A man’s home is his castle – Chesterton on home ownership

I’m not posting this quote to defend the over-subsidization of housing. I merely point out that hanging out in bars, drinking to excess, cheating on your spouse, and/or acting as if you are “free” is only more evidence that you are enslaved by your desires – not liberated by your autonomy.

Of all modern notions, the worst is this: that domesticity is dull. Inside the home, they say, is dead decorum and routine; outside is adventure and variety. But the truth is that the home is the only place of liberty, the only spot on earth where a man can alter arrangements suddenly, make an experiment or indulge in a whim. The home is not the one tame place in a world of adventure; it is the one wild place in a world of rules and set tasks.

G.K. Chesterton

I’m going to stop blogging and have a glass of wine with my wife.

G.K Chesterton on Obama’s negotiation skills

You gotta admit, this describes our President at nearly every turn.

Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf; is better than a whole loaf.

G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton on America (again)

The historic glory of America lies in the fact that it is the one nation that was founded like a church. That is, it was founded on a faith that was not merely summed up after it had existed, but was defined before it existed.
- G. K. Chesterton

I leave it to you draw your own conclusions about the difference between a nation founded on a faith, rather than a race, or geography, or what not. As Reagan said, “You can live in Japan for decades, but never become Japanese. … Anyone can become an American.”

Take some time to contemplate the implications…

G.K Chesterton on Sarah Palin’s notes

There is no such thing on earth as an uninteresting subject; the only thing that can exist is an uninterested person.
G. K. Chesterton, Heretics (1905)

How uninterested do you have to be to not know in your heart the “1st 3 things you would do as President” with out checking your notes for back up.

Chesterton explains why Tyrannies must destroy the family

Thence arises the necessity for some prolonged system of co-operation; and thence arises the family in its full educational sense.

It may be said that this institution of the home is the one anarchist institution.That is to say, it is older than law, and stands outside the State. By its nature it is refreshed or corrupted by indefinable forces of custom or kinship. This is not to be understood as meaning that the State has no authority over families; that State authority is invoked and ought to be invoked in many abnormal cases. But in most normal cases of family joys and sorrows, the State has no mode of entry. It is not so much that the law should not interfere, as that the law cannot. Just as there are fields too far off for law, so there are fields too near; as a man may see the North Pole before he sees his own backbone. Small and near matters escape control at least as much as vast and remote ones; and the real pains and pleasures of the family form a strong instance of this. If a baby cries for the moon, the policeman cannot procure the moon—but neither can he stop the baby. Creatures so close to each other as husband and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy or miserable with which no public coercion can deal. If a marriage could be dissolved every morning it would not give back his night’s rest to a man kept awake by a curtain lecture; and what is the good of giving a man a lot of power where he only wants a little peace? The child must depend on the most imperfect mother; the mother may be devoted to the most unworthy children; in such relations legal revenges are vain. Even in the abnormal cases where the law may operate, this difficulty is constantly found; as many a bewildered magistrate knows. He has to save children from starvation by taking away their breadwinner. And he often has to break a wife’s heart because her husband has already broken her head. The State has no tool delicate enough to deracinate the rooted habits and tangled affections of the family; the two sexes, whether happy or unhappy, are glued together too tightly for us to get the blade of a legal penknife in between them. The man and the woman are one flesh—yes, even when they are not one spirit. Man is a quadruped. Upon this ancient and anarchic intimacy, types of government have little or no effect; it is happy or unhappy, by its own sexual wholesomeness and genial habit, under the republic of Switzerland or the despotism of Siam. Even a republic in Siam would not have done much towards freeing the Siamese Twins.

When you consider how important the functioning family is to culture, you can see how the state benefits from undermining the “family” as a unit. Hence the need to create as many “abnormal” situations as possible.

Back to G.K Chesterton

I’ve been very busy the last few weeks helping Adam Andrzejewski in the Governor’s race. That’s one reason I haven’t been posting that much. That’s also the reason I’ve been remiss in posting a daily G.K Chesterton “Quote of the Day.”

Let’s see if I can keep up that practice.
____

* The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.
o GK Chesterton – Illustrated London News (1924)

It’s too bad no one has developed a workable theory of “Progressive Conservatisim.” It would be akin to destroying every “Progressive” mistake (collectivism, bureaucracy, forced equality, public sector greed), while using enduring principles (10 Commandments and 10 Amendments) to build on positive “progressive” successes (citizen empowerment, individual autonomy, etc.).

Conservatives do themselves NO FAVORS by “conserving” bad ideas or fighting good ideas because they represent “change.” Sometimes the most conservative thing you can do is aggressively attack and destroy an entrenched bad idea. The absurd idiocracy of the “school district” comes to mind, but that is only one example.

Chesterton on “Going with the Flow”

“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” – G.K. Chesterton, Everlasting Man, 1925

This goes along with my favorite U2 lyric…

I heard a singer on the radio late last night,
said he’d going to kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight.”

G.K. Chesterton on the 2 Parties/2 Ideologies

I just finished reading Chesterton’s “What’s wrong with the world” on my Amazon Kindle. The book is so full of keen insights and enduring truths that you don’t really notice he’s writing about the early 1900s. The whole book can be read here for free.

Early in the book, he introduces us to two archetypal characters – Hudge and Gudge. One represents a Business mindset and the other a Socialist one. One can easily recognize that today’s contemporaries easily fit in a similar ideological framework.

Toward the end of the book, he revisits these two archetypes, with the following suspicions…

And now, as this book is drawing to a close, I will whisper in the reader’s ear a horrible suspicion that has sometimes haunted me: the suspicion that Hudge and Gudge are secretly in partnership. That the quarrel they keep up in public is very much of a put-up job, and that the way in which they perpetually play into each other’s hands is not an everlasting coincidence. Gudge, the plutocrat, wants an anarchic industrialism; Hudge, the idealist, provides him with lyric praises of anarchy.

Above all, Gudge rules by a coarse and cruel system of sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil which is totally inconsistent with the free family and which is bound to destroy it; therefore Hudge, stretching out his arms to the universe with a prophetic smile, tells us that the family is something that we shall soon gloriously outgrow.

I do not know whether the partnership of Hudge and Gudge is conscious or unconscious. I only know that between them they still keep the common man homeless.

I believe the time has come to move away from the political party system. I’m probably hopelessly idealistic in working toward this goal, as there seems to be a natural social gravitation toward political bi-polarity. I will work toward it anyway.

The existence of a natural bi-polarity doesn’t mean that we need to keep these two parties, nor that we need parties at all. The bipolarity is merely a function of the constant struggle between Freedom and Security. We can, and should, have that debate without the mentally and socially retarding influences of the now wholly counter-productive Democrat/Republican Hegemony.

There are millions of decent Democrats and Republicans, some even occupying an elected office. Sadly, the parties have become co-opted by corrupt influences (See Goldman Sacks, FNMA, Disney, Banks, Unions).

Our founding fathers thought that the competing “factions” would provide “checks and balances” on each other. That may have been true up to a point, but it is breaking down. The level of wealth and power created by billions of free people has allowed for the concentration of that massive wealth and power. The “competing factions” now realize that they can conspire with each other, as long as they dis-empower the individual and the family, and prevent the rise of political competition.

If Chesterton was right (and I think he was), then it is time to destroy the party system. Any ideas on where to start?

This one fits

I can’t find much to disagree with here.

I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936)

G.K. Chesterton on Conservatism

If you ever needed a reminder that you actually have to be active in your “conserving” what is good, the quote below will be helpful.

All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. G.K. Chesterton

As clearly demonstrated by the current headlines, our ideals are under attack by this “torrent of change.” It will require hard work, and “non-conservative” methods to conserve what is good about our society.