The Editors’ Quote of the Day:

“A man builds a house in England with the expectation of living in it and leaving it to his children; while we shed our houses in America as easily as a snail does his shell. We live a while in Boston, and then a while in New York, and then, perhaps, turn up at Cincinnati. Scarcely any body with us is living where they expect to live and die. The man that dies in the house he was born in is a wonder. There is something pleasant in the permanence and repose of the English family estate, which we, in America, know very little of.” – Harriet Beecher Stowe


  1. There is a beauty in the “old world” permanence, as well. Possibly, the system set up by the law of Moses had the best of both worlds?

    Today, we are up against several planks of the Communist Manifesto being implemented through creeping incrementalism. Abolition of true private property (as the Hebrew economy provided), with all “rents” from the lands held in “fee simple” being applied to public purposes; abolition of all rights of inheritance; and confiscation of property of emigrants and rebels.

    A culture of non-continuity of community lends itself to masking these intrusions.

    And finally, the educational “liberal arts” propaganda that leads rural, agrarian populations to lose their youth to the colleges, universities, and big-city jobs, in hopes of a “better life” without so much hard work, is devastating rural communities around the globe. Yes, this is also to be found in Marx’s Manifesto.

    In the dark ages, those who wanted a free living joined a monastic order. Today, they go on welfare. Different window dressing, same result.

      1. I understand your Latin, and understand that some may be affronted by the comparison. It is not my intent to offend.

        Please note that it is historical, and has been quite different from what we are familiar with in America today. It was a huge issue in English legal history (and throughout Europe), and one of the driving forces behind loyal Catholic statesmen (who were happy enough to burn heretics and Bibles and wage war against Protestant nations) calling for a reformation of their Church. Professions vs. practice, and the definitions of labora, have often been an issue. The vow of perpetual poverty was effectually negated by the Corporation Sole at the expense of the Commonwealth, which genuinely became perpetually poor by the large number of religious who drew upon the charities of the vulgar people, often by spiritual extortion. (Feed me, or your mother will burn for another thousand years in purgatory, even though I don’t know for sure what her original sentence was, or if you’ve already bought her out.) (And, some form of such behavior is common enough in religions today.)

        Also, “emigrants” has been construed to mean anyone who has traveled outside the country, by some regimes. Similar to our civil asset forfeiture, and some eccentric applications of eminent domain.

        Today, the mechanisms are different than 600 years ago, because the masses are no longer bound by religion in the same way. However, the desire to obtain other people’s money to facilitate easy living is very democratic in its appeal, and supported by Encyclicals which fully back the current immigration situation.

        1. The lack of …

          English Propaganda and victorian tales of prejudice aren´t history.

          Many monastic orders built their own convent´s from the Wilderness, inclusive running model farms, serving the People as Health Services, Shelter for travelers, education Centers and so on.
          Benedictines etc. comes first here
          Others served as educators, scientists, like the jesuits.

          btw the Benedictines had their own Reformation Movements when corruption set in like that of cluny

          <<< (Feed me, or your mother will burn for another thousand years in purgatory, even though I don’t know for sure what her original sentence was, or if you’ve already bought her out.) <<<
          I don´t know, it´s absolutly against Catholic doctrine, it seems like the one corrupt Monk or a few existed all must be guilty of corruption

          Waging wars is Nothing our Protestant brethren had been hesitant either, nor in pillaging and robbing especially piracy nor trying to murder ambassadors in peace

    1. And, debt + usury + income taxes.

      “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” –Thomas Jefferson.”

      The non-Federal non-Reserve has fulfilled this well–maybe even better than Jefferson could imagine. Say-so paper/digital currency, loaned to us on a promise to repay principal plus interest, with no method of repaying the principal except to borrow more say-so currency on interest! So, the creditor is happy to buy our tangible assets, time, blood, sweat, souls, and bodies, with their say-so currency, which increases the national debt every time they touch the keyboard. Meanwhile, we must pay income taxes on the funny-money that they give us in exchange for our net domestic product, and LAND.

      Why did we take their Monopoly money in the first place?

Comments are closed.