Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Impropriety at Palo Duro

by David Yeagley · July 6, 2010 · 73 Comments ·

What’s wrong with this picture?

Members of the Texas Apostolic Prayer Network (TXAPAN) kneel before Comanche Nation chairman Michael Burgess and two other Comanches, and “apologize” for a “battle” at Palo Duro Canyon in 1874.

This story was told on the front page of the Comanche Nation News, June edition, 2010. The dramatic prayer incident took place this past April 23 and 24. To my knowledge, this event was not advertised among the Comanche people, nor was there any general invitation given. The June edition in the Comanche paper is the first I knew of it. I know I’m not the only Comanche that was unaware of it.

This event is ironic, the history dubious, and, in my opinion, the incident somewhat egregious. With all due respect for my beloved Comanche people and our leaders, I beg to differ with the idea that anyone owes Comanches an apology, or that Comanches need to offer forgiveness to anyone. Indeed, if Comanches accept apologies from anyone, then Comanches need to go and offer their apologies to the Apache, the Spanish, and the Texans. After all, Comanches were the aggressor–first toward other Indians, then toward the Spanish and Mexican population, in Mexico and in Texas. That the white Texans should finally out-gun and out-number the Comanche is no reason for the Texans to apologize. And Comanches certainly owe the Texans no apology. The Comanches were themselves invaders of the territory occupied by others. Then Comanches became victims of invasion.

Of a truth, Comanches should go down to Mexico, arrange a meeting with President Felipe Calderon, and kneel before him, confessing their brutal, savage abuse of Mexican people, and pray to God for forgiveness, from heaven and from the Mexican people.

Señor Felipe Calderon, el Presidente de Mexico.

But, what we have here in Palo Duro is an attempt of Christians to be graphic about their spiritual values. The reality of their faith is something they want emblazoned in the minds of the public. No, I don’t think they’re insincere, but I do think they’re melodramatic. This gesture is a fine piece of public relations, but, it is, in my opinion, historically and ethically mistaken, if theologically reasonable. It is effectually superficial, if based on a sincere attempt to manifest spiritual values in a sociological way. I’m afraid it smacks of liberalism, of reparations, of “historical justice” (if but in gesture), and really has no function beyond the intent of good will. It is not in fact about justice. It is completely off the mark.

As the news story relates, there were other tribes involved in the 1874 Palo Duro battle. This is indeed news to me, and probably to a lot of honest, informed Comanches. Apache, Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho were included in the apostolic church round up. It was a “First Nations” gathering by white Christian manoeuverers. But the Comanche story of Palo Duro does not involved any other tribes. It was an effort of Col. Ranald McKenzie to coerce the last of the free Comanches to surrender and come to Ft. Sill with the rest of the Comanches. The news story in the Comanche paper does not mention the involvement of any other tribes in that 1874 affair. And southwestern plains Indians don’t use the term “First Nations.” This is a hep, Canadian liberal term for all indigenous people of the Americas. It’s part of that anti-white racist approach to Indians, which deems all indigenous people of the Americas equal to the grandeur of the American Indian, on a par with the honor of the Comanche. Personally, I’ll have none of it. No one belongs with the Comanche. And no other people should ever be associated with the American Indian. This is ethnic robbery. It is the denigration of Indian honor, and something liberals and Democrats continually seek, despite their professions of apology and forgiveness. Liberal “equality” degrades the American Indian, every time, and particularly the Comanche.

The fact is, most Indians, certainly the Indian leaders, among the southern plains tribes, are all Christian. It is a reservation tradition. Christianity is valued among Indians. I know that our Comanche people were at the April impropriety simply because they are Christian, and they would never work against other Christians–especially when those Texas Christians were trying to manifest some sort of Christian faith and principle toward other Christians whom they believe were terribly wronged. (Of course, Comanche certainly weren’t Christian at the time these “wrongs” were committed.) This is all perfectly appropriate, for the sake of Christian love and brotherhood.

But, it is inevitably superficial and meaningless. It is no more than a gesture. There is no righting of wrongs, even if the wrongs are positively identifiable–which, in this case, they are not. A cultural car wreck, such as the encounter of the white man with the Indian, is not something that any post-accident governmental ‘insurance’ policy can remedy. The crooked cannot be made straight. The old Indian way of life is gone forever.

What happened at the April impropriety at Palo Duro was simply a staged expression of the fact that people are ineffably awed by the ironies of history. Christian people feel compelled to address wrong, in a Christian way. It is a peculiar aspect of modern Christianity to venture into historical wrongs, however, and to feel an obligation to make today some marked expression about history. I say, however, that Christianity is best served on a personal basis, in the present, and not a national basis, not regarding irredeemable history. Jesus did say, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). I don’t know that national, political, or racial expression of right and wrong, apology and forgiveness, reparation and justice, are anything effective or useful except as the expression of good will. That can never be a bad thing to do, in and of itself.

I think that the Comanches who were at Palo Duro in April were there because they were invited, because they were acknowledged in an unusual way, and because, above all, they felt obligated to show respect to other Christians. This was for the Texas Christians, not really for the Comanches.

However, I say, again, because this present Comanche administration was willing to accept apology from white Texas Christians on bended knee, before the God of heaven, in the name of Christ, Comanches must now make a call to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and arrange for a public ceremony in Mexico, in say, Zecatecas, south of Coahuila; Comanches, the very ones present in Palo Duro in April, must publicly bow, on camera, before the Mexican government and the Mexican people, and on bended knee offer apology and beg for forgiveness for every Mexican the Comanches plundered, butchered, and raped.

This is the path created by April impropriety, and it must be followed.

This Palo Duro Christian gesture was on the front page of Comanche Nation News. Though I don’t see that it was advertised, or that all Comanche people were invited, it is presented to us as something our people were presumed to have approved. I for one would not have approved on any wise. As a Comanche, I can think of nothing more denigrated and distorting to the psyche than to sanction the dramtic public gesture of apology from those who do not owe us an apology! I know that our people, our elders, are all Christian. I know that they may see this April impropriety as a wonderful, healing event. As I said, they were there because they are honoring the Christian fellowship. This is of course a righteous thing. (Perhaps they are more righteous than I.)

I’m saying that, if the Comanche people honor this April event, then the Comanche people must apologize to Mexico. That’s the truth. And Comanche people must first apologize to the Apache!

This is the logical extention of the April impropriety at Palo Duro. Will Comanche people do this? Will the elders initiate such a dramatic gesture? They accepted such a gesture. Are they not obligated to make the same?

Personally, I say no one owes an apology to the Comanche. That insults our pride and honor. If we accept any such apology, then we owe apology to those whom we wronged. Then we’re not exactly Comanche anymore.

Posted by David Yeagley · July 6, 2010 · 10:10 am CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · Bad Eagle Journal · Christianity · Liberalism · Politics · Race · Religion · White Race

Read More Journal Posts »

73 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 11:57 am   

    On a similar note, Black Journalist Elizabeth Wright, a Christian woman, writes:

    “Racism is not “sin”

    Over the years, as whites have worked to defend themselves against the charge of “racism,” they have validated this slur by giving it greater importance than it deserves, and thereby helped to institutionalize it as the world’s greatest “sin.” As to genuine sin, harboring negative thoughts concerning some group is much further down the list of human deficiencies than bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Hamburg, or hacking to death with machetes the men, women and children of an enemy tribe. Now, those are sins! Seeking to force “diversity” down the throats of an unreceptive segment of society is the religious mission of rabid, agenda-driven ideologues. None of this apparent concern for “social justice” has ever been about virtue. It’s about power.

    It’s About Power

  • 2 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm   

    Hey! While searching for Elizabeth Wright’s website for a very similar piece on Whites apologizing for slavery (which I’ve yet to find), in which she asked, “What is wrong with these people?” — I found that she has shared an excellent article by Dr. Yeagley that I had not seen before!

    When White Men and Indians Were Warriors

  • 3 Pamela K. // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm   

    Sounds like those sincere Texas Christians are operating in the spirit of false guilt. This is a very common trend, especially in nondenominational or “independent’ churches. I remember attending a church (briefly) that believed in this practice called deliverance. I was told I had to renounce abortion. I never had an abortion! I would never have an abortion or encourage someone else to have an abortion. So, why should I have to renounce abortion?
    A few years ago, the state of New Jersey asked the black population here for forgiveness for being the last northern state to outlaw slavery. It’s really ridiculous! Instead of focusing on important issues like lowering our property taxes, they want to be forgiven for something that happened here over 100 years ago! Most black folks originally came here from down South, but they certainly were not slaves here and neither were their ancestors, It is definitely a liberal notion, this ‘asking forgiveness’ as an attempt to right the wrongs of past injustices, real and imagined, and so is this tendency to meddle with the past. This thing about the Indian tribes in Palo Duro Canyon sounds suspicious. Palo Duro Canyon was a sacred place to the Comanches. It still is today.The Apaches were sworn enemies of the Comanches so I doubt they would even let them come there let alone fight side by side with them.
    I think Quanah Parker met his match in Ranald MacKenzie because not only were both of them formidable warriors, but I think MacKenzie might have been a descendant of the same Highlland clans that produced William “Braveheart Wallace. No revisionist history here, just my own opinion!

  • 4 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:26 pm   

    Please don’t bring up blacks when we’re talking about Indians!!!

    Why to whites ALWAYS do that???

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm   

    Okay, just had to say that.

    Now, I appreciate the Christian idea of forgiveness. That’s what makes us different from demons. And maybe animals.

    But, it is a mysterious thing, really. I don’t know how it can be more than personal. Yet, looking at scripture, God holds nations responsible for behavior towards other nations–at least toward Israel. It can’t be wrong, to think in terms of one people forgiving or apologizing to another.

    I just don’t think it makes sense, though. You can’t unravel history. So, what’s the real point?

  • 6 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:53 pm   

    You’re right! Sorry! Facile association of ideas.

    It’s the question of collective guilt that’s on my mind.

    I just don’t believe in the concept of collective guilt–especially over historical grievances.

    War is in the human heart. Human beings and ants are the only two creatures I know of that go to war. War is a state of mind that arises from patriotic feelings. The enemy is an abstraction to some degree. It’s not really about personal enmity — anger directed at a specific individual.

    Understanding the psychology of war is required here.

    I have never know a white person who hated the American Indian. Such persons may exist. However, I’ve never personally heard anyone voicing this sentiment.

    I suppose if we search the Internet, we might find such thoughts expressed somewhere. But it would probably be something related to someone’s family history, found in a blog. It would be no different, really, than a Southerner hating the Yankee who injured his great-grandfather or his family in the American Civil War.

    It makes no sense to me, personally, for Whites or Indians to apologize for human nature! After all, we two nations do not instinctively hate one another. We’re not born with that kind of “patriotic” hatred.

    Did not the Pilgrims and the first Indians they encountered begin with friendly relations. Did not the Indians help the Pilgrims of the Mayflower survive that first winter? Pardon my ignorance if there was instantaneous warfare then, as I’ve never heard of it.

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm   

    “And in those times [there was] no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations [were] upon all the inhabitants of the countries.

    And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them with all adversity.” — 2 Chronicles, chapter 15.

    In reading the Bible, it seems to me that God himself uses warfare and even plays an active part in arousing its spirit.

    This does not mean that war is good or that men should agitate for it. But it’s part of the mystery of the Bible’s teachings, nonetheless. The fate of nations! It seems to me that the God of the Bible is interested in that.

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm   

    Propaganda is also a factor in warring nations. It is doubtful that true war could arise without propaganda. Then there’s the desire for land or other wealth or possessions that another people have. For the tyrant, it’s a desire for power and glory. The psychology of all this needs to be reckoned with.

    The U.S. just went to war in Iraq without just cause. Lies and propaganda were used to arouse the spirit of enmity. Indeed, the average American citizen was not for that war.

    There’s no need for anyone to feel personally guilty about the wars of the past. The public mind can be incited by propaganda, whether there’s truth in it or not. It’s always a distortion of the past. And what’s past is beyond fixing.

    Better to focus on the present!

  • 9 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm   

    Professor of psychology, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, likes to study “in-group, out-group” behaviors and attitudes.

    For someone today to approach the members of another nation and apologize for the events of the past means that he must have a very powerful sense of identification with his in-group and see himself as its embodiment.

    Taking upon oneself an identification with the deeds of another smacks of an inversion of arrogance.

    I could not personally apologize to Indians for the unfortunate cruel wartime deeds of past generations, as I do not embody or even truly represent those persons involved. As I personally played no part in these events, how can I possibly assume responsibility for them?

    There’s something amiss in acting as personal representative or “ambassador of peace” of persons now dead and who, therefore, cannot give assent to such representation.

  • 10 Pamela K. // Jul 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm   

    “Please don’t bring up blacks when mentioning Indians.”
    No offense intended! However, and I am sure you will disagree with me and even think that may be I am an idiot or possibly even a liberal idiot,, but I think that if black people were educated to know their right history and all the contributions their people have made to America, they would not be so antagonistic towards whites and they would not have been moved through emotions to elect Barack Obama to the highest office in the land. He is definitely not one of them, but he does know how to play the race card quite well. Real Black History in America has been widely and deliberately ignored and altered by white liberals and white conservatives alike.
    Black and white liberals have used the slavery issue and the Jim Crow-era South and the fight for equality, etc. to keep reminding blacks how much whitey owes them and this attitude has been ingrained into the minds of generations of blacks. As a result we have a highly negative and resentful as well as unproductive black population in America always looking for a handout or some sort of recognition, like the slavery apology in New Jersey, instead of people having a healthy sense of pride and respect and the earnest desire to want to contribute positively to American society.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:02 pm   

    I remember in high school (a thousand years ago) some liberal young “intellectual” that said racial pride is what causes wars. Patriotism, nationalism, is the foundation for conflict.

    That’s like saying self-preservation cause group annihilation.

    It appears that God uses separate test tubes, that’s all. Whatever the arguments are, for or against race, ethnicity, and nationhood, the fact is, whatever these things represent, they are preserved in eternity–where there is no death, sin, or remorse. Rev. 21:24: 22:2.

    Nationality doesn’t cause war. Sin causes war. Sin, in heart, caused Cain to kill Abel. There was no other cause.

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm   

    “Nationality doesn’t cause war. Sin causes war. Sin, in heart, caused Cain to kill Abel. There was no other cause.”

    Amen! Perfectly stated!

    You know, King David, in the Old Testament, was a man of war. This meant that he wasn’t holy enough to authorize the building of the Temple. Nevertheless, he as a “man after God’s own heart.” Remarkable! God loved King David, the warrior! God does not condemn war wholesale in the Bible. Scripture merely states that peace is superior to war and is the ultimate destiny of the surviving nations.

    Shocking as it may seem to modern sentimental Christians, God actually participates in evil in some mysterious way. I heard a Roman Catholic priest say this: this is not my original idea. But the obvious fact that God sees fit to use wars to accomplish his Will in World History makes God somehow a participant. God allows human nature to remain as it is. After all, the very limited human intellect is not capable of arriving at total truth.

    The past is no longer real. In the subconscious mind of man, the past always seems real;.it seems to be a reality yet today. But this is pure illusion! On the conscious level, we know this is illusion. This helps explain why, in Eternity, “there is no death, sin, or remorse.” These things simply cannot exist in that mysterious dimension, because Eternity is the eternal NOW.

    The past is not real; it no longer exists.The present is all we truly have. We can only work “in the effective” with present realities. Thus apologies for the deeds of the dead can never be more than symbolic gestures.

  • 13 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm   

    And yet, “God requireth that which is past.” Ecc. 3:15.

    Our deeds, for which we are responsible, are in fact in the past.

    It’s just that we can’t correct them! We ask for God’s mercy, and forgiveness. Nations can’t change anything in the past. It is God from whom we must ask forgiveness, if we wrong someone, or believe we have wrong them.

    Honestly, I’m hoping (and thinking) that’s what at least some of the Comanches were doing there at Palo Duro in April. Just allowing Christian brothers to say what they felt they needed to say, before God and man.

    I think the Comanches were just showing respect for Christian brothers.

    Personally, I would not have allowed or accepted such an apology, because, in my opinion, it was just wholly inappropriate. And, again, it means Comanches must go to Mexico and apologize to Felipe Calderon!

    I think probably some Comanches who attended were there because they thought it was an honor. They don’t see the bigger picture–that it was an incredible humiliation and denigration of Comanche history. It made us into something we weren’t! There are some Comanche people who are not well educated in history, and just don’t see the larger picture.

  • 14 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm   

    Ezekiel tells that that we can give again that which we had robbed. 33:14-16. We can make restitution. But, that’s on a personal, living, present basis. Unless those pentecostals out there robbed Comanches last week, there is no reason for them to apologize to Comanches now.

    And Comanches can never make right our terrorism on Mexicans in the past. There were many village genocides. What would be the point of apologizing?

    But none of this was about hate.

    The German thing against the Jews–that was about hate. Or, that involved hate. I think.

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 3:02 pm   

    Ecc. 3:15 is an interesting verse. I have tried to search out its meaning. It’s a deep verse, it seems.

    One commentary, Jamieson-Faucett-Brown, gives this:

    “15. Resumption of Ec 1:9. Whatever changes there be, the succession of events is ordered by God’s “everlasting” laws (Ec 3:14), and returns in a fixed cycle.

    requireth that . past-After many changes, God’s law requires the return of the same cycle of events, as in the past, literally, “that which is driven on.” The Septuagint and Syriac translate: “God requireth (that is, avengeth) the persecuted man”; a transition to Ec 3:16, 17. The parallel clauses of the verse support English Version.”

    This “cycle of events” would be an exact parallel to the ancient Chinese idea of eternal fixed cycles of Yin and Yang. The past returns in kind or nature or quality — but not in absolute perfect identity.

    But also, the verse seems to mean that God demands an account for past deeds.

    The past does live on in the present, but in the sense of the unfoldment of things and processes. Everything that now is has its seeds in the past, and could not be except for them.

    Psychologically, though, the Past seems like a motion picture. We know that what’s on that screen is only an illusion, but part of our mind (the subconscious) believes it to be real and truth. Otherwise, how could a story shown in a movie call forth an emotional response?

    Present conditions are certainly the results or fruits of past events; but those events themselves are no more–there’s nothing we can do about them. All we can do is manage the present, and that includes the living results born of past actions.

  • 16 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 5:46 pm   

    There is an interesting, sometimes humorous (satyrical) comment thread going on FreeRepublic. They take this article for what it’s worth, too.

    Maybe we’re a little too somber sometimes, with all the theology.

    All I can say is, I get my cues from on nationhood from the Bible.

    But the fact is, Comanche prowess was never based on numbers, but skills. Numbers are cheap. Mindless baby making can produce that advantage. But, if no one has any skills, numbers is a liability, not an advantage.

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:35 pm   

    The folks on FreeRepublic are right to point out the uselessness of apologizing on behalf of the dead. That church group had good intentions, no doubt; but what they did was seen in its proper light on FreeRepublic!

    And for a satirical comment of my own! I often wonder why God does not get tired of making human beings! He’s made billions by now! Yet the results are not improving! Is the human race really becoming wiser over the centuries?!

    Sometimes I think the Glenn Gould (himself somewhat satirical :)) was right! Animals often have more sense than some of us humans!

    Glenn Gould on Animals.

  • 18 Thrasymachus // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:38 pm   

    “But, if no one has any skills, numbers is a liability, not an advantage.”

    This is why I’ve been quite the fan of Bruce Lee!

    Green Hornet Fight Scene.

  • 19 Pamela K. // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:34 pm   

    “But none of this is about hate” Could have fooled me! I’ve come to the grim and disappointing conclusion that this website is all about excuses to hate, and not only that, Scripture quoted out of context to justify your hate, not to mention belitting the remarks of someone like me with a lofty air of bemused condescension. I thought you were a different person than the one you have revealed yourself to be tonight on your website. However, I’m sure you will be happy and relieved to know that I won’t be annoying you any further with my stupid comments or offending you with videos of truly noble Americans ever again.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:17 pm   

    Well, just remember that I’m capable of being offended, too. It’s rare, but, I occasionally make radical moves on my site. Not with the intend of offending, of course, but as some kind of protest or defense, I’m sure.

    Your comments are never annoying, nor stupid. Quite to the contrary.

    Suppongo noi entrambi sono un pezzetto troppo drammatico. You think? (Maybe we’re both a little too dramatic.)

  • 21 David Yeagley // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:19 pm   

    Thras, what animals have is not sense, but the inability to read into things!

  • 22 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:19 am   

    “Thras, what animals have is not sense, but the inability to read into things!”

    Quite so!

  • 23 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 4:27 am   

    “The German thing against the Jews–that was about hate. Or, that involved hate. I think.”

    According to some, Hitler believed that Germany had actually won WWI and then World Jewry brought the U.S. into the Great War and thus betrayed Germany and brought about her defeat.

  • 24 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:40 am   

    It was the big Jewish banking houses in Germany that funded the Nazi war machine and sold their own people out to be killed by financing Hitler’s warped Aryan policies.
    Der Fuehrer was determine to have a master race of Aryans even if he had to “create” them by actually paying women from Scandinavian countries to come to Germany to be impregnated by German men. Evidence of this master breeding experiment came to light when the war ended and the advancing allies found hospitals full of beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed children and babies left abandoned by their mothers who had fled in order to escape possible prosecution. Several years ago, there was a whole program about these ‘breeding hospitals’ on either my local PBS station or the History Channel. And then, there was Dr. Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz who wanted to clone people. He actually knew how it had to be done, however, thank God he did not have the right medical technology available to him at that time to succeed in his experiments Unfortunately there is a new crop of Mengeles running around loose on the earth right now who claim they have cloned, among other things, humans with other animals and other monstrosities. I don’t know if their claims are credible, but the mere fact that cloning, which was an experiment found only in science fiction novels about twenty years ago, is now a reality in our world, is both fascinating and frightening in itself.

  • 25 David Yeagley // Jul 7, 2010 at 9:17 am   

    Maybe a 114 years ago! H. G. Wells, The Island of Dr. Moreau, 1896. And in a sense, probably thousands of years ago. Werewolves. Babylonian lion bodies with men’s heads. Even American Indian medicine men, putting on animal heads, feathers, etc.

    The thought of combining man and animal seems some crazy, natural propensity.

    And what about that strange situtation where doctors put a baby baboon heart in a human infant who would otherwise quickly die? Baby Fae, 1984.

    Ah, who knows what drives the mind of man? The compulsion to explore, the quest for power? Isn’t probably just a desire to be at least like his Creator? After all, man was made in His image.

    Of course, the last person who tried to be “like” God became the lowest form of life in universal history. The light bearer.

    So then the question becomes, in what way to we seek our Creator? To what end? For what cause?

  • 26 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:12 am   

    “So then the question becomes, in what way to we seek our Creator? To what end? For what cause?”

    Of course, Hitler’s idea of a master race came from Nietzsche, an atheist.

    I have no interest in “master race” fantasies or in attempts to become superhuman.

    What the Christian seeks with his Creator is the restoration of a broken relationship and the immortality that can be his in the next world. There cannot be any fundamental improvement of this world — THAT according to Hinduism — as the improvement of this world is not Man’s purpose, and, above all, not the World’s purpose. Man’s chief purpose (on the individual level) in earthly life is the spiritual endeavor–building spiritual strength.

    However, knowledge of science and medicine and the Fine Arts, etc., so as to make life healthier, is also beneficial. We do not want to return to the Dark Ages.

    To be reunited spiritually with the Lord of the Universe is the chief end of Man. If personal death ends all, then life, with all its struggles and confusion and pain, really is not something worthwhile for Man.

    Those without religious faith in the hereafter, are hoping for an earthly paradise — at least many of them. Failing this, they think, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow ye die.”

    If I KNEW that death ended all, then I’d want to arrange my own (never someone else’s) — euthanasia — because I can make no sense of a suffering which can only end in death, and I’d rather rest in peace than endure a prolonged death-agony. However, I do not think that religion is false. I believe that the essential Man — the person within — survives bodily death.

  • 27 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:24 am   

    The Liberal’s philosophy that the purpose of human life is to “have FUN!” (sports, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll / entertainment in various forms) is not sufficient for me. Emotional upheaval is never one-sided. For every joy there is a corresponding sorrow. I want to transcend this! The goal of religion is to transcend the constant and unrelenting up-and-down tug-of-war of human emotional life.

    At some point, I’d like to post online some of Eleanor Roosevelt’s — and other Liberal’s — thoughts, to illustrate as much of the Liberal’s thinking as possible. The basis of Liberalism — Humanism (Wikipedia) — is a belief limited to the natural,temporal, earthly realm and a denial of religion. To illustrate the attitude of the liberal humanist, here are the words of one, Kurt Vonnegut:

    “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.”

    For many Liberals, politics IS their religion — their basic life philosophy — made explicitly so in communism.

  • 28 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:35 am   



    Contemporary Humanism entails a qualified optimism about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help. If anything, there is recognition that living up to one’s potential is hard work and requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world a better place for those who come after.”

    This (from the Wikipedia article) is the basic modern liberal view of life.

    Hinduism — claims to be the world’s oldest religion — has always explicitly rejected to possibility of making this world a better place.

    Nevertheless, this concept drives the Liberal. We must always CHANGE — for in this way, we can make this “a better world.” Really? Older philosophies — including the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes and the Tao Te Ching — say it cannot be done. Man cannot transcend himself — his nature — or fix what’s wrong with the world.

    So liberalism dreams of a future worldly utopia — something I think both impossible AND unfair to me and those of us who must life before this can be achieved, including all the generations of the past.

  • 29 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:54 am   

    Really, just about the only difference between the modern Liberal and Hitlerism is that the Liberal wants to make the entire human race happy, whereas Hitler limited his concerns to a select people. The chief difference is the extent of the improvement. Both believe in building a better humanity through building a better world; both believe in permanent results. Both believe that the world should be getting ever better! Thus the focus is on social engineering and governmental regulation of human life.

    As I see it, the conservative opposes social engineering. The role of government in conservatism is to establish and maintain law and order and allow people to use their own wisdom to improve their lives.

  • 30 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 11:57 am   

    What you see today are the fruits of the liberal-instigated counterculture of the mid-to-late 1960’s. It seems to me that right after the assassination of John Kennedy-incidently, my mother was exactly seven months pregnant with me on that fatal November day- all hell broke loose in this nation. People began to throw their self-respect out the window and became openly defiant against conventional mores like traditional marriage and being responsible and accountable for your actions. Denying the existence of God became a popular trend. Remember the infamous NY Times declaration, “God Is Dead”? The flower children inhaled the hallucinated mantra of Timothy Leary “s “Turn on, tune in and drop out” along with their pot, while groups of radical feminists and scary radical groups like The Weather Underground and The Black Panthers committed acts of terrorism and violence. I guess the most horrible incident in the late 1960’s were the Tate-LaBianca murders committed by Charles Manson and his “family.” Last summer, FOX News correspondent Greta Van Sustren hosted a program called “Summer of Evil” August 2009 was the 40th anniversary of those horrible murders. Why they still fascinate the general public is beyond me. Anyway, at the end of the program, viewers were able to see a picture of Charles Manson as he looks today. Just an old man in prison. Yet, there was something very remarkable about this man’s countenance..A spirit of murder. And yet today, this man gets fan letters and has websites devoted to him from young men and women! This indifference, or rather, glorification of violence is yet another by product of the left-wing social and political upheaval of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.

  • 31 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm   

    A point I’ve been trying to make is that Liberalism, too, dictates a culture, not only Nazism.

    Well, I don’t happen to dig either!

    In modern liberal America, I don’t watch television, because the culture bores and sometimes sickens me.

    Also, I’ve seen some television from Nazi Germany — yes, it did exist! — and it has no appeal for me, either!

    What we are dealing with, in the last analysis, are peoples TASTES!

    What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another. This simply cannot be denied.

    There can be no earthly utopia, because different people need different things. Liberalism and Nazism both try to force one system on ALL of society.

    This is what I object to — the one-shoe-fits-all nature of politics.

    Conservatism would allow people great freedom of association and, in this way, a bit more choice in personal associations and ways to achieve one’s personal goals.

    I know of talented Christian young people who are doing un-Christian things — and very liberal things — just to survive in Hollywood (or, if you prefer, the basic American pop culture).

    Like Glenn Gould and François-René Duchable, I’m a rebel! I may not have their skills, to be sure! But I agree with them that the worldly values are WRONG. These to great classical pianists had a spirit of humility and a love for their art that made them want to share it with true music-lovers, not the pretentious ego-driven crowd that often fills the professional concert circuit.

    Here: Duchable, like Gould, reaching out to the common man and rebelling against the artifical world of the concert hall!

  • 32 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm   

    Great post #31, Pamela! I agree entirely.

  • 33 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm   

    Woops! I mean great post #30! Sorry!

    I certainly agree with what you’ve written!

  • 34 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm   

    You will probably also agree with me that, whether we like it or not, (and I do not like it one bit!) the liberals are constantly force feeding black culture on our society. For instance, as a woman I look at beauty and fashion magazine covers that feature black women trying to look white. Open those same magazines and you will quickly see that the cover was a ruse. The magazine is actually encouraged white women to look black! I also dislike trying to shop in a grocery store and hearing rap or hip-hop music being played over the loud speakers. It’s even replaced traditional ‘elevator music’ in elevators! And then, there is the constant usage of ‘black grammar’ in the mainstream of our society, for example, “My Bad” What the heck is that suppose to mean, anyway? It’s bad enough that liberals have actually permitted the teaching of ebonics in public schools in Philadelphia. It’s nothing but negro slang! But don’t protest or you will be called a racist!

  • 35 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm   

    Yes, I agree.

    What’s worse is that the pop culture simply has no standards of decency. One example I came across on YouTube of offensive black culture was “Shake ya a– by “Mystical” (sorry, but I won’t link to indecency). To oppose this is to be “racist.” And this is but one example, I presume, of thousands.

    White teenagers are acting like prostitutes because of this culture. It’s all very sad. I can’t fathom raising a child in this culture!

    If there were such a thing as conservative White Reservations — I’d move there!

  • 36 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm   

    I’m European-descended! This MOOI ZIJN DE SPROOKJES is my pop culture — but it doesn’t exist in modern liberal America. Forced racial integration ultimately erases this.
    Liberals ultimately want to blend all races and cultures. But each plant survives in its own natural soil and climate.

  • 37 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 pm   

    This also would be fine for white popular culture:

    Concerto pour deux voix

  • 38 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:56 pm   

    The “teenagers acting like prostitutes sort of hits home for me. I have a niece in her early twenties who, a few years ago, “hooked up” with a black man on the Internet. The result of course, was she became pregnant. I now have a three year old bi-racial grandniece. She is beautiful, funny, and smart as a whip, and I love her dearly. Meanwhile, the father of this child has moved on to “hook up” with someone else and my niece is, and I hate to say this but it is the truth, again prostituting herself with yet another black man, only this one already has a white wife! It’s truly heartbreaking to see a child that you helped raise from infancy and placed your hopes in, toss her self-respect and dignity out the window and for what? Yet, this is another sad reality of our time.

  • 39 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:03 pm   

    Well, this information helps me understand where you’re coming from.

    One of my interests in life is the GIFTED boy soprano. He really has to be white and, preferably, also handsome. (This latter is not essential, of course.)

    This is one of the reason why I love my race. Michael Jackson, however well he sang as a child, is not Jean-Baptiste Maunier of Joseph McManners. And if I begat a child prodigy of my own, he’d have to be similar to the two white boys I just mentioned.

    Hence I do discriminate racially, when it comes to culture.

    This does not mean that I hate Blacks or wish to suppress them. But I see great artistic beauty in my race.

    I too have a niece raising a black child.

  • 40 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:12 pm   

    A boy both pleasing to look upon and thrilling to listen to.

    Jean-Baptiste Maunier – La Nuit de Rameau

    Jean-Baptiste Maunier – Caresse sur l’océan

  • 41 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm   

    That’s how I like to remember Michael Jackson, as a child singing with his brothers as a member of the Jackson Five. With the exception of the “Thriller” years, his popularity as an entertainer as been way overrated. He was down right weird and scary looking towards the end! I believe you mentioned his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley. I really do not believe that brief union was ever consummated sexually, I believe that it was not only a publicity stunt intended to raise eye brows, but I think Michael Jackson struggled with homosexuality or possibly was bi-sexual and the marriage between the King of Pop and the daughter of The King was intended to squelch any negative rumors circulating about Michael. Of course, then came the big Neverland child molestation case so the publicity stunt marriage obviously backfired! Nonetheless, lots of money and a good lawyer can get you out of just about anything, even twice!

  • 42 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm   

    I am always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt — even Michael Jackson!

    Jackson may indeed not have had sex with Lisa Marie. However, she says they did. I cannot possibly know who’s telling the truth.

    Macaulay Culkin insists that Jackson did not behave sexually with children. Until proven guilty, I’ll refuse to accuse him.

    My opinion is that Jackson was a case of extreme arrested development — he never became a man in any psychological sense of the word.

    Moreover, I firmly believe that paedophilia and homosexuality are quite distinct phenomena. I think that the common belief that homosexual men are usually attracted to children and that paedophiles are homosexual men who cannot find other men is mistaken.

    Of course, psychology is still trying to understand all this. I don’t pretend to have the answers.

  • 43 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:33 pm   

    My favorite Jean-Baptiste performance:

    Pueri Concinite

  • 44 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:45 pm   

    I never thought Michael Jackson did anything either. I really do not know what when on there. ( at neverland ranch) I’ve always suspected it was some kind of blackmail scheme. I do know that it was a good thing Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson!. An average person might not have been so lucky, even if the charges were false! I also do not know for sure if Michael struggled with his sexuality. You hear so many things about celebrities! However, I do think that Michael was a deeply troubled person and his untimely death could have been prevented.

  • 45 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm   

    That young man has a beautiful voice! Here is the voice of another angel on earth!

  • 46 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm   

    Beautiful performance by C.C.!

    One of Life’s great mysteries — the gifted singer!

    If we all could sing like this, it would not be so precious a gift.

  • 47 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:17 pm   

    Here is another wonderful voice!

  • 48 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:24 pm   

    Very nice also. :)

    I could sing rather well as a child, but now am only average. I’ve always wondered what it would feel like to be a great singer and thrill an audience with your vocal talent! But God did not see fit to bless me with this.

  • 49 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm   

    Me neither! I can’t carry a tune in a bucket! However, my youngest sister has a beautiful singing voice.
    Our host on this blog has amazing musical talent. I wonder, does he sing too?

  • 50 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm   

    Joseph McManners sings Psalm 23.

  • 51 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm   

    This was the white Michael Jackson — though, I suspect, he’s quite interested in women now that he’s an adult!

    Introducind Declan Galbraith .

  • 52 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm   

    Popular culture for Europeans!

    Carrickfergus .

  • 53 Illana // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:05 pm   

    I think it’s a little far from the topic now : “comment the picture”, (I don’t mean what you are saying is not interesting).

  • 54 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:11 pm   

    Declan Galbraith is awesome! How come I’ve never heard about this boy before? He sure can sing! Thanks for sharing, Thras!
    A final word about Michael Jackson. What I mean’t to say earlier when I said he was overrated was that while there is no question the man had great talent, I cannot stand it when people raise a celebrity to the level of a god or goddess and literally worship at his or her feet! It’s happen before with people like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean, Princess Diana, and of course, Elvis Presley. Okay, all these people were beautiful and talented in their own way but now, like Michael Jackson, they’re all dead! Life goes on!

  • 55 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm   

    True, Illana!

    I am really thinking of taking the time to write an informed article on the nature of Liberalism. What liberals believe, their psychology or philosophy of life, etc., illustrated in their own words. I’d have to put this on a new web-page!

    It’s just that the older I get, the more of a ‘fatalist’ I become. I don’t really mean to say that EVERYTHING is “Fate.” It’s just that the state of the world is a given, and I feel totally powerless to do anything substantive about it.

  • 56 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm   

    “I cannot stand it when people raise a celebrity to the level of a god or goddess and literally worship at his or her feet!”

    No, I don’t like that either. It’s psychologically very unhealthy. But the same thing goes for a politician or scientists or artist or whatever. Every human talent is a gift of God and it is God who deserves the praise for creating it.

  • 57 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm   

    “Every human talent is a gift from God and it is God who deserves the praise for creating it.”

  • 58 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 5:41 pm   

    I really have reached the conclusion that Liberalism, since FDR, has gained such momentous power that it simply will have to run its course. Only if it crashes and fails might there ever be a return to some authentic form of conservatism that can restore the Constitutional rights and freedoms understood by the Founders.

    In the mean time, all we can work towards is damage-control!

  • 59 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm   

    Glenn Beck had an interesting program on tonight about the threat of the black power movement rising in America.This is another example of liberal engineering. It was really scary to see and hear this black man calling for all the white “crackers” to be killed. Even scarier is that Obama supports and encourages these groups! The recent acquittal of the Black Panther Case by the Justice Department is proof of this!

  • 60 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm   

    “It was really scary to see and hear this black man calling for all the white “crackers” to be killed.”

    You see, this is what I think Thomas Jefferson feared might happen. I don’t think Jefferson hated Blacks. He just believed that a power-grab contest would inevitably develop. He believed that the two races would naturally go to war against each other over the power to rule the land. That’s not “racism”; that’s simply an observation on human nature.

    It is, in fact, a hostile media that show such threats without condemning them. If a White group — say the KKK — made such threats, the media would blast them with the utmost condemnation. The double standard is what’s most frightening of all. Do the media desire a revolution?

  • 61 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm   

    When I wrote, “That’s not ‘racism’,” I was, of course, speaking of Jefferson’s expressed worry that a civil war would break out after the black slaves were set free.

  • 62 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:05 pm   

    The lamestream liberal news media has much complicity in egging on this type of behavior from radical blacks.These pot-stirrers are so desperate for recognition (high ratings) they will not be happy until something dreadful happens.

  • 63 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 7:57 pm   

    Where is the white outrage in Washington? Why does our society tolerate people like this man?

  • 64 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 8:29 pm   

    “Where is the white outrage in Washington? Why does our society tolerate people like this man?”

    One thing is that Whites do not want to add more fuel to the fire, so to speak. Containment is the rule people are following.

    This is the struggle Jefferson was afraid of when writing his Autobiography.

    Human beings naturally want to be governed by others just like themselves. They are not to be faulted for this natural tendency. I’m not exactly certain that God wants one race to exercise dominion over another.

    Of course, I’m not making excuses for the incitement to violence shown in this new report. I’m talking rather about the general desire of human beings to be among and be governed by their own kind of people.

  • 65 Pamela K. // Jul 7, 2010 at 8:34 pm   

    You must agree however, that if this man was white, he would probably be locked up in jail, especially if he was calling for the killing of black babies on a Philadelphia street corner! Another thing that bothers me about this whole Black Panther thing is where were the Philly cops that day when these thugs were intimidating people at that polling place? What right do these people have to stand there and harrass people and get away with it?

  • 66 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 8:56 pm   

    With the election of Barack Obama and many other changes over the decades, the white male feels defeated. Nothing is being done because of fear of a black riot. There is much statistical evidence that the black race is more violent than the white race under civilized conditions.

    Have a look at the Color of Crime report.

    The white population is praying that “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” will keep the peace.

  • 67 Thrasymachus // Jul 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm   

    Apartheid was ended in South Africa.

    Now, if this report on crime in that nation is correct, then it could be a preview of the near future here in the States:

    Getting Away With Murder – South Africa.

  • 68 Thrasymachus // Jul 8, 2010 at 6:24 am   

    “What right do these people have to stand there and harrass people and get away with it?”
    This is because in the eyes of many Blacks, to oppose what any Black says or does is “racism.” It is perceived “racism” to many simply to disagree with a Black.

    This is the dangerous situation the white man has got himself into over the past 50 years. It has been a gradual development.

  • 69 Bear // Jul 8, 2010 at 7:07 am   

    Back to the topic at hand, (not singing, black racism, hitler, or Michael Jackson) …..Doc you asked – What’s wrong with this picture?

    Pure and simple that Chrsitains would be found kneeling before another group of men. This disturbs me. I understand that it is to show humility, and reverence, but to have Christians kneel before them seems wrong in my opinion, as I am sure it would have been wrong to Peter in his day.

    Acts 10:25-26 (New King James Version) “As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

  • 70 Thrasymachus // Jul 8, 2010 at 7:10 am   


    You found the perfect Bible verse for this. Spot on! Yours is the best comment on the subject, I think!

  • 71 David Yeagley // Jul 8, 2010 at 9:45 am   

    I’m sure the Comanches were just trying to cooperate, out of respect for the Christian feelings of these Christian whites. I really don’t mean to rebuke my leaders here, but, like Bear, I just feel that they should have assumed a little more command in the situation.

    For all the savagery of the past, Comanche people today are amazingly docile, patient, and forbearing at times. Often, in fact.

    Except at our tribal meetings! Ha, ha! We take it out on each other, usually.

  • 72 Pamela K. // Jul 8, 2010 at 3:35 pm   

    “For all the savagery of the past, Comanche people today are amazingly docile, patient, and forbearing at times. Often, in fact.”
    No! Often, indeed. I am terribly sorry for going off on these wild tangents on your website! I really do think it’s important to stick to the subject at hand, and I’m sorry for straying off course, David.

  • 73 Thrasymachus // Jul 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm   

    The audio recordings, if such were to exist, of the sermons and Bible studies and teachings these Pentecostals were receiving would be most revealing. I really wonder just exactly what was being said to them to induce them to behave in this manner?

    It’s not just the facts of history that matter; it’s the big picture — the context — and the spirit in which it is all “revealed” or, better stated, taught.

    I believe there was something about this in Orwell’s “1984”?

You must log in to post a comment.