at-painter-og-image.png


We have in our midst people who take Bill Clinton seriously — his history of criminal sexual predation, perjury, and corruption notwithstanding. But he was twice elected President, so there he was last week at the Brookings Institution, lecturing us on globalism.

He’s been thinking deep thoughts, and here is the sum of his wisdom, and his idea of globalism: “The whole history of the world is basically the definition of who is us, and who is them, and the question of whether we should all live under the same set of rules.” Further, he says, resurgent nationalism, “…living in an us and them world, will take us to the edge of destruction.” He’s being serious.

Self-identification is actually quite simple, but apparently a mystery to those who drink deeply from the waters at Davos, and who worship at the temple of Soros. For Trump and his “deplorables” the distinction between us and them is clear cut. “We” are Americans, and “they” are not. Americans identify as such, live in a country with borders, and have their own rules. If anyone else in the world wants to adopt our rules and way of life, they’re free to do so. If other nations have their own preferences, such as sharia law, that’s their business. Peaceful coexistence is possible if we all leave each other alone. Attempts to unite the world under one set of rules always fail, and are steeped in blood.

The followers of the Prophet Muhammad hate us for our rules, and would rather die than live under them. They live in a rigid patriarchal society, and we celebrate the equality of women. This is why in their eyes we are the Great Satan. Because at the heart of Islam is the absolute, life or death, authority of the husband over his family, and of men over women. This is the basis of their culture, their entire way of looking at the world. The family is the basic unit of a society, and a nation’s family values are its values. Moslems cannot tolerate the liberation of women. It would destroy their family structure, and their culture would collapse. So orders the Prophet, and disobedience is blasphemy.

In stark contrast, the full equality of women is found in countries like ours that embrace the Absolute Nuclear Family. (ANF) Tacitus was the first to describe it in the German tribes 2,000 years ago. The center piece of the ANF is a woman’s right to choose. Her body is her own. She can choose to give herself to a husband, or not. Here are the seeds of romantic love and chivalry. And after a woman does marry she is still not subject to anyone’s control. Her husband’s family has no authority over her, and she and her husband will not control their children when they marry. And she and her family owned their property as individuals, not as part of any group, and are free to dispose if it as they choose. It’s a culture of liberty, private property, and women’s rights. The three go hand in hand.

These are The Origins of English Individualism, as described by British historian and sociologist Alan Macfarlane. Reluctantly, he agrees with this quote from Montesquieu, “In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed their idea of political government. This beautiful system was invented in the woods.” Because the English had taken the ANF from their Anglo-Saxon ancestors, their women were free to choose. In most of the world close to 100% of women married, but English women could choose to marry for love, and as a result, 10-20% of them never married, and those that did married late. Marriage at 25 was the norm.

This is the family structure that came to Jamestown and Plymouth, and it is ours today. It is responsible for our success in populating this continent. Because, in an ANF, society, each married couple was expected to set up their own household, apart and independent from their parents. This is difficult in settled societies, but it was easy in early America. There was land everywhere, and these colonial families averaged nine or ten children, knowing that there would be new lands for them to settle. America and the Absolute Nuclear Family were made for each other.

But it’s not for everybody, it’s incompatible with Islam, and the world would be a lot better off if fools like Bill Clinton didn’t go around telling everyone we’ve all got to live by the same set of rules.

Fritz Pettyjohn is a former Alaska State Legislator who blogs daily at ReaganProject.com in support of Article V and a Balanced Budget Amendment

We have in our midst people who take Bill Clinton seriously — his history of criminal sexual predation, perjury, and corruption notwithstanding. But he was twice elected President, so there he was last week at the Brookings Institution, lecturing us on globalism.

He’s been thinking deep thoughts, and here is the sum of his wisdom, and his idea of globalism: “The whole history of the world is basically the definition of who is us, and who is them, and the question of whether we should all live under the same set of rules.” Further, he says, resurgent nationalism, “…living in an us and them world, will take us to the edge of destruction.” He’s being serious.

Self-identification is actually quite simple, but apparently a mystery to those who drink deeply from the waters at Davos, and who worship at the temple of Soros. For Trump and his “deplorables” the distinction between us and them is clear cut. “We” are Americans, and “they” are not. Americans identify as such, live in a country with borders, and have their own rules. If anyone else in the world wants to adopt our rules and way of life, they’re free to do so. If other nations have their own preferences, such as sharia law, that’s their business. Peaceful coexistence is possible if we all leave each other alone. Attempts to unite the world under one set of rules always fail, and are steeped in blood.

The followers of the Prophet Muhammad hate us for our rules, and would rather die than live under them. They live in a rigid patriarchal society, and we celebrate the equality of women. This is why in their eyes we are the Great Satan. Because at the heart of Islam is the absolute, life or death, authority of the husband over his family, and of men over women. This is the basis of their culture, their entire way of looking at the world. The family is the basic unit of a society, and a nation’s family values are its values. Moslems cannot tolerate the liberation of women. It would destroy their family structure, and their culture would collapse. So orders the Prophet, and disobedience is blasphemy.

In stark contrast, the full equality of women is found in countries like ours that embrace the Absolute Nuclear Family. (ANF) Tacitus was the first to describe it in the German tribes 2,000 years ago. The center piece of the ANF is a woman’s right to choose. Her body is her own. She can choose to give herself to a husband, or not. Here are the seeds of romantic love and chivalry. And after a woman does marry she is still not subject to anyone’s control. Her husband’s family has no authority over her, and she and her husband will not control their children when they marry. And she and her family owned their property as individuals, not as part of any group, and are free to dispose if it as they choose. It’s a culture of liberty, private property, and women’s rights. The three go hand in hand.

These are The Origins of English Individualism, as described by British historian and sociologist Alan Macfarlane. Reluctantly, he agrees with this quote from Montesquieu, “In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed their idea of political government. This beautiful system was invented in the woods.” Because the English had taken the ANF from their Anglo-Saxon ancestors, their women were free to choose. In most of the world close to 100% of women married, but English women could choose to marry for love, and as a result, 10-20% of them never married, and those that did married late. Marriage at 25 was the norm.

This is the family structure that came to Jamestown and Plymouth, and it is ours today. It is responsible for our success in populating this continent. Because, in an ANF, society, each married couple was expected to set up their own household, apart and independent from their parents. This is difficult in settled societies, but it was easy in early America. There was land everywhere, and these colonial families averaged nine or ten children, knowing that there would be new lands for them to settle. America and the Absolute Nuclear Family were made for each other.

But it’s not for everybody, it’s incompatible with Islam, and the world would be a lot better off if fools like Bill Clinton didn’t go around telling everyone we’ve all got to live by the same set of rules.

Fritz Pettyjohn is a former Alaska State Legislator who blogs daily at ReaganProject.com in support of Article V and a Balanced Budget Amendment



Source link

About the Author:

Leave a Reply


Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 8333 bytes) in /home/conserv/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1842