Carl Wells Books

Why does the left act the way they do? Having pondered this question for a while, I have come up with a beginning answer. First I will list five things that motivate people on the left. After I list the five, I will point out various aspects of the leftist personality. Then I will contrast the motivation of people on the right–Christians and others who self-identify as being on the right. I will also have some concluding marks with which to, uh, conclude.

It sounds confusing, perhaps, but it actually should unfold in a logical pattern. Anyway, here goes. I will start with five things that motivate people on the left.

1/Leftists want to tell other people what to do, and to push them around. O’Brien in 1984 (George Orwell), himself a leftist, explains. ‘”If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–forever.”‘ (p. 220) He also told us why leftists want power.

‘”Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”‘ (p. 217)

Of course there are degrees of pushing people around. There is hard totalitarianism, and there is soft totalitarianism. People who don’t believe that they want to stamp on the human face forever, will find themselves acquiescing in the instructions of their hard totalitarian leaders.

2/Leftists want to think well of themselves. They want to consider themselves righteous–more righteous than other people. This point is much more important than might appear at first. Listen to the leftists. They hate and despise the rest of us. The reason they feel this way is that they are convinced they are righteous people, whereas we peasants are “deplorable” and “irredeemable,” morally far inferior to the leftists, who consider themselves generous and tolerant.

For a book demonstrating the thinking process of the left, consider reading Thomas Sowell’s wonderful The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

3/A third motivation of the left is their desire to live at the expense of other people. Notice how all the programs supposedly aimed at giving things to poor people, also give highly paid salaries to middle class bureaucrats. Add up the people who work at the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, etc., etc., and you will find that they are numerous. They accomplish much less than nothing–they accomplish disaster–but they are very well paid for what they do.

4/The leftists are motivated by a hatred of reality. Reality is simply too hard. Reality, for just one example, says men are men, and women are women. Well, that is simply too hard. It is ridiculous, in fact. Men can be women, and women can be men. Children should not be assigned a gender at birth. They should choose their own gender, when they are ready to do so.

Reality says we need to work to provide for ourselves, or not eat. Well, that is ridiculous. Why should people–many of whom were born in challenging circumstances–have to work, often at ill-paying jobs, to provide for themselves? They shouldn’t. They should be given a living wage.

5/Leftists are motivated by hatred of the God of the Bible. This is so because He gives us such stringent rules on how we are to live, and those rules do not fall into accord with the morality of the leftists. What a bully! What a prude!

It is possible that this fifth motivating factor in the lives of the leftists is the key to the other four. Stop hating the God of the Bible, and maybe one would also drop the other four motivations as well.

Now that we have working theory as to what motivates leftists, let’s look at some aspects of leftist behavior. We will do this very briefly, for the most part simply listing the behavior. Let’s use the alphabet to enumerate these few aspects–others could be listed–of the leftist behavior. (We need to be grateful that the alphabet is always in the same order; where would we be if the dictionary started putting t before b?) The aspects are listed in no particular order, and in some cases one aspect very well may shade into another.

a/Leftists are unconcerned about justice; they just want to run things.

b/Leftists seem to lack sympathetic imagination. They seem unable to picture the horrors they unleash on other people. Iraqi women and children blown apart? They can’t picture that.

c/Leftists are baby killers. An unborn child in the womb? Why has that child not been murdered?

d/Leftists never learn, because they have no desire to learn. They are tellers, not learners.

e/Leftists are illogical.

f/Leftist are liars because they are of their father the devil (John 8:44).

g/Leftists want to manipulate other people rather than speak the truth to us. (Of course this one follows logically from point f.)

h/Leftists want to be part of the (winning) crowd. Thus they display what has been called a “hive mind.”

i/Leftists lack humility; they have an extremely exaggerated opinion of their own moral goodness.

j/Leftists are filled with hatred. If they were not filled with hatred, they would be much more willing to leave other people alone.

Those, a through j, are a few aspects of leftists’ behavior. Leftism is not a sickness. Sickness is something that can come to anyone. Everyone can be and often is sick, simply because life includes sickness in large and small degrees.

Rather, leftism is a moral failing. To think and live as a leftist, is to be on the side of evil against good.

Now we will try to see what motivates the Christian/rightist. There should be a tremendous difference.

1A/Christians (let’s use that word to include others who are in some way conservative or rightist) are often willing to push other people around. The Christians were in very large numbers gung ho for the preemptive war on Iraq. They shrugged at the torture the U.S. has done. Surprisingly, Christians are very often supportive of the boot stamping the human face forever.

2A/Christians like to think well of ourselves. We think of ourselves as more righteous than other people. How could we not be? We’re on the side of the angels, and on God’s side, so of course we are more righteous than other people. But to actually be righteous, rather than just to say we are on the side of God? Hmm. Sadly, we are not so much eager for that.

Again, point 2 and point 2A are not well enough understood. We all are motivated, highly, to think well of ourselves. But do we think well of ourselves because we should, or because we want to?

3A/Christians seem to be largely motivated by a desire to live at the expense of other people. We give God 1/4 of the tithe He asks of us–which should have warned us what is coming in our behavior in regard to our neighbors. We want our children educated by our neighbors’ tax money, we want Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, farm subsidies, and anything else we can get at public expense.

4A/Christians seem to have a very tenuous connection to reality. We don’t think we hate reality, but if that is so, then why do we act in ways to bring down disaster on ourselves? Why do we keep sending our children to public schools, when it should be plainly clear that public education is the enemy of our children and of our God? We may not hate reality, but a Martian looking on could be excused for guessing otherwise.

5A/We don’t hate God. But we don’t trust Him. What challenging laws He gave us! Surely He doesn’t expect Old Testament laws to be any sort of pattern for civil government in the modern world!? Certainly He needs to be a bit more modern.

Having contrasted Christian motivations with leftist motivations, we are shocked–shocked–to find that the motivations of the left and the right are not as tremendously different as we might have hoped and expected.

In fact, as writers like R. J. Rushdoony and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have been trying to warn us in their writings (from the grave, now), “We have met the enemy and he is us” (thank you, “Pogo” author Walt Kelly).

There is an eternal leftist in the heart of each one of us, and we need to battle against that eternal leftist if we really hope to stand on the side of the angels and God. Right now we are motivated much as the leftists are motivated. That is why the world we are bringing into existence is such a mess.

I won’t try to go through Christian behavior concerning points a through j. It would be very instructive to do so, and would readily show that our behavior is often just as wretched as the behavior of the leftists.

However, I will address point i. I said that “Leftists lack humility; they have an extremely exaggerated opinion of their own moral goodness.”

Is not this a key to our moral failure also?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said the following, in The Gulag Archipelago [first volume]:

“Pride grows in the human heart like lard on a pig.” (p. 163)

He wasn’t talking about just leftists. He was talking about all of us. He gave some examples from his own behavior. This is where we have gone so dramatically wrong. An objective look at our behavior demonstrates that we have an exaggerated sense of our moral goodness. We have lacked humility. Pride has grown on our heart like lard on a pig.

But we don’t have to keep on living like pigs. We have moral agency. We have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The latter will lead us into all the truth, when we want Him to do so (John 16:13).

We don’t have to give in to our inner leftist. We can tell him to go suck an egg. We can be people who are marked by humility, cheerfulness, generosity, honesty, love of truth, godliness, humility, purity, love of learning, humility, and love of our neighbor (enemy or friend). Did I mention humility? If I didn’t, I meant to.

The left is motivated by their inner leftist. They hate God, hate people. They are suicidal (Proverbs 8:36).

We have been surprisingly suicidal too, because we have listened to our inner leftist, and have far too often acquiesced in his idiotic promptings.

Inner leftist, here is a carton of eggs. Please go and politely suck the entire dozen.

Today I want to briefly hit on a few topics. I will number them, for my own entertainment.

1/We frequently hear that one of the problems of the U.S. is the large number of illegal aliens in the country. Their number is at least 15.5 million, and may range up to 40 million. This sounds like a serious problem. Our system seems broken. However, what we must understand is that for the people running our country, the countless illegal aliens coming into the U.S. is not a bug of the system–it is a feature.

This is what our leadership elite wants.

When Dwight Eisenhower was president in the 1950s, a serious effort was made to return illegal aliens to Mexico. It was very largely successful. The following article by John Dillin, from the “Christian Science Monitor” of July 6, 2006, gives a history of the operation:

https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Part of our leadership had the will to enforce our borders–in the 1950s. That will is gone. We have a different leadership elite.

There will be no enforcing of the borders. Do you think the Republicans will do better than the Democrats? Did Trump do better? He was a talker, not a doer. The Republicans are simply the sissy wing of the Democrat Party. They have no principles, at least at the national level. (I continue to believe that Republicans are somewhat better at the state and local level. Maybe I’m a dreamer too.)

2/When the U.S. is forced to reorganize, due to the financial bankruptcy coming our way, we should keep in mind that 77 countries where the U.S. used to be will be better than 7 countries where the U.S. used to be.

Small is better than big. If you want theoretical ammunition for why this is true, read Leopold Kohr’s The Breakdown of Nations. Or, read your Bible. Or, look at world history. Big countries are dangerous–to others, but also to themselves. It has something to do with human nature, and our ability to wield power wisely (that is, unwisely). We need to watch ourselves like a hawk. The smaller our countries, the less chance we will think we have a right to push other countries around.

The reorganization is very likely to be messy. That is not an overwhelming problem. Life is frequently messy. Killing 61,000,000 unborn children has been messy. Attacking Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and Yemen and (fill in the blank) has been messy, with lots of blood scattered around, our own as well as that of foreigners. So reorganizing the ex-U.S. can be plenty messy, and not be as wretched as what we have been doing.

If we have 77 countries where one used to exist, that means we can have lots of experiments in how a country can be organized. We will learn what works. That will include a lot of learning about what doesn’t work! (Remember messy.) By the way, the number 77 is just an example. The number could be 57, or 177. The point is, don’t expect that having just a few fairly large countries (say, 7) where the U.S. used to be, will break us up enough. We need to break up a whole bunch, not just a little bit.

In Indiana, for example, when the reorganization comes, all of our big cities will most likely need to be their own city-states. For starters, I am guessing that Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Evansville, Bloomington, Columbus, Gary, Lafayette, and probably other places will feel no fellowship at all with those of us who are hicks from the sticks.

That is fine. Why quarrel? You go your way, we’ll go ours. We can still trade with one another.

Will there be a few Christian countries on what used to be the United States? I hope so. There may be dozens, probably (hopefully) all small. There will be a few places, possibly even many places, where different brands of Christianity poke their heads above the water line.

There is not one Christian in the United States who is foolish enough to believe that we Christians are really ready for self-government. (Remember messy.) But God may give us that task anyway, hoping we will learn on the job. What an Optimist! Still, He may know best.

3/The U.S. has given about $54,000,000,000 to Ukraine, mostly in the last months. That is helping Ukraine enforce its borders, whereas here in the U.S. we have decided we don’t have borders to enforce. There seems to be an logical disconnect there, but hey, we just print the money out of thin air anyway, so who am I to complain?

Rounding the U.S. population to around 335 million people, that means that every American is giving Ukraine about $161.19. (Guys, I’d rather have the money to buy pizza. But you’re right, if I had the $161.19 for pizza, I would just put on even more unneeded poundage.) So a family of four is spending about $644.78 to give money to the government of Ukraine.

We pour gasoline on the fire of the war in Ukraine, which means the war lasts longer and more people are killed and crippled, more property destroyed, because we threw money at the war. What’s not to like about that, except everything?

4/Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18, one approximate version) That is why the U.S. has lost its way. Homeless people defecating on the streets of our cities, country people living on meth and no job. It’s all part of the same worldview: life is sound and fury, signifying nothing. We are animals without moral agency.

The church lost its vision first. When/if we regain a biblical vision, we will begin to set an example. People who are currently hopeless need to know that hope is possible.

5/It won’t matter if draconian laws are passed to “control” guns. There are enough guns out in the world to supply every criminal who wants one (or wants two, or wants three). And criminals are not notoriously restrained by gun control laws. Chicago has lots of gun control laws. They also have lots of criminals shooting people. That is not going to change.

Leftists seem to live in a fantasy world. “Wouldn’t it be nice if stringent gun control laws existed? Then we’d stop all these people getting shot.” But, sir, Chicago has stringent gun control laws, and lots of people there still get shot. “Wouldn’t it be nice if stringent gun control laws existed? Then we’d stop all these people getting shot.” Wait, did you hear what I said . . . oh never mind.

6/The rise in prices comes about because the government creates more money. This will never change until we want to have honest money. It cannot change in the U.S. because we don’t have honest people running our country.

The key to having honest money is to have the determination not to steal from other people. So, if we internalize God’s command that ‘”You shall not steal”‘ (Exodus 20:15), we will immediately want to have honest money. Because we will want to protect the property of our neighbor.

If we refuse to internalize that command, we will find a way to steal.

There is no substitute for really wanting to do the right thing, from the heart. When we want to have honest money, we will have it within a matter of weeks.

When/if we start to have our own small Christian countries, we will discover that unless we are committed to protecting the property of our neighbors, we will act just as foolishly as has the United States in its money printing. A Christian people which currently pays God only 1/4 of the tithe He asks of us, is not a very promising bunch likely to insist on having honest money when we have our own countries.

But Christians really do have the moral teaching of the Bible, and if we apply it, we can have honest money, protect our neighbor’s property, and protect our own property. “If.” As my father used to say, “If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his fanny so hard when he landed.”

7/The future is going to keep on coming at us. Like that fact or hate it, it does have a superb chance of being true. Nobody is being raptured off the earth, and it is quite possible nobody will be raptured off the earth. (Enoch and Elijah are the only two in world history to leave the earth without dying, that we know about, and they could be the final two.)

Hank Williams sang, “I’ll never get out of this world alive.” He was on to something. We all have to live until we die.

So if we have to live until we die, and if the future is going to keep coming at us, what should we do?

“Is this a trick question?”

Well, I didn’t think so.

“It sounds like a trick question to me.”

Well, it wasn’t intended as a trick question.

“So you claim, anyway. So if it is not a trick question, what’s the answer? What should we do? You tell me, hotshot fancy non-trick-question-asker.”

Okay, I’ll try. How’s this: love and obey God, and enjoy Him forever. We use the Bible as our practical guide. If we do that, God will find a way to bless us, and to bless our neighbors through us.

“Good try. I’ll think about it.”

Fair enough.

With the U.S. on the verge of imploding, it is time (way past time, actually) for us all to be thinking: what form of government should be next for us?

Perhaps I am too pessimistic (too optimistic, perhaps?) in thinking that the U.S. is on its last legs. What I see is a nation determined to end itself. We debase the money supply, we permit and indeed encourage invasion by people from the Third World, we engage in preemptive war, we say that men are women and women are men, we refuse to protect property and lives when Black Lives Matter thugs and Antifa thugs riot, we want to fly rainbow flags (pro-homosexual flags) all around the world, we encourage a thieving welfare mentality among all classes of people. Our elite leaders are mindless and arrogant, and the rest of us mostly respond to their foolishness with an Alfred E. Neuman “What, me worry?” shrug.

So I see a nation which is committing suicide.

But the end of the U.S. does not mean the end of life. Life will go on, one way or another, for most people.

So if/when the U.S. ends, what do we do? Democracy in the U.S. proved unable to sustain a reasonably sensible country. So what comes next?

Most of us have agreed with Winston Churchill. He said,

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” (Nov. 11, 1947)

That, almost all of us have long thought, is both clever and true. However, while it is clever, it is not–thank heaven–true. We have thought it is true, but we were wrong.

But because we have believed Churchill to be correct, we have not really thought about seeking for a form of government better than democracy.

In fact, if/when the U.S. ends, most of us will probably be looking to reinstall democracy somehow or other. We will want to drink “hair of the dog that bit us.” We will do it the same, but somehow different. But basically the same.

Today I simply want to encourage us all to think outside the box. Just think that possibly, maybe, democracy is not automatically the best form of government. We have made an idol of democracy–but it is a false god.

Let’s try to think about this theoretically. First of all, there should be a difference between how Christians think, and how non-Christians think. Christians and non-Christians have different starting points in their thinking. Christians believe the Bible is a communication from the creator and Savior God. The Bible, we believe (supposedly believe, for the most part), teaches us how to behave.

That should include how we behave as civil governments.

One thing I need to make clear right now. Christians, if we are thinking honestly, have no need or desire to force others to go along with the way we do things.

But it is also true that every nation is–unavoidably–a theocracy. Do I want to live in a Christian theocracy? Of course. But people who do not want to live in a Christian theocracy, are still going to be living in a theocracy. It just will have a different god.

Theocracy is inescapable. Every nation enforces the laws of its god. It can’t help but do so. The U.S. is a theocracy right now. If we break into 77 small countries, we will be 77 theocracies. There is no escape from that reality. We can, of course, pretend that only Christian theocracy is a theocracy. But it is pretending, it is blindness, it is self-deception. Every nation is a theocracy. Reality exists.

Every nation makes a covenant. It makes a covenant with its god. Covenants are unavoidable. They exist, whether we want them to exist or not. They exist, whether they are explicit or only implicit.

So, if/when the U.S. finally implodes, I encourage my Christian brothers to consider, what kind of a theocracy do we want to have?

Not, I hasten to stress, what kind of a theocracy do we want to impose on the entire land mass of the former United States. No, not at all. The non-Christians and the anti-Christians can and should make their own covenants with their own gods. Many of the areas of the former United States will want to have nothing to do with the Christian God. That is sad, but it recognizes reality. We really have no right to impose our vision of reality on the non- or anti-Christians. It should be abundantly clear by now that we Christians are barely able to rule ourselves. We are not called to rule others. In our own Christian theocracies, we will be responsible for learning to exercise wise rule. In non-Christian theocracies, they will answer to their own god–and perhaps ultimately to the true God of the Bible. But that is their business and His–not ours.

We will have enough on our platter learning to be semi-sane Christian countries. We are not ready to be semi-sane. We are not ready spiritually, psychologically, intellectually, or in our ordinary everyday behavior. We will have to learn as we go along–or not learn as we go along. We may prove ourselves unworthy of freedom.

But assume we really want to learn, and make an attempt to honor and obey God by the way we organize our small Christian nations. What kind of civil government would we have?

When God told the Israelites that it would be okay if one day they had a king, He also told them how the king should behave. The king should keep a copy of God’s law, read it, and observe the law and the statutes. He was to be humble. He was not to turn aside from God’s commandments. He was a king, yes, but God and God’s law must be the king’s guide. (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

So whatever form of government our small Christian nations choose, God and His law must be fundamental for us. We might have a king, we might be ruled by judges. We might be a republic, we might be something else. It won’t matter a lot. We will mess up greatly unless God and God’s law are recognized by us as the standard we must obey.

If we lack vision, we will perish. If we have biblical vision, we will be blessed.

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained,/But happy is he who keeps the law.” (Proverbs 19:18)

If we have no vision, we will be unrestrained. We will make fools of ourselves (as the U.S. as a whole is doing every day in every way). But if we keep the law of God, we will be happy. We will protect ourselves and we will protect the people living in our small Christian nation.

I will give just three examples of how a nation with Christian vision would be different from the behavior of the current United States.

1/In the Bible, thieves are made to pay restitution. With this principle in mind, our property will be protected. Thieves would not skate. They would pay, and pay seriously–several times more than they stole. And they would pay to their victims, not to the state. Many of them would learn not to steal.

2/In the Bible, rapists are executed (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). They are not stockpiled in prisons. They go over the rainbow to see Toto. This is fair, and it will pretty quickly mean that rapes are rare.

3/In a Christian nation, we would not be engaging in preemptive war on other nations. This would keep our own people alive and uncrippled, and would also keep alive and uncrippled the foreigners we are not attacking.

We could go on for thousands of words, on ways Christian nations would be different from the current United States. The above three examples are, well, examples.

When we have vision, we will begin to move toward semi-sanity. When we want to honor God in our small Christian nations, He will send us blessings.

The false god democracy is being exposed in the United States, day by day, as the false god it is and always has been. Something will come after the United States commits suicide. History is just getting started.

How shall we organize our civil government? There are lots and lots of possibilities. Christians should be thinking theoretically, and trying to get ready for the new world which is coming after the U.S. completes the job of blowing its silly brains out.

If we want to honor God, we will emphatically reject the lie that “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” No, the voice of God is the voice of God. If we want to listen to Him, and obey Him, He will find a way to bless us. If, on the other hand, we continue to trust in the false god democracy, we will . . . well, let H. L. Mencken say it for us:

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

We have been getting it good and hard in the U.S. for a long time. After the U.S. self-destructs, maybe we can have a few small Christian countries where we refuse to keep hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s works are well-known in this country. (Although not as well-known as they should be!) Many people have heard of the novels One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Cancer Ward, and of the non-fiction several-part series on the Soviet prison camps, The Gulag Archipelago. People have heard of these books, and some at least–not a small number, thank heaven–have read them.

Solzhenitsyn was incredibly prolific. He had a vision for what he could accomplish in his life, and he kept his nose to the grindstone. By the time he died at age 89, he left a lot of books. Some have not yet been translated into English.

One of the projects which was very important to him was his cycle of novels entitled The Red Wheel. The Wikipedia article on The Red Wheel is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Wheel.

This was a project conceived in 1938, although S. did not begin writing on it until 1969. The idea was to tell, in novel form, the history of Russia in the years immediately prior to, during, and immediately after, the Russian Revolution (1917).

When he submitted volume one, August 1914, in Russia, the novel was turned down. Wikipedia tells us his submission was ‘turned down after he insisted on capitalization of the word “God.”‘ The book was published abroad.

I read it in the early 70s, and it made no huge impression on me. (The faint possibility exists that I was not intellectually ready to read the book; the fault may have lain with me.) Later, however, S. revised and expanded the novel. This expanded version appeared in 1984. Only a few years ago, I finally decided I should read the entire The Red Wheel. Should I begin with the new version of August 1914 or just move on to volume 2? I decided I would read the revised and expanded version–make a fresh start. Excellent decision! (Every now and then the old blind sow finds an acorn.)

I purchased the newer version–this time translated by Solzhenitsyn’s favorite translator, H. T. Willetts–only in the summer of 2021. And only now have I gotten around to reading the expanded version of August 1914. I am profoundly glad that I read the new, expanded, and final version of the book. There was so much of value there.

A word of warning, though. If you are new to the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, don’t begin with August 1914. Begin with the three books mentioned above (or a large handful of others). But don’t begin with the first book of The Red Wheel.

The book is a novel, but it is not a novel in the way we usually think of novels. An immense amount of history is mixed in. The main character is, we might say, Russia herself. At one point, S. warns us as follows:

“(Although the necessary outline of Stolypin’s life and work which follows will be as succinctly factual as the author can make it, he suggests that only the most indefatigably curious readers immerse themselves in these details. Others can easily go straight on to the next section in larger print. The author would not permit himself such a crude distortion of the novel form if Russia’s whole history, her very memory, had not been so distorted in the past, and her historians silenced.)” (p. 531)

This warning might have been appended to the entire novel!

Anyway, Most Indefatigably Curious are my middle names, and I of course read the portion in smaller print. I am very glad I did. But one certainly sees what S. means. This is a novel, but it is also a history. I have no complaint whatsoever, but this is not the book to begin your reading of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It is one of his books to read, after you know him and trust him by having read a handful of his more accessible works.

This book made a strong impression on me, which the original early 1970s version did not. I will certainly plan to press on to volume 2 of The Red Wheel, November 1916. Then, if I am still standing, March 1917, and finally April 1917. The latter book seems not yet to have been translated into English. Which, as I noted above, is true of others of S.’s works.

Here a few takeaways from my reading of August 1914.

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. We in the U.S. should be afraid, very afraid. It is clear that Russia in 1914 had an intellectual elite which was horribly corrupt. Does that sound like any other place you know? Hint: its initials are U., S., and A.

The self-righteous ignorance of the Russian intellectual class was horrific. It is so much more pleasant to signal one’s virtue than actually to be virtuous!

The intellectual class in Russia approved and encouraged and participated in countless assassinations. An echo in this country is how the intellectual class has approved and encouraged the violence by the scumbags of Black Lives Matter and Antifa. But we are behind the Russians in actual assassinations! It was a revelation to read what Russia went through in regard to left-wing violence, for many long decades.

A leader needs not just to be a Christian in his faith. The Tsar, Nikolai II, seems really to have been a believer. But practical Christian wisdom is needed as well. Nikolai II lacked that practical wisdom, that applied Christianity.

Stay out of wars! If Russia had just not participated in the world war (World War I), incredible miseries for the country might have been avoided. There might never have been a Russian Revolution. Millions of lives might have been spared. Oceans of horrors might have been avoided. (Who knows, maybe this applies to the U.S. as well. Maybe we should avoid wars, which might bankrupt us and bring instability to us. No, I’m joking, of course–we need to run the world.)

Don’t trust the military leaders! Many of them are incompetent time-servers. Look at the military leadership of Russia, which was excellent at escaping responsibility for bad decisions but not excellent at anything else. Then, bravely removing your fingers from your eyes as you look at the woke parasites in charge of our military, ask yourself if these are people to be trusted to lead our nation into a real war.

The church needs to be strengthened! The Russian church was not what it should have been. Is the situation any different in the U.S.? Half of us are woke (which means asleep), and the other half are contemplating our navels. Like Nikolai II, we may be believers, but our practical Christian wisdom is pathetically weak.

August 1914 is a book in which we get a feel for Russia prior to World War I. We get a feel for the early weeks of the war. We get a feel for how a nation collectively (almost if not completely) pursues unwisdom, daring idiocy to come on. The dare was answered.

But here is one encouraging takeaway.

The horrors Russia experienced were not inevitable. They could have avoided the deaths, the violence, the misery. They could have turned their eyes to God, and tried to obey Him. As S. has noted elsewhere, many Russian people understood that the horrors had come upon them because people forgot God.

It is not too late for us to remember God. It is not too late for us avoid the abyss.

Or, if it is too late–and I don’t think it is if we turn to God–there is absolutely no need whatsoever that you and I, as individuals and as members of families and members of churches, acquiesce in the evil. We can at least stand up on our hind legs and howl at the moon. It is better to go down howling, than to shrug.

August 1914 is a valuable book, a worthy addition to the books by a writer of world-historical importance. Just don’t make this the first Solzhenitsyn book you read! (And when you do read it, make sure you read the expanded 1984 version, not the truncated version from the early 1970s.)

The paperback book is available for about $11.00 (shipping and sales tax included) at both AbeBooks and Amazon. That is not an unreasonable price for a book containing 846 large pages. Just be sure you are purchasing the H. T. Willetts translation of the complete, expanded 1984 version. It features a red and white cover, and Willetts’ name is visible.

If I were cast for a part in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, it would probably be as the character known as Little-Faith. My hope in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Bible can be small. It all sometimes seems too good to be true.

I did not come to faith easily. I was in my mid-20s before one could reasonably guess that I might be any kind of Christian believer. It took me a while even to believe that God existed.

Recently I thought of those early days of struggling-towards-faith. I suppose I was going through a bit of discouragement, one of those times when it still seems “too good to be true.” I remembered that one of the things that gave me a bit of encouragement when I was younger (in my 20s) was that, even though I might not be sure that God and good existed, it sure did seem like evil existed. One specific example was how the communists treated people in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. If evil existed, my reasoning went–and it certainly seemed to exist–then perhaps good (and perhaps also God) also existed. I would read how the communists had murdered someone trying to escape into the West, and I knew evil existed.

I think the reasoning–it may not arise even to reasoning; it may just be a kind of instinct–continues to hold good. It struck me recently, in my discouragement, that there is still a lot of evil going on. A difference today is that I have no need at all to look at any communist countries abroad, to be conscious of great evil.

All I have to do is look at some of the things going on in my own United States.

No God and no ultimate good? Fine. At least I can see that evil exists.

There is still plenty of evil. I may not be able to have deep faith that God exists, but I can smell the stench of evil when it wafts its way into our life.

Here are a few examples, listed very briefly.

It is evil when the central state creates money out of thin air, and thus reduces the value of the money ordinary people have earned by working for a living, thus stealing from the productive.

It is evil when rapists are permitted to go on raping. When the Bible (hey! something about God doing things differently!) tells us that rapists are to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Thus we refuse to protect the innocent.

It is evil when we murder unborn children.

It is evil when parents refuse to provide for and protect their children, both physically and emotionally.

It is evil when men are permitted to participate in women’s sports.

It is evil when we mess with–via drugs or operations–the bodies of children who have been encouraged to believe that they are “transgender.” These poor children are supposedly not the gender with which they were born; at least that is what adults are telling them. A nation which does this is too wicked to stay in existence.

It is evil when our elite encourages black people to believe that the problems of black people are the result of white racism–thus making it much more difficult for black people to face life honestly. These lying white scumbags (aided by lying black race hustler scumbags) have the blood of thousands of black and white people on their hands.

It is evil when newspapers refuse to give the race of malefactors, because the race of the malefactors does not fit what The Narrative is (or should be).

It is evil when one country engages in preemptive war on another country–as for example the U.S. on Iraq, or on Libya.

Those are just a few examples of evil that is being perpetrated around us every day. It is happening in the United States.

The Bible makes one statement which is somewhat surprising. “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,/Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4)

I don’t know that I understand this completely. But think of this in terms of today’s blog post. The wickedness that is going on around us really is wicked. This can perhaps at least drive us in the general direction of looking for God. My faith in the God of the Bible may be small, but when I see such despicable evils as the ones listed above, it makes me want to fight that evil. It makes me hope that something exactly opposite to that evil might exist, and hope that I can stand with the good rather than with the evil.

So thank you, “New York Times,” Democratic Party, Republican warmongers, whiny baby-killing shrews of both sexes, and race hustlers. It may be difficult for me sometimes to believe in the Christian faith, but you guys give me hope that ultimate good might exist, because you guys are so in love with what is ultimate evil.

My hatred of you keeps me warm, and hopeful.

Is this a great country or what!?

Anne Bronte–poor little Anne Bronte. Charlotte wrote the famous Jane Eyre and three other novels of interest. Emily wrote Wuthering Heights, a book of great fame. Well, Anne at least tried. She wrote poetry, Agnes Grey, and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall was so bad that her own sister Charlotte, after Anne’s death, did her best to suppress the novel. When your own sister thinks you shouldn’t have written the book, maybe it’s time to give up and find another career.

Alas, it was too late for Anne to find another career. After the 1848 publication of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall she was on the fast track to the grave, apparently due to pulmonary tuberculosis, and died at age 29 1/3 (b. Jan 17, 1820–d. May 28, 1849).

The minor problem with all this is that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is a brilliant novel. Charlotte, a gifted novelist who really did feel sisterly affection for Anne, simply was wrong in her evaluation of Tenant.

Over the long haul, Charlotte’s foolish opinion has been vetoed by history. Anne’s book has gained the fame and respect it deserved from the start. Suck on that, Charlotte.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is not only a book of great literary interest, it may also be one of the handful of books which every Christian contemplating marriage should make time to read. (Or any non-Christian contemplating marriage, also!) The warning is practical, and necessary: when it comes to your potential marriage partner, what you see is what you get. He or she ain’t gonna change after marriage. You can’t reform him (her).

If, before marriage, someone is lukewarm (or worse) in his interest in Christian ideas and ideals, tying the knot is not going to change his thinking about all that.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall shows us a young woman, Helen, who is beautiful, young (18), artistically gifted (as a painter), intelligent, a person of strong personality, and a committed Christian with high principles.

She begins to fall for Arthur Huntingdon. He is well to do, good looking, clever, and definitely interested in her.

Her aunt tries over and over again to warn her. “‘Is he a man of principle?'” she asks (p. 165), for one example. Even Helen has to admit that he is not–but it is only from want of thought, she says. Her example would be salutary in his life.

You can see where this is heading. Helen falls to self-deception. She marries Arthur Huntingdon.

A child follows, self-indulgent behavior from Arthur, misery for Helen, and eventually Arthur acting completely outside the bounds of reasonable behavior. (Your guess is correct: he becomes an adulterer, completely destroying any chance that the marriage can be salvaged.) His drinking begins to get the better of him, as well, undermining his health.

All this unfolds in a very natural fashion. Helen’s journal tells us of her feelings. The awakening is definitely gradual. The writing is very subtle. Helen goes through stages of awakening. When she begins to see Arthur’s shallowness, at first she is glad she didn’t know before their marriage. Why? Because had she known, she would not have married him. Now, married, it is her duty to love him and guide him to better ways. So she’s glad she didn’t know earlier. Oh Helen, you have a lot to learn. A lot is what she does learn.

Anne Bronte was publishing this book at just about the time that Fyodor Dostoyevsky was getting started with his own writing career. The timing is such that it is almost certain that neither writer knew about or read the writings of the other.

What is to me astonishing is that some passages of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall read as if they could have been written by the Russian master. These two writers were cousins under the skin. The “gentle, retiring inexperienced writer” (as described by Charlotte) Anne writes some parts of this novel as if she were channeling Dostoyevsky. (It was all too much for Charlotte. But it is not too much for the rest of us.)

Here we have a scene in which Arthur Huntingdon is intoxicated, and among some of his intoxicated friends. Helen and other wives are on the scene as well, watching all this unfold. Or worse, being thrown from her husband (Mrs. Hattersley).

“The next object of assault was Arthur, who sat opposite, and had no doubt richly enjoyed the whole scene.

“‘Now, Huntingdon,’ exclaimed his irascible friend, ‘I WILL NOT have you sitting there and laughing like an idiot!’

“‘Oh, Hattersley!’ cried he, wiping his swimming eyes–‘you’ll be the death of me.’

“‘Yes I will, but not as you suppose: I’ll have the heart out of your body, man, if you irritate me with any more of that imbecile laughter!–What! are you at it yet?–There! see if that’ll settle you!’ cried Hattersley, snatching up a footstool and hurling it at the head of his host; but he missed his aim, and the latter still sat collapsed and quaking with feeble laughter, with the tears running down his face; a deplorable spectacle indeed.

“Hattersley tried cursing and swearing, but it would not do; he then took a number of books from the table beside him and threw them, one by one, at the object of his wrath, but Arthur only laughed the more; and, finally, Hattersley rushed upon him in a frenzy, and, seizing him by the shoulders, gave him a violent shaking, under which he laughed and shrieked alarmingly.” (pp. 290-291)

Anne Bronte hoped to live longer than she did. The following passage is from Wikipedia. The ellipsis is Wikipedia’s. It is from a letter by Anne to her friend Ellen Nussey. Anne knew her own death was likely in the near future. She wrote,

“I have no horror of death: if I thought it inevitable I think I could quietly resign myself to the prospect . . . But I wish it would please God to spare me not only for Papa’s and Charlotte’s sake but because I long to do some good in the world before I leave it. I have many schemes in my head for future practice–humble and limited indeed–but still I should not like them all to come to nothing, and myself to have lived to so little purpose. But God’s will be done.”

Her wish was not answered, in terms of longer life. God took her before she reached the age of 30. But Anne did not live to “so little purpose.” She left us an excellent first novel, Agnes Grey, moving and accessible poetry, and one of the great novels of English literature, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. The latter is a book which everyone contemplating marriage should read. Self-deception is the most common deception of all. Don’t fall to it when you pick a marriage partner. Learn from Anne and Helen.

She also left us a Christian example.

Anne died as she lived: bravely. As the end approached, Charlotte was in understandable distress at what was coming soon.

‘Anne whispered to her to “take courage.”‘

How typical. Anne is the one on the threshold of eternity, but she encourages Charlotte to take courage. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Probably both are appropriate.

Anne Bronte, rest in peace.

When it comes to college football, I am the quintessential “casual fan.” I don’t usually watch any games on television. I read about the games in the newspaper (and enjoy doing so), and have a sincere interest in which teams are doing well. (I was very glad that Georgia won the national championship last year–a newcomer among the top teams was a refreshing change.)

Until my Saturday work situation changed a few years ago, I attended a small college football game once a year for about five years in a row–enjoying those outings very much, especially since I went to the games with a friend. I used to watch games on television, but have stopped doing that in recent years.

All this is by way of preface. I don’t have a lot of emotion tied up with college football, but I am glad the games are played, and bear the sport no ill will. Please take what I say with an industrial-sized grain of salt. I am just a casual fan.

But still I manage to have opinions, and since I picked college football for my topic today, I had better express those opinions here or the blog post would have to end now. That would be way too short.

You will not be shocked to hear that sports have sort of become an idol for many Americans. As our interest in the Christian religion has died out, something has to replace that interest. Sports are one replacement for God. I say this as one who has been a sports fan my entire life, and fully expect to be a sports fan until I croak. I love sports. But when we make too much of sports, we are getting off track. Sports, like many things good in themselves, are a fine servant but a poor master.

College football can become too important to us. It has become so for many people.

Part of our problem is that university public education even exists. Stop taking taxpayer money to finance public universities, and eventually the tail would stop wagging the dog–or at least not wag the dog as much as it currently does. End university public education, and good things will happen gradually. (Of course the same is true of high school public education. End it. Good things will happen.)

It would really help if we all would begin to admit to ourselves that college is a pretty rotten place for most young people. It is expensive, and is a hotbed for left-wing propaganda. I continue to be amazed at how readily Christian parents send their children to college. But, on the bright side, they can attend football games when they’re at Anti-Christ State U.

There are lots of football bowl games these days. As late as 1997, there were 20 football bowl games at the end of a season. So 40 of the best teams were rewarded for their good-to-great season, by playing in a bowl game.

Currently, however, there are about 40 bowl games in a season. That means 80 teams are in bowls. Being in a bowl no longer necessarily means you had a good-to-great season. Now mediocre can be good enough. Teams are “bowl eligible” when they win six games–six out of 12. A .500 record is good enough. In some cases, teams with less than a .500 record go to a bowl! A 5-7 record becomes good enough!

I want to tread carefully here. I don’t want to be appointed the Bowl Czar, telling college football how many bowls they can have. If college football wants to have 40 bowls, or 60 bowls, I am willing to simply look on in befuddlement, without any desire to tell them what they must do. I am a fan of the free market. These things sort themselves out, in a free market. If there is a market for 60 (or 80) bowl games, so be it. My point, as a casual fan, is that for me 40 bowls seems to devalue what it means to go to a bowl. I would prefer there were closer to 20 or 25 bowls. But that is the opinion of a dilettante looking on from a distance. I really don’t want to tell other people how many bowls there must be.

One of the items on my bucket list is to attend a college football bowl game. I have never come close to doing so, but I still want to get there. If/when I make it, I hope it will not be a game between two 6-6 teams, or between a 6-6 team and a 5-7 team. But if it is a bowl with two teams with lackluster records, I will still be happy to be there. I will have finally made it.

Division I college football teams play a lot of games. A typical team plays 12 regular season games. A bowl game, when it happens, ups the number to 13. A handful of teams play even more games. For example, the division champions of many conferences meet each other for a conference championship game. That is a 13th game. Then both will go on to a bowl game, which is a 14th game. Two teams play 15 games in a season–the two that meet for the national championship.

I can remember when a Division I football team played 10 regular season games. If a team made a bowl, that was an 11th game.

For my personal taste–again, I really, really don’t want to be any kind of football czar–10 regular season games was enough. An 11th game if you make a bowl, maybe a 12th game for the two teams meeting for the national championship; that’s enough for me.

I wonder–what would the players prefer? Ten regular season games, or 12? If they played only 10 regular season games, maybe that would keep their bodies fresher, would reduce the chance of injury, and would give them more off days in the season (or a season a week or two shorter). But maybe they like playing 12 games, with a chance for 13 to 15. I wish someone would ask them.

I think some small colleges still play only a 10-game schedule–unless they make the small college playoffs. Ten games seems like enough to me–but again, that is simply the musings of a casual fan.

I do remember that the most memorable football season in Indiana University history, 1967, featured 10 regular season games and one bowl game (in the new year) for a total of 11 games. It didn’t feel like we were being cheated by playing only 10 regular season games. I. U. lost the bowl game, and finished 9-2. Even casual fans remember that season with fondness.

There are two things that I really like about the current college football set-up. First, permitting players to enter a “transfer portal” which permits them to leave their current team and join another without having to sit out a season, is a step in the right direction. It gives players a degree of control of their lives, which should have been there before but wasn’t. Why should a player be stuck on one team, when he feels he might be able to flourish better at a different school?

But my favorite thing about the current college football scene, is the recent development of rules that permit players to make money selling their name, image, and likeness. Often abbreviated as NIL. Under these rules, players are able to earn money while still in college.

How much money? Well, it varies from individual to individual, of course. I read where three famous college football players were likely to earn these amounts: $390,000.00, $440,000.00, and $700,000.00. Now that is serious money! Others, less popular and famous, will earn much less. A figure of 5K to 30K for these players was bruited about in the article I read. Still, even $5,000.00 is significant money for most of us.

Again, let’s trust the free market. If a player can earn $700,000.00 or more, good for him. If he can earn $116.42, good for him. If $116.42 seems like a really small amount to you, fine, I agree. Then you won’t mind sending me a check for that amount. I promise I won’t sneer at it.

The point it, why shouldn’t players be able to benefit from their skill and fame? College football coaches earn millions of dollars, their assistant coaches earn serious bucks, the university makes money off the football program. The players are finally–belatedly, but better late than never–getting a cut of the loot. That is fair. Most college athletes, even in the most popular sports, will probably earn very little from NIL income, but even a small amount of money will be helpful. A total income of $1,040.00 for a year, adds up to $20.00 a week. That is a nice weekly bonus for any college student; it will help him buy a pizza or attend a movie.

And when I say him, him definitely includes her. Among the top twenty-one college athletes, all sports, with NIL earning potential, are eight women! You go, girl!

I enjoy college football, and hope it continues. End public education, cut the regular season to 10 games, reduce the number of bowl games, and I will enjoy it even more. But ignore me completely, and I will still enjoy the sport. Casually.

If we want to help the U.S. reform, what institutions do we need to capture?

Grade school education? High school education? College education? Congress? State government? Local government? The presidency? Hollywood movies? Television? Radio? The military? The judiciary? Newspapers? Fiction writing?

I think there are three “organizations” which we need to capture, if we hope to see reform in the U.S.

The only possible route to reform is three-pronged: individual reform, family reform, church reform.

And we don’t need to “capture” any of these, as if we were going to force people to act in the way we want them to act.

No, we begin to see our sin, and that we need salvation through Jesus Christ. We seek that salvation, and obey Him. When we do that, we automatically have a small but potentially significant influence for good in the world.

Let’s think about this using one person as an example. Let’s talk about Paul, the man who wrote many of the books in the New Testament, and who is admired as one of the men who helped spread the Christian faith throughout the world.

Paul started out as an enemy of God and of God’s Christ. But when he was alerted to his sinfulness, he repented, and became willing to be used by God. He trusted in Jesus Christ and began to obey Him.

Suddenly, one individual–just one–began to be empowered to do good in the world.

Then we move to the family level. Paul brought his family along with him, and with his wife and children he was able to . . . oops, wait a minute. Paul did not have a wife and children. This is instructive to us. One can serve God without having a wife and children. Paul did it, and he did it supremely well.

Still, there is a sense in which the unmarried, childless Paul had a family. In 1 Timothy 1:2, Paul calls Timothy his “true child in the faith.” Because of his great influence on the thinking and behavior of Timothy, Paul thought of Timothy as his son. The younger Timothy would carry on with his life using the Christian ideas and conduct he had learned from his father in the faith, Paul.

We need to keep in mind that an unmarried person can have spiritual children. That should encourage those of us who are unmarried.

However, many people have families–spouses and children–and God uses that fact to help build His kingdom. A strong Christian family offers a lot of potential for good. We see that on the rare occasions that we see a really strong Christian family. A family is more than just a collection of individuals. As they reform themselves, they help the world toward reform. As the children develop a strong faith, then move on to have their own families, the number of thinking, obedient Christians begins to grow.

The third level of reform is the church. First there was an individual. Then he brought his family along. Now, he has influence on the direction of the church. The more faithful the individual and the family, the more likelihood that the church will grow in obedience and wisdom.

When the church begins to be strong, all the institutions of our nation are influenced toward good.

Paul poured his life into making the church strong. He had great success in this endeavor, although during his various setbacks he may have wondered if things were going as well as they could and should.

So when we look back, with the benefit of hindsight, at the life of Paul, we see how Christian civilization is built and increased. 1/Get well and soundly converted. 2/Help your family get well and soundly converted. 3/Strengthen your church.

This is actually very simple. But simple does not mean it will be easy.

One person, one family, one church can only do so much.

Paul, we believe from extra-biblical sources, ended up martyred. A lot of other early Christians ended up martyred. Lots of Christians in our day end up martyred.

The simple way is also a hard way. So we need to keep reminding ourselves: there is no other way.

We can’t “capture” Congress. (Lacking Christian principles, no congress will ever do the right and honorable thing.) We can’t “capture” the presidency, or movies, or television, or anything.

But we can stand for the truth, and refuse to compromise. We don’t need to turn our children over to the tender mercies of public education. We can learn what the Bible teaches, and obey it. If we as individuals, as families, as churches, do our small part, it will end up having an effect for good in the world. It worked for Paul. But Paul did not live and die a comfortable life.

Paul had only sixty or eighty years of life. Then he died. We too are going to die after just a few years. But we, collectively, as a Christian people have as many years as God wants us to have. Killing Paul did not end time. Here we are two thousand years later, and there are a lot of Christians around. Probably a lot more than Paul might have expected, as he breathed his last painful breaths.

What can we do?

A great deal. We can educate our children at our own expense, we can learn what the Bible teaches and then obey it, we can work diligently at our job, we can tithe to a faithful church, we can involve ourselves in the lives of non-family members (as Paul did in the life of Timothy), we can run for office and speak the truth, we can crack jokes and laugh, we can refuse to back down when faced with evil.

“I won’t back down, no I won’t back down. You can stand me up at the gates of hell, and I won’t back down.” Thanks, Tom Petty. We can learn from Tom’s song.

Why should we back down? We have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We have to prepare to be hated, of course. People hate God the Father and they hate Jesus Christ. If we are standing with God, we are likely to be hated as well. It would be well for us to gird up our loins and prepare for that hatred.

With God on our side, with us obeying Him, reform is possible. It won’t necessarily happen easily. But there is no other way to get to a world changed for the better. Reform starts with the individual, moves on to families, and blossoms further in the life of the church. When we are strong as individuals, as families, as churches, our world will move toward better ways of behaving.

Meanwhile, it seems to me to be absolutely crucial to remember that life is always a very good and enjoyable thing. Life is not destroyed because some people want to do evil. We can laugh and enjoy life. We are on the winning side–God’s side. Because some people want to kill unborn children, want to destroy property, want to live at the expense of working people, does not destroy the goodness of life.

I love the attitude of Nikolaj Velimirovic. He was a Serbian Orthodox priest. He was speaking in England in 1917, explaining how the church was the main reason Europe had lapsed into the suicidal world war. The church, he said, ought to give secular Europe the example of “humility, goodness, sacrifice–saintliness.” Then the concluding paragraph of his short book asked and answered which church should be leading the way in this example.

“But which of the Churches ought to give this example for the salvation of Europe and of the world? Yours, if you like. Why not just your Anglican Church? But whichever undertakes to lead the way will be the most glorious Church. For she will lead the whole Church and through the Church Europe and through Europe the whole world to holiness and victory, to God and His Kingdom.” (The Agony of the Church, Nikolaj Velimirovic, 1917, final page of the text)

Why not your church? Why not you as an individual? Why not your family? Why not your church?

He’s right. As Bishop Ryle–a faithful Anglican pastor, by the way–would say, “The way to do a thing is to do it.”

We can do our small part. One person, one family, one church, have more influence than we usually understand.

Paul can be our example, in all three. As an individual he repented, he trusted Christ, he obeyed Him. He had no “natural” family, but he interacted so completely with Timothy as to consider him as his true child in the faith. Then, thirdly, he strengthened the church.

All simple. But not easy.

Still, easy is overrated.

“The way to do a thing is to do it.”

There are lots of topics of potential interest. One person who is diligent, curious, and honest, can accomplish a lot within a few short years–including writing a book–if he decides to do the work. So here is some more potential free work. Don’t thank me; I’m glad to help.

I’ll continue with a few more potential topics which could probably be completed in three to seven years, then conclude with some topics which might take much longer to accomplish.

10/The most recent biography of Booth Tarkington is about 65 years old. Who is Booth Tarkington, you ask? He wrote the scintillating Penrod and numerous other books. He was an Indiana author. He won the Pulitzer Prize for two of his novels. At one time he was considered one of this country’s greatest writers. That day is long past. These days he gets faint praise, or no praise, or brickbats, if people even know he exists. So is he worth an up to date biography? Honestly, I don’t know. He might be, or he might not be. If this topic might interest you, read a few of his books, and see what you think. I have ordered the aged biography by James Woodress, but it hasn’t arrived yet. Reading that would probably help you figure out if more needs to be done with the life of Booth Tarkington.

11/What do you think of the most recent biography of W. W. Jacobs? What, you haven’t read it? That’s because it hasn’t been written yet. And who is W. W. Jacobs, anyway? W. W. Jacobs was an English writer of mostly humorous fiction–novels and short stories–who flourished from the late 1890s onward. He is largely forgotten, but at one time he was very famous. I think he is in a league with P. G. Wodehouse, when it comes to humor. Each has his strengths; I wouldn’t voluntarily be without either if/when I am marooned on a desert island. The distinguished Christian thinker R. J. Rushdoony enjoyed the works of W. W. Jacobs, which encourages me greatly. The thing about Jacobs biographies in general is that they are . . . well, all unwritten. There is no book-length treatment of his life. Does he deserve a biography? Yes, a million times yes. This is a major literary talent. If you doubt me, read him. I dare you.

12/Another writer who deserves a book-length biographical treatment is Cid Ricketts Sumner. Who? Cid Ricketts Sumner wrote the novels about Tammy Tyree–the books which inspired the old Tammy movies of a generation and a half ago. You don’t remember those either? I see I have some missionary work to do here. There were three Tammy films which I have seen (a fourth I haven’t): “Tammy and the Bachelor,” “Tammy Tell Me True,” and “Tammy and the Doctor.” The middle one is the best, the first one is fair, and the third one represents a serious falling off in quality. Debbie Reynolds starred in the first, the ravishingly beautiful Sandra Dee in the latter two. The movies are really only an introduction to the books–which are much, much better than the movies. The three Tammy books are Tammy Out of Time, Tammy Tell Me True, and Tammy in Rome. All very good, and sometimes thought-provoking. Cid Ricketts Sumner wrote other books, and had a very interesting life. She was home-schooled, and graduated from college early. She was married to a man who eventually won a Nobel Prize in chemistry (after their divorce). They had four children. She carved out a successful writing career in middle age. She was the only woman on a scientific river journey–at age 64! She died at age 80–murdered by her grandson wielding a hammer. This is a writer whose life is crying out for a full-length biography.

13/How many Jews were killed during the Holocaust? Six million, of course. We all know that. We’ve all heard the figure of six million repeated so many times, that we just sort of assume that it is accurate. But it is very likely not accurate at all. Granted, lots of people are already doing work on this topic. So, strictly speaking, we may not need another book on the topic. Moreover, if you are going to write on this subject, you will need to have your big boy pants on. You will probably have to be willing to be hated. Count the cost. I am not kidding. Count the cost. There may be a huge cost, because lots of people have a vested interest in the number of 6,000,000 being accepted as automatically correct. However, part of our service to Jesus Christ should be and can be to love and defend the truth–wherever that takes us. One or more Christians need to consider doing research enough to write on this topic. But don’t enter into this field lightly, unless you are confident that God is calling you to the work. I think it is important work, because truth is always important, and lies are never a sound foundation for living. If the number 6,000,000 is not just wrong, but a lie, we need to know and face reality. It will hurt at first, but in the long run we will all be better off for facing the truth.

That concludes my listing of topics which could probably be accomplished in three to seven years. For the final three items I list, I want to list topics that might take decades rather than years, to complete. However, don’t panic. Very likely you would have enough information after five to seven years, to write a valuable preliminary book. Then, if your life is cut short before all your research is complete, at least you will have something out there that others can build on.

15/Who have killed more people, Protestants or Roman Catholics? Where did the murders happen, when did they happen, and why? Who did the torturing, who did the war crimes? This again is a book for a Christian to write–because Christians should be committed to truth. This should be written by a person with great objectivity. The crimes of other faiths–secular or religious–can be listed and compared with those of the two types of Christians. This is going to take a lot of research, and a very long time. In the case of this book it would in fact probably be a good idea to publish a preliminary book, after about six or seven years, and to call for others to give input on murders, tortures, and war crimes you have missed. Then a revised book, incorporating additions, could be published eventually. This may be a twenty-year project, but maybe it could be accomplished in ten or twelve. This is another case where one scholar does the work, and others can build on what he starts, even if the original scholar doesn’t live to complete his work. We Christians are in this world for the long haul–except our dispensational brothers, who will be raptured off the earth any day now–and Christian civilization probably is in its early stages. There is job security for all of us.

16/We need a book telling the truth–good, bad, sad, whatever; I suspect there will be a mixture–about the historical record of American Indians a/with the U.S. government, and b/with American Christians. That is a big topic! Again, I have to think that a preliminary book could be published after six or seven years. Corrections and revisions and additions would be needed. After two decades total you might have a finished report that came pretty close to giving us an accurate account of what happened. The truth is sometimes painful, but a painful truth is better than a bright shining lie. Let us all try to face the truth honestly. That means facing the crimes of a/American Indians, b/the U.S. government, c/American Christians. When there were good and honorable and generous things going on, by all means report them. The more truth we have, the more likelihood that we will in the future proceed with wisdom. Does there need to be corporate repentance somewhere? If not, great. If so, let’s get to work doing what needs to be done.

17/Why did Europe (aided by the hog-on-ice United States) blow its silly brains out in 1914-18, in 1939-45, and in current baby-killing, Muslim-welcoming times? Something went wrong. If the Protestant Reformation was a huge step in the right direction–let’s not automatically assume that it was!–how did its good effect (again, if the effect was good) die out so spectacularly? Assume for the sake of argument that the Protestant Reformation was a good and needed revision, still undeniably something went horrifically wrong. The answer as to how and why this happened, must be in our theology and in our consequent actions that we took because of our theology. (It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make an educated guess that both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have been helping us commit suicide.) We did this to ourselves! The wreckage is all around us–in our churches and in our nations (European and American)–and we still haven’t even begun to smell a rat! This is a study on which to expend a career. Again, the same pattern should hold: preliminary published book after six or seven years, then a revised up to date final book after twenty years total. If we are unwilling to face the truth that our brand of Christianity is way off base, and has been so for a very long time, we will never get plugged into reality, never make the reforms we need to make.

That concludes my listing of potential topics for books. They were mostly short, with a few which lend themselves to decades of work. I listed 17 topics, but I feel confident that with a little bit of thought I could come up with 17 more. And you could come up with 17 of your own, all of which you would find more interesting than the 17 I have listed.

The world is a fascinating place. With the interpretative grid which Christianity gives us, and with a bit of elbow grease added in, we can help ourselves and our friends and enemies peel back one tiny layer of the fascination. There will always be hundreds of layers more.

Is this a great world or what?!

Last week we began to list some potential topics for books. I said that this is a golden age for writers, because one can publish things at one’s own expense, for not much cost. Thus anyone who wants to write a book, and is willing to put in the research, the time, and the effort, can do so without needing a publishing house to offer one a contract. The gatekeepers are doomed. We can publish as many good books as we can write. (We can also publish as many bad books as we can write; there is no escaping the need to do things as honestly and well as we can.)

There are lots of topics which need covering. These that I list are just a few that have come to me over the years. If you think about it for a year, you can probably come up with another half dozen needed books. So, begin to write them. Ignore my list, make your own, and then begin to write the books. At three to seven years per project, you can accomplish a lot in a couple of decades. If you don’t do the work, someone else will have to do it. It’s going to get done, one way or another.

‘”For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish.”‘ (Esther 4:14)

Thus spoke Mordecai to Esther. I love the way he said that relief and deliverance are going to come, one way or another. If E. didn’t do the work, someone else would. Same for us. If you and I don’t tell the world important truths, and help rescue Christian civilization, someone else will have to pick up the slack. Relief and deliverance will arise. Will you and I be part of that deliverance, or will we leave the work to more diligent people?

I will continue to make my own list, partly to encourage you, and partly because I need to have a topic to write about every week, and this is one that is fun for me. So, picking up after last week’s #2, I continue with a few more potential book topics.

3/I think we need a revaluation of the career of Winston Churchill. I think he was a disastrous man. I realize that is very much a minority opinion. I am not ready to go into details here, but I will just mention one thing: England entering World War II in order to defend Poland. Really? How did that work out? Where was Poland after World War II? Was it free?

4/Apparently England initiated the terror bombing in World War II. Read Bombing Vindicated by J. M. Spaight (1944). Spaight, high up among the British people running the war effort, was writing to defend the actions of England. The bombing, started by England (he said), worked out great, in his opinion. We are used to thinking that Germany was always to blame for everything bad in the war. Most people who read this blog post will think I’ve stayed out in the sun too long. But do the research yourself. Then write the book. Warning: Bombing Vindicated is currently a hard book to find. But it’s out there. It even went through a stage, a few years ago, when it was not expensive. That’s no longer true, but copies can still be found. That book will be a great starting point for your research.

5/Was Abraham Lincoln one of our greatest presidents? He is considered such, by most people, including by most Christians. But I think that is a very serious error. The South had a right to secede. Abraham Lincoln was the most disastrous man in U.S. history. He helped end the republic and usher in the empire. An honest look at the record of Abraham Lincoln is needed. Granted, there are already beginning to be some books on this topic. I think we need quite a few more. We are not going to be thinking clearly on lots of important issues if we continue to hold up Abraham Lincoln as a hero.

6/Someone needs to write a book showing that libertarianism is a Christian heresy. It uses part of Christianity, and drops the part it doesn’t like. But the part it doesn’t like turns out to be a part that it needs. Like every religion, libertarianism hangs its ideas from sky hooks. But the quality of the sky hooks is crucial. Christianity has the only sky hooks that sustain life in the long run. That is true because the God of the Bible is real. Christians have to live by faith, like everyone, but our faith is based on the truth of God and His truth the Bible. Libertarianism has faulty sky hooks. A book on this topic would surely be helpful. Here is a potential title: The Libertarian Confusion. Such a book can be written in a manner to give libertarianism credit where it deserves credit, as for example its better than average record of defending the free market.

7/We need a biography of Leopold Kohr. He wrote The Breakdown of Nations (1957), a semi-famous book which needs to be famous. In it he shows that smallness is the plan of God, that large countries always, without fail, turn to wrongdoing. “Not the U.S., Leopold! We’ll never go wrong!” Oh yes we will, and we have. His book can be obtained for a reasonable amount at AbeBooks–$7.69 for one edition, slightly more for the superb Green Books edition (shipping included in both cases). He was a very interesting man, and we really need to know more about his life. There is a biography of him–but in German, untranslated into real language. A good start would be for someone to translate that biography into English for us! How is your German?

8/How many sermons have you heard on Joab? Probably none. He was a very unusual person, a murderer, but also someone who occasionally “spoke truth to power” in his dealings with David. The Bible really has a lot to say about Joab, but we almost never hear anything about him from the pulpit. I think a biography on him is needed. It would probably have to be short, since we have only the relatively few Bible passages. But there is probably enough material to permit a full-length book treatment. And his personality is fascinating enough to sustain a complete book.

9/This next book needs a semi-famous editor, and about 50 semi-famous contributors. The title is The Most Disastrous People In U.S. History. I’ve had the idea for this book for a long time. Really, I would edit and publish this one myself–if I were semi-famous. But I’m not, alas. (I’m not complaining. Handsome and wealthy are enough for me.) In this book, about 50 semi-famous people of some branch of the right would give their votes for the ten most disastrous people in U.S. history. They would list them from one to ten. The most disastrous person (#1) would receive 10 points. #2 would receive 9 points. And so on. Each writer would take five to six pages to explain why he voted the way he did. At the end, the semi-famous editor would run the math, and tell us who was voted the most disastrous person in U.S. history. The picture of that person would go on the cover, with perhaps a handful of runners-up surrounding him.

There are lots of semi-famous people whose opinion is worth having. Secure the votes of 50 of them, and we would be certain to have many thought-provoking ideas given us.

The reason this needs a semi-famous editor, is that other semi-famous people would respond to his email or phone call or letter. Of course not every semi-famous person solicited would be willing to submit a chapter, but enough would. If I tried to do this on my own, I would get very little response. But the semi-famous would respond to their semi-famous colleague.

I think this book has tremendous potential for large sales. We are used to having people like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, shoved down our throats as our greatest presidents. But all three of those people are among the most disastrous figures in our country’s history. And I feel confident that the 50 semi-famous people who wrote their 50 chapters, would nail the carcasses of these destroyers–and many others–to the wall. Which is exactly what is needed. We would be encouraged to see wickedness exposed at last.

The Bible tells us that there will come a time when “No longer will the fool be called noble,/Or the rogue be spoken of as generous.” (Isaiah 32:5) A book such as this would be a step in the right direction–destroyers exposed, rather than celebrated.

I strongly doubt if any semi-famous person will read this blog post. But you may know a semi-famous person who might be interested in heading up such a project. If you do, get in touch with him. Explain my idea. If this interests him, have him get in touch with me. Tell him that I don’t need to be involved.

However, if you are willing to do this book project, even if you are not semi-famous, heaven bless you. I will encourage you and help you. I will give you names of people who would be good people to have write for you. Maybe we can get this done, even if no semi-famous person is willing to be the editor.

Well, that concludes part II of potential topics for books. I hope there will be a part III next week.