny that many of my colleagues play Beatles music in parties. But is such music as long lasting as, say Bach or Beethoven? We can have fun, but we need to be careful to continually learn that which is permanent.”
In his sensate approach to truth, he still retained the old “ideational” or “idealistic” bearings which built the civilization which produced him. However, he failed to see that a society will eventually choose one above the other. And our culture has chosen the sensate.
And now, if we care about our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, we must face the need to return to the Truth. Most of us would readily condemn a Stalin or Hitler; however, have we paused to consider how their approach to truth has become the prevalent approach in our own corporate, educational, cultural, and even religious institutions? Do we really believe that our own homes are immune to such?
How do we push back? By unflinchingly proclaiming the truth — objective, truth — whenever we are given an opportunity to do so. We must not retreat from affirming that some things are good and others are evil and that such is defined by God, not man. And we must recognize that there is nothing new under the sun. After all, it was in the Garden of Eden when man first attempted to define the truth without God: “Ye shall be as gods, knowing [defining] good and evil”.
Teach your children to not mock their grandparents and great-grandparents’ simple faith. The generations whose faith was implicit and simple have done far more to preserve and expand our liberties and peace than generations of multi-degreed faculties and administrations in all Ivy League colleges.
For those who wish to read and understand these themes at a deeper level, I recommend The Sensate Culture, by Harold O. J. Brown, and also The Crisis of Our Age, by Pitirim A. Sorokin.
Today, most Americans under 40 know very little about George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas Day in 1776. They may have seen photos of Emanuel Leutze’s famous painting which managed to capture the American spirit but not accurate physical details of the crossing.
In 1988 Benjamin Hart published Faith and Freedom from which I’ve excerpted his account of Washington’s momentous crossing, which we would do well to remember and to teach our children and grandchildren.
From Faith and Freedom, by Benjamin Hart:
[George Washington had suffered a series of humiliating defeats in addition to backbiting among his men, including Charles Lee, who sought to run down his reputation whenever he had a chance to talk with members of Congress. British General William Howe had executed devastating attacks against the Americans and now had only to cross the Delaware River to capture Philadelphia. But Howe was foiled by Washington, who made his fabled crossing of the half frozen Delaware River that 1776 Christmas night — RMB]
“The Patriot forces had to endure a terrible storm. But … the operation would not have succeeded without help from the weather. The storm actually was a godsend. The British forces encamped in Trenton, mainly German mercenaries, did not believe any army could function under such conditions and so ignored reports that Washington was planning an attack. In sub-freezing and blizzard conditions Washington packed onto a fleet of 40-feet longboats 2,400 troops, in addition to horses, artillery, ammunition, and supplies. Soldiers who got wet found themselves encased in frozen clothing; floating ice chunks in the river threatened to smash the boats; and progress was slow. Washington hoped to attack at night. But it became clear that it would be broad daylight by the time they reached enemy encampments.”
“When the final march actually began, the storm was at its worst. Two Americans dropped and froze to death during the march. But the blizzard and howling winds also concealed American troop movements …. The German (Hessian) mercenary forces were surprised [they never expected the Americans to ‘keep their powder dry’ under such conditions; the battle was actually an anti-climax in comparison to the horrible deprivations of the journey]. Blinded by the snow and unable even to discern from which direction Patriot shots were being fired, 1,500 Hessians surrendered….”
“American casualties: two men had frozen to death on the march, and three more were wounded during the battle. This was a staggering victory for Washington, and greatly boosted American spirits.”
“A week later, Washington repeated the feat, this time in the Battle of Princeton. He crossed the Delaware again and was almost trapped by Lord Cornwallis’ forces. In well-ordered fashion, the British formed their customary battle lines and were about to slice the Patriots into ribbons. Washington, seeing confusion among his ranks, galloped to the front in an attempt to steady the nerves of his wavering recruits. On his huge white horse, with his 6-foot 3-inch frame, he was a conspicuous target. He stopped only 30 yards from the first British line, and directed his men to take aim. Miraculously, he survived the first volley. As historian J. T. Flexner recounts the episode: ‘When the two forces came in range, both fired; Washington was between them. An aide, Colonel Richard Fitzgerald, covered his face with his hat to keep from seeing the Commander in Chief killed. When Fitzgerald lowered the hat, he saw many men dead and dying, but the General was sitting untouched on his horse.”
George Washington has been the object of cowardly attack since the mid-20th century. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, “To destroy a country, you must first cut off the roots.” And George Washington is very much a part of our roots. So the usual suspects seek to destroy him.
However, the historical record is available for all who care to exert themselves just a bit and see for themselves.
He wrote about his admiration for his men, “Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of these soldiers.” His exhortations included, “To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
The Reverend Henry Muhlenberg had the opportunity to observe Washington’s conduct: “Washington rode around among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God. This gentleman … respects God’s word, believes in atonement through Christ, and bears himself in humility and gentleness.”
Regarding that Christmas night in 1776, after the ensuing battle the following day, Washington ordered his men to treat the Hessians “with humanity”. This was totally unexpected, for the Germans had behaved despicably toward American farmers and homes and had massacred prisoners just a few weeks prior. The German prisoners wrote letters home to Germany praising the Americans. Many Germans emigrated to America after the war.
In his farewell address, long ignored, but which used to be studied in high school and college, Washington stated what for long was assumed but is now mocked, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”
He also was quoted by Ashahel Green, “Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”
Finally, in his speech to the Delaware Chiefs in 1779, he said, “You will do well to wish to learn our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and a happier people than you are.”
This Christmas season, we are grateful for God Who sent forth His Son born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem us from our sins. And we are grateful for our history, in which George Washington played a large and indispensable role and who, as his friend, Henry Lee summarized, was “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”
His example and faith deserve to be rediscovered and the Christmas season is a good time to ponder thereon.
The American spirit is captured well in Emmanuel Leutze’s 19th Century painting of Washington’s crossing the Delaware on Christmas Day, 1776.
With deep sadness we saw the rapidly deteriorating physical condition of Cousin Louis (Papito) Max Rodriguez. He had been stricken with a type of bone cancer which was unforgiving, but which was also all in the the hand of our Sovereign Lord Who called Louis home early this morning, Tuesday, December 20, 2022, exactly 7 years to the day after the passing of his mother, Aunt Sarah, and one year plus one day after the passing of Cousin Max (Papaito).
Louis, the eldest of the Barnes/Rodriguez cousins, was born in Miami, Florida, July 13, 1949.
His mother, Aunt Sarah, was and continues to be an ever-present influence on us all: dearly loved and honored. I’ve written about her before, such as her insistence on having us faithfully attend church, including Easter sunrise services, as well as participate in outings. These events had lasting emotional as well as educational — not to mention spiritual –impacts on me and I’ll be forever grateful.
Louis was her first child and she loved him as a devoted mother can love her firstborn. He would be the first to tell you he went through some rough patches in life; however, his mother never ceased to pray and to care for him and, over time, Louis remembered the old paths she had pointed to him in times past.
In times like these, memories flood the mind.
His visit with us in El Pao in the early 1960s. One evening, in the early 1970s, he talked garrulously about that visit and the friendships he made with Herman Gerbracht and John Thuoy, both of them among the “big boys” that I looked up to whenever they returned to the mining camp for summer or Christmas.
He also got many years worth of mileage having seen me run to catch a fly ball, going over a steep incline at the end of the field, and promptly slapping a nest teeming with angry picaojos (“stingeyes”). In Louis’ version, I first disappeared over the edge, and then bounced right back and ran like the wind towards the house, slapping my face, yelling at full volume. I know he was concerned, like the rest, but after I went to the hospital and was put on some medication and therapy, knowing all would be well, he began his years’ long, hilarious narrative of the event.
His recollections helped me remember some incidents and relationships centered around El Pao — here again, that mining camp is present with us a lifetime later. I most certainly would have forgotten some of these forever had he not mentioned them on that early 70s evening.
His invitation to visit Fisher Island with him in the late 1980s. Having breakfast in the cafe, we ran into Bryant Gumbel, whom we only knew from sports news broadcasts, but who was right at home doing whatever he was doing on the island. Neither we nor Louis were anywhere near the per capita income levels of the inhabitants, yet Louis was right at home, unpretentious, loquacious, and helpful as always.
His invitation to go sailing with him when we had a one-day layover in Miami in 2001. There were 12 of us then plus a Great Pyrenees puppy. “Bring him on board! Plenty of room!” And so we did, along with Aunt Sarah who had prepared a paella that I can still taste, some 21 years later. We had a ball and the event was stamped on my children’s minds. And mine.
His telling us about Shake-A-Leg charity for children with disabilities, a work he thoroughly enjoyed and for which he was well suited as it combined sailing with working with children.
The last time we saw him was in late 2015, shortly before Aunt Sarah’s death. A small group of us had lunch together at a Cracker Barrel north of Miami. He had been as jovial as always but then suddenly turned to me, and to my astonishment, “Hey, Rick, I wasn’t too hard on you as we grew up, was I? I mean, do I owe you an apology?”
Stunned, I first looked at his face to see if this was a joke, but he was serious. Then I searched my mind and heart to try to remember if I had ever held anything against him. And nothing coming to mind I replied, “No, Louis. You’ve been a good friend and I am enjoying spending time with you today.”
He was content. And that incident said more to me about Cousin Louis than a well written and researched encomium could ever do, not least his childlike inquiry seeking to ensure all is well.
My second to last conversation with him took place about four weeks ago, shortly before Thanksgiving: “I look forward to coming to see you soon when I get out of here…how is Lillie? How are the children?” Over the phone, his voice was strong and energetic. But we both knew the condition was serious.
Then, about a week later, I called him to see if he was OK to have some of my children drop by to say hello as they were in the state. His voice was not as strong and he politely demurred, saying to visit in the clinic was a hassle and it was quite a bit out of their way. Of course, I fully understood and so did my sons and daughters. I wished him well and we agreed to speak again.
The last time I spoke with him, last night, he was unresponsive, but I agree with his sister, Cousin Vivian, who believes that one should assume a patient in such a condition can somehow hear. I spoke to him, assuring him of our prayers and love. And then I prayed with him. Later, Lillie and the children gathered around the phone to sing Silent Night as Vivian had the phone on speaker for him to listen.
My sadness cannot be compared with that of his surviving sisters, Janis and Vivian, and their husbands, Pete and Rick, and their children — Louis’ nieces and nephews — to all of whom I extend my deepest sympathies and love.
This is not an adiós but an hasta luego, for we sorrow not as others which have no hope (I Thess. 4:13).
All is well with you now, dear cousin. Rest in peace.
From left: Sarita Barnes, Janis Rodriguez, Eileen Barnes, Louis (Papito) Rodriguez, Max (Papaito) Barnes, Vivian Rodriguez
Louis (Papito) at left and Aunt Sarah, seated in front of him, along with Janis and Pete, Vivian and Rick and their children
Louis with Charles Barnes (2) and Lillian Barnes, Fisher Island, Florida, circa 1987
(Note: This post largely extracts a letter I wrote 22 years ago, which is even more relevant today)
We’ve heard it said that seeds planted in a given century come to fruition in the next. If so, it may be helpful to look at 19th century seeds which gave the 20th and the 21st (so far) centuries a harvest of depravity unknown to the first 1,800 years of the Christian calendar.
We begin (without seeking to offend our neo-Darwinian friends) with Darwin’s (1809-1882) On the Origin of Species, which purported to explain why some “races” are superior to others (this purpose, actually in its original subtitle, is rarely mentioned today, and new editions omit it. The full title is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life).
The book was published in 1859; its first 1,250 copies sold out overnight. It was not the common folks, but rather the intellectual elite, which bought it out and began to apply it, for it gave a patina of scientific support (emphasis on patina) to the ancient desire to divorce oneself from the claims of a Creator. Claims seen in political documents until then, such as the Declaration of Independence, which presupposed that we are created men and women with God-given (inalienable) rights. (The authors of the declaration knew pagan history; they knew the pagan idea of the eternity of matter and ascending circles of existence. This preceded Darwin by millennia. Yet, though knowing this, the Founding Fathers rejected it. They knew that inalienable rights could not be grounded on a la-la theory.)
Another 19th century seed, Karl Marx (1818-1883), first dedicated Das Kapital to Charles Darwin, who, in a rare fit of prudence, declined the honor. Darwin could never fully shake off his Christian heritage. His doubts pursued him to the grave. That was not the case with Marx. For more on this monster, known for “howling gigantic curses”, we would recommend Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals. For our purposes, suffice it to say that this seed reaped a more overt harvest than Darwin and Nietzsche (see below). Darwin and Nietzsche’s harvests are obvious to anyone who pauses but a moment. But to see Marx’s harvest doesn’t require a pause; it merely requires that one be sentient. His assertion that man is a mere economic animal fits nicely, as intended, with Darwin’s theory. In both, man is declared to be an animal.
The third seed, Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900), whose most famous work was Thus Spake Zarathustra, was grossly antichristian. His most salient ideas were a despising of the weak, the mediocre, and the altruistic. He exalted war and chaos as a stimulus for energy and the triumphant life. He was hostile to Christian morality. To him, each individual — not a transcendent Creator — defines his or her identity, not to mention morality. But he did preach a morality of the lords and a morality of the slaves. The former, a superior morality, is characterized by power and dominion; the latter, a weak morality, is characterized by compassion, humility, and patience. He died a madman.
We hardly need to comment on the 20th century harvest from these seeds. The thoughtful reader will recognize how the above philosophies prevail in today’s political and corporate life. As illustration, we will simply summarize that harvest in terms of a basic rule: the good tends to life; the evil tends to death. Clearly the harvest of the 20th century has tended to death. And the progress so far of the 21st has not abated that tendency much.
The following statistics are conservative estimates. More data continues to become available which reflects numbers far higher than these (for example, The Black Book of Communism, Mao: The Unknown Story, Hungry Ghosts, etc.). Nonetheless, the data below will suffice for our purposes. It declares the 20th century tale of deaths caused by deliberate state policy:
95.2 million deaths; 477 per 10,000 population — Communist states (international socialism)
20.3 million deaths; 495 per 10,000 population — Fascist states (national socialism)
3.1 million deaths; 48 per 10,000 population — Partially free
8 million deaths; 22 per 10,000 population — Free
The above figures exclude the 60 million estimated deaths caused by abortions since 1973 in the United States and their territories; the 35.7 million estimated deaths caused by 20th century wars; and the 15 million deaths caused by the state-sponsored Ukraine famine of the early 1930s. Be reminded: the first two state systems in the list above are/were atheistic, antichristian systems, whose first order of business was to suppress the Bible and the Christians. This is well documented and overt, but hardly ever stated in polite company. If the Spanish Inquisition of a few centuries back deserves censure, then surely the regimes alluded to above deserve opprobrium. But the public elite has never been known for consistency … or honesty.
The biggest characters (using that term deliberately) associated with the statistics above, were ALL disciples of the ideas of Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche.
Is there cause for optimism in the 21st century? Well, if evil seeds can be expected to germinate in subsequent centuries, then surely good seeds will do the same. On that basis, we can be cautiously optimistic, although the harvest may be more fully enjoyed by our children and grandchildren. We’ll mention only one such seed, but a most critical one: the great shift in education from a state sponsored function back to a father and mother duty.
This tectonic redirection was clearly seen in the latter part of the 20th century but was accelerated after the draconian measures imposed by most — though thankfully not all — “First World” governments since early 2020. These mandates — very few were formally passed into law by legitimate legislatures — ironically exposed the philosophies pushed by state education systems to horrified parents who promptly removed their children from government schools and either began to educate them at home or, at great financial sacrifice, in private religious schools.
This is a consequential shift back to first principles. We are already seeing some impact in that major universities are actively seeking home-educated children or at least those whose education has been closely overseen by their parents. In sharp contrast to the Zeitgeist since the mid-19th century, the late 20th and early 21st centuries mindset of many is that the child is on loan to the father and mother by God. And it is the family’s duty, not the state’s, to educate him or her. We are convinced this shift tends to life and, therefore, will result in a more compassionate and a more life-supporting and life-affirming 21st and 22nd centuries. May our children and grandchildren see that day!
Declaration of Independence, original (“engrossed copy”) on display in the National Archives
