I have some questions for anyone who supports open homosexuality in the military. These questions come because I think that before giving into appearances or emotions on the issue we need to sit down and look at the big picture. The fundamental problem we see with all this nonsense with ridding the at moment best option Don't Ask Don't Tell is that many are themselves unaware of why this policy was even in place. Plus the nature of our military is different than getting a regular job and therefore not really under normal circumstances that we would judge discrimination. I am of course not saying that there is form of it or that it is excusable. I am saying however that before politicising our military we ask questions which may not be considered. I am not at all saying gays cannot be or cannot function in the miltary. Instead looking at the most important thing which is in fact the security of our great country and protecting us and the world from the villianous scum who'd wish us harm. Remember this is an issue of excepting and therefore creating a special class or making an exception. I can understand that many would wish that we consider the gay lifestyle the same as hetrosexual but in all truth it is not the case. This of course begins with our first question.
1. Do you honestly see the military as an employer instead of an intuition?
One of the biggest flaws in the thinking of those who are supporting open homosexuality in the military. Is that we see this as equal opportunity issue that usually deals with private sector jobs. To make this a equality thing makes the waters muddied when looking at the dangerous and extremely important nature of our military. It's not so much an we have a right issue, afterall the individual must become part of collective. This does mean that a group of strangers must be able to work, live, breath and fight together for the goal of insuring safety, freedom and prosperity around the world. Men and women must be united in a goal. For this reason we must suspend the IDENTITY of the indidvidual so that mission is accomplished. This of course is why it is hard for many to make this scrifice and of course is one reason we honor and cherish our military. This is also in place to ensure that open discrimination limited and this is the goal is it not. While I will not refute that it is not perfect, it is better than many other alternatives. While in the private sector it is important to curve discrimination and that it is important to do so that fact remains that some jobs and fields require certain skills and mindsets. This is true in the miltary. I personally was not medically allowed in. Did this mean I was discriminated against? No, but that I have what is necessary to do the job. It's not that gays can't it's the problems that come from allowing an open policy. This is one of the reasons that while in some people's eyes a noble cause this game only continues to in fact it harder for gays in the military. That is the reason equal opportunity itself is not so much a law or a mandate rather a common held goal endorsed by the government. The truth is that the "employer" still holds the right to employ whom they wish unless dealing with business in the public sector. Even then some jobs are just not suitable for all. This concept is understood in why many employers require physicals and mental evaluations depending on the job. Even with this the case we cannot view or consider our military as such. The military itself is an intuition established by our government to ensure the safety of our republic her people and interests.It functions outside the normal parameters of even regular government jobs due to the nature of it's role. The military main role is not providing jobs even though it does.
2. Do you not understand the nature of the military and its need for commonality?
The military's main role is not providing jobs as mentioned above so therefore it's unique and important purpose trumps any kind of benign intentions or goals. It's nature is in fact pragmatic as it is dire. Many in the military serve in important and vital roles that require trust and brotherhood. While yes their 'jobs' and 'careers' are in the military it's dependability however relies on habitual commonality that protects individuals by making a unified presence. This also becomes the primary paradigm for which our military functions. Make no mistake in undermining how many people not just within the military but around the world's whose lives depend on the efficient, dependable, and unfailing need the military provides.
3. So why is this issue this important?
Understand me correctly on this, I am in no way undermining the discrimination homosexuals or anyone else experience in our nation. I DO think it is important to curve it but in all truth does making it a political stunt in the military really help the "gay cause" or therefore the military ? In my mind everyone loses in this aspect because we cause further hate for homosexuals on this one, not because I or anyone else thinks they can't. It is obviously never been an issue of whether gays can join, whats the issue is being open about. This sets them aside and makes the process that every other military memeber goes through into a reverse discrimination. No one has really brought to mention other groups like Christians who since the Clinton era have faced discrimnation. Even other minorities are faced with being discrimnated against. The truth is that besides the built in differences that can normally occur this will infact create and us vs. them reality that will divide our miltary. This will only lead to more (not less) discrimination against gays. Is this really what you want?
Despite how wronged you may feel, please dispence with the energy and emotion on how gays are not a part of normal society. It never has been and while you may want to have that debate fine do it, but does using the military to institute it or even having the debate do any justice to anyone? No, why? Because the military is important, and cannot be made grounds for an open lecture on lifestyle, it's nature cannot support it. I believe that how much we can get overwhelmed with what's right we can become obsecure to the realiies of the world we live in and ergo cause further lasting damage then just not wanting a gay to be open about it. We have bigger fish to fry and more urgent matters in which our military has far more important tasks like defending this country instead of being used for a soap box. If you wish to change society's view on being openly gay then go ahead and do it in the public square, just don't do it with an institution that has depended, and may I add been very successful in doing its job as is. It has been in fact policies and attempts like this that has to many problems in our military. Don't ask Don't Tell was a sorry excuse to in fact try deal with this issue when the military was never designed to deal with this issue. I also might add that it was democrat Bill Clinton that did in fact put this into policy. What we can actually see, is how this issue hurt the goals that those who supported open homosexuality in the military in the past. This idea of throwing a bone and allowing a specific group special status in our military is in fact the backwards thinking that lead to the segregation of color people in the past. What in fact comes from this whole fiasco is a segregated military and in today's world with the dangers we face, it makes our country less safe. While I would love to be in a fantasy world that says that this make the world a better place, in fact the grim reality is starkly different. So I go back and I say this, what is important to you and what's important to our republic. To myself the highest paramount is a safer world with all people alive and free. The simple truth is that openly gay military only leads to more dead soldiers and I care for all so I rather see them alive then openly dead.
Fort Heritage
The Last Defense of History,Theology,Philosophy, and Cuture of the Thinking Man.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Good and Bad Change
Throughout the 2008 Presidental Election then canidate Barrack Obama promised change. It seems given the state of the nation in the last ten years that we need change. I do not oppose the notion that we need change. However I do oppose Obama's definition what good change is. It was easy for the Democrats to speak of change and somehow put it upon the GOP that they don't want chnage and thanks to the liberal media it was not easy to convince many people that if you want change go for the dems and Obama, but if you don't want change then stick with Republicans and McCain The democrats took much time in asserting that McCain was George Bush. The failing of the GOP and party politics was that they should have refuted that you would get more Bush with Obama. Of course it would be hard for the kool aid drinkers to believe and now give the current state a good number of them especially in the media are catching on. Just the other day Jon Stewart was openly comparing the Obama Admin to the Bush's. You see Obama promised change, he said he would radically rearrange the system and somehow we shoulf be surprises? The truth is that Obams's change is a worst change that Bush. Trust me I am not letting go his crimes but but the Dems better wake up and stop using the Bush excuse, because he is long gone. It is not normal or healthy to hold on to this much anger just to let slip the greater crimes and grouse mis power of Obama's power.
Truth is there is good change. We can repeal laws that are no longer effective, we can the spending, we can revert back to the way our country was intended to be. A country for the people, by the people but instead we have accepted this tangled miss of special interests, lobbylists, and this mind set that the people making the laws know better. In all reality we need to blame ourselves for being so pre damned occupied with keeping up with the Jones and so on. We should have paid more attention to the crooks who used our money to further enslave us to a global bank and a structure of global economy that will not only threaten the soverignity of this nation but lead us to become a third world power. Well America you wanted change here it is from 5% unemployment to 11% in less than 18 months the most radical swing since the Great Depression. We have reports that after this little bubble we are in that it will go to 17% or even 20% next year. That is almost a quater of the entire nation not employed. This will be the worst frickin economic collapse ever, and this will get worst when cap in trade and other bad bills signed become retroactive. Obama in a short time has change this country and it is not for good. As Bob Dylan sings "change is a comming" well it is not that good.
Now certain people in the media and governenment will say that I am an alarmists, trying to frighten people in not supporting our government. The problem is that it is not our place to it is the other way around. There is good news though, we can change it and we shall overcome. It depends on you and me and what we want.
Truth is there is good change. We can repeal laws that are no longer effective, we can the spending, we can revert back to the way our country was intended to be. A country for the people, by the people but instead we have accepted this tangled miss of special interests, lobbylists, and this mind set that the people making the laws know better. In all reality we need to blame ourselves for being so pre damned occupied with keeping up with the Jones and so on. We should have paid more attention to the crooks who used our money to further enslave us to a global bank and a structure of global economy that will not only threaten the soverignity of this nation but lead us to become a third world power. Well America you wanted change here it is from 5% unemployment to 11% in less than 18 months the most radical swing since the Great Depression. We have reports that after this little bubble we are in that it will go to 17% or even 20% next year. That is almost a quater of the entire nation not employed. This will be the worst frickin economic collapse ever, and this will get worst when cap in trade and other bad bills signed become retroactive. Obama in a short time has change this country and it is not for good. As Bob Dylan sings "change is a comming" well it is not that good.
Now certain people in the media and governenment will say that I am an alarmists, trying to frighten people in not supporting our government. The problem is that it is not our place to it is the other way around. There is good news though, we can change it and we shall overcome. It depends on you and me and what we want.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Defining Conservatism and Liberalism
There are many misunderstandings of the actual definitions and ideologies of such labels as conservative and liberal. Each word has come to be a negative term when in truth the terms are not that all evil in themselves, rather needed in defining the ideals. While in each view their can be an extreme it is important not be ignorant to their multiple uses. It is the misunderstanding of these views that causes additional confusion and even more hostility towards them that requires one such as I, who knows the roots of these words and views to correct the sea of misguided labeling. First and foremost it is vitally important to know that these terms outside the political arena have multiple meanings and in different areas of life. Someone who is conservative in their politics maybe liberal in their theology or life philosophy. One may be liberal in their poltics but conservative in their money or visa versa. So understanding these terms in the fullness of their meaning will help to set unwanted confusion aside. Our next step must be in defining these terms and using them in context. Below are the definition of the terms.
CONSERVATIVE:
1. Favoring traditional views and values
2. Traditional or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious
LIBERALISM:
1. a political or social philosophy advocating the f reedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress.
Now according to the same site read this is under the defintion of liberalism.
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
You see what alot of Evangelical Protestants fail to see is that their very own church identity came from a liberal philosophy and theology. The word protestant is someone who is in a state of protest. Liberals tend to protest, it is in fact a part of the belief. That belief that all voices and views are equal. While some protestants would not think that they believe this in respects of other religions, that is what exatctly their founders believed. Even if in some small part the belief is centered in freedom of their views. Protestants opposed the rigid and 'conservative" dogma, traditions, and practices of both the Roman Catholic Church and the state run churches in Europe. America was found on this very ideal of religious freedom and it is an liberal ideal. Liberalism is about change and the Protestant view point was built on changing the at the time current view that only Rome was right, they also protested the 'tradtions' of the the church. So before Protestants can call themselves true conservatives they need to know the difference in being conservative in politics, philosophy,theology, and even in personal life choices. Liberalism on the other hand has been built on the idea of personal freedom, personal rights to a better government, and to change. America is a liberal country whether people see or not. This does not mean it is a progressive liberal which is what the current 'liberals' are. However America was built on the ideals of religious freedom, individual freedom, and the right of choice, we where founded men who where at later stages of a movement we call Classical Liberalism. Most of today's political conservative ideals are based on Classical Liberalism. Truly the only reason we call those conservatives is because they are trying to hold on to those ideals which are being changed by the radical liberals or progressives. It's truly hard to call today's liberals liberal the big government approach they take to institute their change is producing larger government more control and they have gone so far on the pegilum that they go back to feudalism and despotism the oldest and most restraint form of government. Far from freedom far from liberalism.
Today's progressive liberals have become almost theocratic in their religion of tolerance and promoting their believes their push towards being "green" is just as religious as any other group. The fact is even people who borrow money, who are not fiscally responsible and wreck less spenders are liberal! Have you ever heard the term liberal with you money? The question I have is if you live liberally, worship liberally and believe in freedom and choice, face it your a liberal. You may not be radical but you are a liberal. Truth is today the modern conservative movement is more true liberal than the liberals. Freedom is a liberal value and yet many are confused on this issue. On the other true conservatives are more frugal, it is some ways understands that freedom while good can be wreck less and dangerous. The monarchy system and parliamentary system are more in line with true conservatism. The Catholic Church until recently was a Conservative churhc holding to traditions and values. Now reformed evangelicals in the line of Lutherans,Calvinist, and some Baptists are more in line with a traditional and conservative doctrine. All of them have some trace of Liberalism in them. Does this make them bad, no not really, in more moderate view point they are more at balance with liberalism and conservatism than other churches despite on the surface what might in a cultural since seem to be traditionalist, and more conservative. However we cannot let the culture factor distract us from the preset factors of what defines a church or theology as being conservative.
In all truth moderate thinking people are more in tuned with conservatism then liberalism, despite the urge to label them so from the radicals. Most moderates are a balance of classical liberalism political ideologies, in some certain lifestyle choices, but hit more conservatism tones in philosophy, even theologically. The moderate balance is recognizing the need of traditions, their place, the history but also recognizing the importance of freedom. If we to take the scale of radicals being the ultra left, and the more reserved, regal elements of classical conservatism the balance in the middle is between classical liberal and what I call paleoconservatism. Which is a form of classical conservatism. Without the feudal understanding. Truly in my mind paleoconservatives are true moderates, for they balance conservatism with liberalism. It is important to note that by moderate I mean not of being modern in culture or history but in being in the center, being balanced. While the term for paleoconservatism seems by its appearance in wording to be that regal or very old traditionalist. In political terms its more in showing its contrast to neo conservatism or new conservatism. The misconception of neo conservatism is that its old or extreme conservatism, however neo conservatism is far from what true conservatism is about. While it may share similar views like in the protection of the state and its people, its far more closer to neo liberalism which is the background of communism. The neo liberals in Russia used the military as its machine of revolutionary change. Where Neo Cons usually use the military industrial complex not for revolution but for retaining the power of it. We find its roots in the Civil War in America where Lincoln and the Republicans used the army for strengthening of the federal government. When the democrats of the south wanted freedom and practice their American rights the early Neo Cons swooped in attacked.
While many neo liberals or progressive liberals look at Hitler as a sign of neo conservatism and install their fears of that kind of regime. In all truth Hitler was more a neo liberal for wanting to use the power of the government to make changes to his country. Just like the liberals of today do, he seeked to use that power for his revolution, but Hitler also used it after he got power, in alot of ways he turned neo conservative. That's the threat of both neo conservatism and neo liberalism, they use the same tactics and eventually become each other. Today in our country we have neo libs in power who are on the verge of becoming Neo Cons. While I put Lincoln as an example of neo conservatism, and Stalin and the communists in Russia as the example of neo liberalism, both are at play in Hitler. True fascism comes these groups despite what the other thinks. So why I am writing this? I want people to truly understand where these terms come from and where they have root in. I also want you to ask yourself what you truly believe, despite the moral trappings, the political banner most liberal Christians are conservative because of the tactics of infusing Christ into it. They think the conservatives are the only Christians, and that's why they have to be there but its the same for how the extreme left think they are true liberals. They think neo liberalism is true liberalism, they are attracted to it byt the lure of government change for their religion of environmentalism and equal rights, but they may be shocked to know how close to neo conservatism they are. I go more into this issue, maybe even right a book but it's important to define the terms, before going further.
CONSERVATIVE:
1. Favoring traditional views and values
2. Traditional or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious
LIBERALISM:
1. a political or social philosophy advocating the f reedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress.
Now according to the same site read this is under the defintion of liberalism.
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
You see what alot of Evangelical Protestants fail to see is that their very own church identity came from a liberal philosophy and theology. The word protestant is someone who is in a state of protest. Liberals tend to protest, it is in fact a part of the belief. That belief that all voices and views are equal. While some protestants would not think that they believe this in respects of other religions, that is what exatctly their founders believed. Even if in some small part the belief is centered in freedom of their views. Protestants opposed the rigid and 'conservative" dogma, traditions, and practices of both the Roman Catholic Church and the state run churches in Europe. America was found on this very ideal of religious freedom and it is an liberal ideal. Liberalism is about change and the Protestant view point was built on changing the at the time current view that only Rome was right, they also protested the 'tradtions' of the the church. So before Protestants can call themselves true conservatives they need to know the difference in being conservative in politics, philosophy,theology, and even in personal life choices. Liberalism on the other hand has been built on the idea of personal freedom, personal rights to a better government, and to change. America is a liberal country whether people see or not. This does not mean it is a progressive liberal which is what the current 'liberals' are. However America was built on the ideals of religious freedom, individual freedom, and the right of choice, we where founded men who where at later stages of a movement we call Classical Liberalism. Most of today's political conservative ideals are based on Classical Liberalism. Truly the only reason we call those conservatives is because they are trying to hold on to those ideals which are being changed by the radical liberals or progressives. It's truly hard to call today's liberals liberal the big government approach they take to institute their change is producing larger government more control and they have gone so far on the pegilum that they go back to feudalism and despotism the oldest and most restraint form of government. Far from freedom far from liberalism.
Today's progressive liberals have become almost theocratic in their religion of tolerance and promoting their believes their push towards being "green" is just as religious as any other group. The fact is even people who borrow money, who are not fiscally responsible and wreck less spenders are liberal! Have you ever heard the term liberal with you money? The question I have is if you live liberally, worship liberally and believe in freedom and choice, face it your a liberal. You may not be radical but you are a liberal. Truth is today the modern conservative movement is more true liberal than the liberals. Freedom is a liberal value and yet many are confused on this issue. On the other true conservatives are more frugal, it is some ways understands that freedom while good can be wreck less and dangerous. The monarchy system and parliamentary system are more in line with true conservatism. The Catholic Church until recently was a Conservative churhc holding to traditions and values. Now reformed evangelicals in the line of Lutherans,Calvinist, and some Baptists are more in line with a traditional and conservative doctrine. All of them have some trace of Liberalism in them. Does this make them bad, no not really, in more moderate view point they are more at balance with liberalism and conservatism than other churches despite on the surface what might in a cultural since seem to be traditionalist, and more conservative. However we cannot let the culture factor distract us from the preset factors of what defines a church or theology as being conservative.
In all truth moderate thinking people are more in tuned with conservatism then liberalism, despite the urge to label them so from the radicals. Most moderates are a balance of classical liberalism political ideologies, in some certain lifestyle choices, but hit more conservatism tones in philosophy, even theologically. The moderate balance is recognizing the need of traditions, their place, the history but also recognizing the importance of freedom. If we to take the scale of radicals being the ultra left, and the more reserved, regal elements of classical conservatism the balance in the middle is between classical liberal and what I call paleoconservatism. Which is a form of classical conservatism. Without the feudal understanding. Truly in my mind paleoconservatives are true moderates, for they balance conservatism with liberalism. It is important to note that by moderate I mean not of being modern in culture or history but in being in the center, being balanced. While the term for paleoconservatism seems by its appearance in wording to be that regal or very old traditionalist. In political terms its more in showing its contrast to neo conservatism or new conservatism. The misconception of neo conservatism is that its old or extreme conservatism, however neo conservatism is far from what true conservatism is about. While it may share similar views like in the protection of the state and its people, its far more closer to neo liberalism which is the background of communism. The neo liberals in Russia used the military as its machine of revolutionary change. Where Neo Cons usually use the military industrial complex not for revolution but for retaining the power of it. We find its roots in the Civil War in America where Lincoln and the Republicans used the army for strengthening of the federal government. When the democrats of the south wanted freedom and practice their American rights the early Neo Cons swooped in attacked.
While many neo liberals or progressive liberals look at Hitler as a sign of neo conservatism and install their fears of that kind of regime. In all truth Hitler was more a neo liberal for wanting to use the power of the government to make changes to his country. Just like the liberals of today do, he seeked to use that power for his revolution, but Hitler also used it after he got power, in alot of ways he turned neo conservative. That's the threat of both neo conservatism and neo liberalism, they use the same tactics and eventually become each other. Today in our country we have neo libs in power who are on the verge of becoming Neo Cons. While I put Lincoln as an example of neo conservatism, and Stalin and the communists in Russia as the example of neo liberalism, both are at play in Hitler. True fascism comes these groups despite what the other thinks. So why I am writing this? I want people to truly understand where these terms come from and where they have root in. I also want you to ask yourself what you truly believe, despite the moral trappings, the political banner most liberal Christians are conservative because of the tactics of infusing Christ into it. They think the conservatives are the only Christians, and that's why they have to be there but its the same for how the extreme left think they are true liberals. They think neo liberalism is true liberalism, they are attracted to it byt the lure of government change for their religion of environmentalism and equal rights, but they may be shocked to know how close to neo conservatism they are. I go more into this issue, maybe even right a book but it's important to define the terms, before going further.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Lessons from the Fort: The Anatomy of a Fort.
What is a fort? A fort is a fortified position in a strategic area that is design to be a keep, a shelter, garrison, a staging point for an army. It holds a variety of people in a variety of professions dealing in the realms of a military. A fort is necessary in retaining and expanding any kingdom. Understanding the essential need of a fort is to understand an essential goal of the king. The fort has evolved over the years but it's purpose and function remains. So whats in a fort? What makes unique and important to any military and how can it effect us?
First thing to know is that it is a small community of individuals who are part of a bigger country or operation. It' abilities can dictate how fast or show either it's kingdom or it's rival kingdom can grow. It a place that both provides security and yet can help attack another. The following are the elements in a fort that make it a fort.
1.) Walls: Walls are fundamental in making a fort it is what allows you to be safe. A fort is a defensive structure and for many years walls where the essential, it allowed you to withstand attacks but it also allowed to have a high ground a few well placed archers on a wall could do damage to many infantry men trying to climb it. Walls force the attackers to change up their tactic, it gave an instant advantage to those defending the fort. Walls represent strength and an unwillingness to move. Even now despite the actual need of walls modern forts use fences with electricity. These make it hard for anyone to penetrate the fort. The wall is also very daunting and at times overwhelming making the moral of anyone trying to get pass them decrease. The wall is the primary defense of the fort and without the fort uses it's effectiveness to protect itself.
2.) Barracks: Barracks are essential military building that offer training but a place for the people to sleep. Barracks by their design allow people in the fort to stay together Essential to a healthy fort is for people to stay in the fort, the barracks allow for this usually nicer barracks make living in a fort nicer which increase moral and helps overall in the defense.
3.) Garrison: You have barracks but a garrison is needed to fill them. Garrison is not just reference to a group of people trained to fight and heavily armed it also the name for where the supplies and weapons are stored. Without weapons it can be hard to fight off any attackers, especially if they get over the walls. The garrison is also used in staging a group of soldiers for an attack somewhere in the region. The garrison allows for the fort to go on the offense. A garrison is also used in patrolling the area making it harder for a surprise attack.
Wants important to remember at a fort is that there is a multitude of background and professions. In the middle ages there were blacksmiths, mason workers, and any other profession needed in a community. Despite the various backgrounds they are come together for one common purpose. The mission of the fort. So why mention all this, it's simple in truth we are all in a fort, the fort of the True Christian Church, and organizations and sites like this which defend our territory and proclaims victory for our sovereign. It is important in times like these to band together and to stand for the essential truths and values that set us free from tyranny, deception, misery, and our own contempt. I call this blog Fort Heritage because we defend the truths and beliefs of a group that is surrounded by the darkness of the relevant vague truths of our times. We must stand firm in the principles given to us and teach a new generation before all is lost. Here we defend the heritage of heaven, freedom, and of good thinking men. To stand firm in a wake of left over morals and half truths.
First thing to know is that it is a small community of individuals who are part of a bigger country or operation. It' abilities can dictate how fast or show either it's kingdom or it's rival kingdom can grow. It a place that both provides security and yet can help attack another. The following are the elements in a fort that make it a fort.
1.) Walls: Walls are fundamental in making a fort it is what allows you to be safe. A fort is a defensive structure and for many years walls where the essential, it allowed you to withstand attacks but it also allowed to have a high ground a few well placed archers on a wall could do damage to many infantry men trying to climb it. Walls force the attackers to change up their tactic, it gave an instant advantage to those defending the fort. Walls represent strength and an unwillingness to move. Even now despite the actual need of walls modern forts use fences with electricity. These make it hard for anyone to penetrate the fort. The wall is also very daunting and at times overwhelming making the moral of anyone trying to get pass them decrease. The wall is the primary defense of the fort and without the fort uses it's effectiveness to protect itself.
2.) Barracks: Barracks are essential military building that offer training but a place for the people to sleep. Barracks by their design allow people in the fort to stay together Essential to a healthy fort is for people to stay in the fort, the barracks allow for this usually nicer barracks make living in a fort nicer which increase moral and helps overall in the defense.
3.) Garrison: You have barracks but a garrison is needed to fill them. Garrison is not just reference to a group of people trained to fight and heavily armed it also the name for where the supplies and weapons are stored. Without weapons it can be hard to fight off any attackers, especially if they get over the walls. The garrison is also used in staging a group of soldiers for an attack somewhere in the region. The garrison allows for the fort to go on the offense. A garrison is also used in patrolling the area making it harder for a surprise attack.
Wants important to remember at a fort is that there is a multitude of background and professions. In the middle ages there were blacksmiths, mason workers, and any other profession needed in a community. Despite the various backgrounds they are come together for one common purpose. The mission of the fort. So why mention all this, it's simple in truth we are all in a fort, the fort of the True Christian Church, and organizations and sites like this which defend our territory and proclaims victory for our sovereign. It is important in times like these to band together and to stand for the essential truths and values that set us free from tyranny, deception, misery, and our own contempt. I call this blog Fort Heritage because we defend the truths and beliefs of a group that is surrounded by the darkness of the relevant vague truths of our times. We must stand firm in the principles given to us and teach a new generation before all is lost. Here we defend the heritage of heaven, freedom, and of good thinking men. To stand firm in a wake of left over morals and half truths.
Welcome to the Fort
Welcome to Fort Heritage! Why the name? Well forts for hundreds of years provided a place mostly in remote or even enemey regions for defending the area, stagging area for the army or even a shelter for the people in times of danger. In that spirit this blog is dedicated towards protecting our sanity against the enemies of false relgions, post modernism, extreme feminism, radical ideals that challenge freedom. A place to provide shelter for the storms of our times and combat it. Forts also resemeble strength, durablity, and stands out against the landscape it is in. In his hymn 'A Mighty Fortress" Martin Luther shows God as a strong and opposing fort, and the weapons inside. Not to frighten the meek but combat against the devil that evil foe. I bring this up because the miltary element of Christianity like many others has been removed and we find ourselves in extreme times. Where many have forgotten that in all truth we must battle everyday the forces of evil and of the stupid, we must train like a solider ever more being ready. We have to fight to maintain our faith, our freedom and our heritage which is also why this blog is called Fort Heritage, to defend the themes and ideals of Classical Reformation, Classical Philosophy and Politcs, understanding whats great about the birth of these ideals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)