The Gospel Truth

The Marriage Wars | April 30, 2013

I have done a lot of research on cultural Marxism.

It was Antonio Gramsci who recognized in the 1920s that the best way to undermine the West was to start a long march through its culture.

He also recognized that Italian women were exceptionally tied to their families, homes, children and their Catholic faith.

It fell to the survivors of the Frankfurt school, a number of expatriate Jewish scholars who escaped to the United States and taught in several of this country’s universities to put Gramsci’s ideas into practice.

I am talking foremost about Herbert Marcuse who exhorted his students in the 1960s to make love and not war.

Herbert Marcuse in Newton, Massachusetts 1955.jpeg

Undermined marriage

His protegé was Betty Friedan whose book The Feminine Mystique did more harm to marriage and the American family than could be imagined.

I compare her book to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

I say this…not because I think women were slaves but because as Lincoln has been quoted as saying when he met Mrs. Stowe…Oh, you are the little lady who started the Civil War.

As a virtual marriage abolitionist…at least in effect…Friedan’s book did help ignite the culture war.

Perhaps Friedan can be regarded as the little woman who started the marriage wars!

Betty Friedan 1960.jpg

Marriage was her battleground

The Roe v. Wade decision and the feminist movement, which followed her book, have greatly hurt traditional marriage.

Now on its heels is the Rainbow Movement of homosexuals who march under the banner of marriage equality.

They have made it a matter of individual autonomy and equality of choice, similar arguments as used by the radical feminists.

No one is free to marry anyone or anything they want.

License over tradition

I once argued with a young friend several years ago about this subject.

He was all in favor of same-sex marriage.

I asked him what if one of the spouses was 14-15?

Oh no he said.  That would be wrong.

Why would it be wrong, I countered.

It just is, he said.

By whose standard?

Because one would be too young, he said!

But what if they  both loved each other and had consented to this sexual union?

He had no answer.

This smart young man could not accept the fact that by letting the nose of SSM into our national tent, he had inadvertently had his logic turned on him to allow its less than social parts into our tent.

That’s why liberals lose most arguments on facts and logic and have to resort to ad hominem attacks and emotional pleas.

In ancient Greece and Rome the left usually dispatched reasonable and logical people because they threatened their aggressive agendas.

Death for the logical

Personally I think the age of consent is the main reason that this is an issue.

I believe there are many in the homosexual community that don’t want any age limitations on their sexual activity.

And age is a relative number isn’t it?

I read a headline in a gay newspaper in San Fransisco many years ago that lamented...if no sex by eight…it’s too late.

If they get their way on this aspect of marriage, I’ll bet there are a few former priests in prison who would be muttering…if I had only waited!

If one can change the original and essential terms of the definition then everything is possible.

Russian writer Dostoevsky noticed that in the 19th century.

Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg

Knew what would happen

A man then can marry several women.

Or a woman–several men.

I am certain there are pockets of this going on in Utah and other places.

Did they not make a series about that on HBO?

Big Love I think it was called.

I have noticed some people seem to have what may be delicately described as an intense relationship with their pets.

Many people leave their wealth to their pets, such was their affection for their animals.

So why not a bestial union with one’s loving companion?

A new tradition

PETA doesn’t like the word Pet.

So in essence there can be no such thing as a gay marriage.

The marriage wars have also caused a deeper rift within the Republican party.

Many of the Party’s so-called stalwarts have already abandoned ship.

Many of the moderates, who date back to the Republican Roosevelt sense that this will be a losing issue that it is also wiser to choose political expediency over moral principles.

Think Karl Rove and his spineless moderate approach to winning elections!

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1904.jpg

Gave us Karl Rove

It has also been interesting to read the many different opinions on how gay marriage is natural.

There was one bit of cotton candy for the soul that appeared in the New York Times, pointing out a handful of different animal and insect species which on occasion had crossed the line of sexual difference.

Canadian conservative David Frum, though probably not the best one to defend the sanctity of marriage or any other conservative principle for that matter, gave the most obvious argument that same-sex marriage severed the institution’s connection to the two inter-related realities of gender difference and procreation.

In doing so they would replace the traditional building block of society that was more family oriented  with a broader, thinner, more adult-centric view, which would ultimately be less likely to bind parents to children, husbands and wives.

Andrew Sullivan, a long-time homosexual activist countered that heterosexuals had already severed marriage from procreation.

Andrew Sullivan cropped.jpg

Pushing the agenda

This is not exactly true!

While millions of couples have sought to limit the number of children in their families through a combination of natural or artificial birth control, as well as abstinence, the vast majority still bring any where from one to three or four children into their families.

There is not a complete severance.

He also gave what has become the party line in his circles of trying to prove that homosexual unions would bring a new stability to marriage, sending a firm message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring to gays and straights alike.

That would be risible if he had not been so serious.

The forces at the Times are trying to advance the capstone notion, held by the gnostic liberals of our day that marriage is not about families any more.

Now they see marriage as a celebration of adult achievement, which they think this seems to work out better for Americans in the long run.

I guess this micro-management of traditional marriage is just another example of Barack Obama’s idea of the new normal.

The man said he was going to change things, didn’t he?



  1. In your opening barrage, Blog you mention two players whom you believe were instrumental in degrading marriage between man and women. Betty Friedan and Herbert Marcuse both Jews.
    It seems the Jews is what’s really is behind, most of what we called traditions that are under attack.
    If you’ve ever seen the movie Fiddler on the Roof, they have a song called “Traditions” The gist is this, it’s what keeps Jews, Jews. Their entire history of being vagabonds as they went from one country to another, then kick out by the ruling class. During WW2 Franklin Roosevelt refused the let a ship to enter this country in Miami FL filled with Jews, who, were fleeing the Nazi regime. The ship was called The St. Louis

    The communist party was founded by Jews and run by Jews. Although I detest the way Hitler handle the communist party in Germany, and am not a holocaust denier, but I can see why the socialists party wanted to eliminate commies, they were a threat. The other aspect is was Germany was saddle with war reparations stemming from ww1, and they Germany, blame the banking system run by wealthy Jews for not giving loans to Germany sending them into hyper inflation. This gave rise to the paper hanger. If you want to destroy a country or nation, destroy its traditions!

    Comment by Mike Ellington — May 1, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

    • And it was even worse! During those years when demjanjukdefamany struggled after WWI one of their only profitable exports was figurines of extremely fine quality. One example of these are the highly collectible Hummel figurines. This issue was highlighted in the film made from the seminal story by Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five. The sub-protagonist, friend and mentor of the main protagonist during his time spent in the demjanjukdefaman POW camp at Dresden after the allied firebombing and holds it up in amazement that something so delicate and pure could survive such an outrage and he is summarily hauled off and shot for “looting” by the formerly somewhat-understanding demjanjukdefaman authorities in their outrage over the scurrilous attack on a totally non-military target.

      Those types of trinkets provided post WWI demjanjukdefamany with much needed foreign currency. During that time a zionist program to raise money to “buy” Palestine from foreign landholders–who for the most part often didn’t even know they’d been left land there by some relative and certainly who were paying no tax and doing no upkeep— and one significant program for raising that capital was selling figurines produced in the balkan nations in competition to the demjanjukdefaman figurines. They even exploited their connections in the press to disparage the demjanjukdefaman products as being “inferior” to promote the competing sales of their actually-inferior products. So there was a targeted attack on demjanjukdefamany that went beyond mere “war reparations” and we know who it was coming from. I got my information on this from none other than the local PBS channel which might as well be renamed the zionist channel.

      You can’t tell really effective lies without salting them with heavy doses of truth. That’s one of the Achilles heels of lying.

      Comment by James Stenzel — May 2, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

  2. Where everyone “misses the boat” is that this is a world socialist movement and not just a U.S. issue. Vatican II, according to Malachi Martin, was the Church’s way of joining in and proclaiming that there is no sin and that man is merely a “creature of his enviornment”. Teilhard de Chardin was complicit with his evolutionary philosophy and John XXIII bought in. He bought in to the extent of ridiculing the three children of Fatima as merely illiterate sheep herders who were delusional. He did not buy into Our Lady of Fatima and went to the extent of obfuscating the entire episode.

    Comment by jbq2 — May 1, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

    • The religious story of man’s fall from grace in the garden of eden would seem, to me, to be a tale of evolutionary change. We ( in this tale ) evolved from a being ignorant of the difference between right and wrong to a creature knowing the difference. The tale assigns an outside agency partial responsibility for what we became.

      Evolutionary change does not in and of itself preclude the development or evolution of a creature which has changed from being entirely a creature of it’s environment to one which behaves in a manner which would keep it the same and to test the abilities of that “design” against challenges from the environment from which it originally sprung–including moral challenges to it’s moral nature.

      But let me agree enthusiastically with you about the danger of giving men the excuse of being “victims of circumstance” and products of their environment. We are what we are. We have certain tendencies built into us and we have come to a pass where we’re intelligent enough to overcome our impulses and model our behavior on issues above mere impulse. The best impulse we have is to wait and stay our hands to take the time to analyze what the greater long-term impact of our incipient behavior may be. I believe that was forged into some of us by the extreme environments our spirits moved us to investigate and attempt to master. But at that point we became thinking men not mere feeling men. You may believe the change came from divine inspiration. I don’t really care where it came from the point is that we can’t give people the excuse of being poor for their crimes. There is a right and a wrong whether it came down from a divine source or whether thinking man got sophisticated-enough to realize it on his own and created a deity to assign to something greater than ourselves the credit for what we’d discovered.

      People, being the creative creatures they are, can always come up with some excuse to give themselves why their real or imagined circumstances can excuse what they know is wrong.

      That’s got to stop.

      I believe evolutionary processes created us and you believe God, but we are what we are. Evolutionary processes CAN keep us what we ARE until we ultimately prove whether what we are is worthy or otherwise. Not only are individuals on trial but also humanity.

      You can’t have a trial where the defendant is allowed to evolve through the whole process of the commission, apprehension and trial/punishment ( if any ) experience. The entity on trial is the one which did the crime or sin. If his counsel claims “my client is a changed man” the answer is “was he that changed man when he committed the offense?” and so people are what they are and mankind is what mankind is.

      The process of crime-and-punishment is a way of taking the mechanism of evolution and applying it to keep us from evolving.

      In electronic design the same processes which can lead to “thermal run-away” and destruction of the circuit, ultimately, can be skillfully rearranged to obtain stable performance and that’s what we need to concentrate upon. If we teach ourselves that we are a product of our environment and behave accordingly–by allowing those who are so-excused to continue to participate—then we will indeed BE products of our environments and will evolve accordingly into the type of creatures which always have an excuse—because they will not be in prisons where they can’t pass on the genes for such behavior or where they will not be so ashamed of what they’ve done that they don’t think their particular version of Human ‘98.3.2 needs to be propagated.

      We evolved ( or were created as you prefer–it really doesn’t matter ) to give birth to our young ~9months premature—because of the size of our craniums/brains. Right now we’re evolving further along those lines–taking a “good thing” beyond the point of diminishing returns. We’re doing this with our premature baby incubators and other medical techniques for conserving the genes for partuition at less than 9 months. Suggest the sterilization of all who are saved by these techniques from the usual consequences of premature birth and watch the cries of “genocide” and “hitlerism” erupt.

      But this is a great example of how we can allow unsupervised evolution to run amok to our detriment. It’s not a good thing for any organism living in an environment where civilization-destroying catastrophe is all too possible to develop a propensity for giving birth as a matter of course at a fetal age which requires civilization to support it. A thing like that could mean the difference betweeen extinction or survival in a natural ( or even man-made ) catastrophe which is right on the borderline between sure extinction and survival.

      And the same goes with allowing the conservation of genes for amorality.

      Whether you believe morality has mainly to do with eternal consequences or whether you believe it has to do with a necessity borne of the easy availability of the means to destroy not only one’s self but everyone ( and possibly even everything–esoteric physics is beginning to become quite frightening in that regard… ) one thing is certain—we need morality. If we keep excusing it away we will eventually find that we don’t have it in sufficient quantities when the “moment of truth” comes.

      Already we live in a society where the individual has “evolved” to the point where children cannot be trusted to be in the presence of loaded firearms and to NOT created a catastrophe. Even so recently as when I was young we were not so evolved along those lines and every hardware store worthy of the title sold firearms of some sort and stocked enough ammunition to supply a coup in a banana republic. Firearms were specifically marketed to children. Not that long before I came on the scene children could easily obtain the money to and then purchase mail-order some form of surplus military small-arm. But we had not yet evolved to the point where such a situation would militate for a mass shooting at a school. I can assure you there were bullies/bullying galore in those days though…

      Whether you prefer “eternal verities” or “Self Evident Rights ( and responsibilities ) of Man” doesn’t matter. At some point, however it happened, we came into the knowledge of the difference between that which is good and that which is not. There’s no going back from that point, only destruction or salvation. Someone grabbed a tiger by the tail a long time ago. I don’t pretend to know if his name was Adam or some series of mostly-nameless sages who, through the technology of agriculture/animal-husbandry leading to commerce and the leisure-time to indulge in scholarship began realizing these things but I know where not availing one’s self of the knowledge of good and evil ultimately winds up in every other known case–when was the last time you saw an Apatosaur lumbering up your street?

      The law, whether divine or man-made, grinds exceedingly fine and exceedingly slow. It’s going to take a long time to judge an entire species. Nature doesn’t necessarily allow for that amount of time. Nature destroys randomly and with complete indifference to good or bad.

      We are uniquely situated to preserve a “snapshot” of a species long enough for it to be righteously judged, for once. All we’re asking for is a little justice. We, and only we can arrange that we actually get some. It’s our choice, we can decide whether to seek justice or whether to evolve and be struck down randomly sooner or later with not verdict rendered. Were we a good idea or were we a big mistake? I want to know. Do you?

      I think the general trend is toward not wanting to know much of anything beyond that which is strictly required to remain relatively comfortable ( temporarily ).

      More’s the pity.

      Comment by James Stenzel — May 5, 2013 @ 1:33 am

  3. I agree with your views and the whole thing makes me sick. Gays can do a “so-called marriage” but they are living in a dream world as they are not married in the full sense of the world. Yuk!!!!

    Comment by Mary B. Lachney — May 2, 2013 @ 12:31 am

  4. Professor! The Franfurters to whom you refer come from a national tribal culture which seems to gravitate to certain endeavors. They have explained this as being the result of being victimized in every society in which they have sought to become a non-assimilating element—kept from property ownership so they can’t be farmers &c. One of these do-anywhere-pick-up-and-move-as-needed professions is diamond cutting.

    People who do that need to have a talent for recognizing faults in seemingly perfect things, using their talent to strike with soft precision and to render what they consider to be a “gem” from the rough raw material.

    Our own sociology is one such raw material. It already has it’s inherent weaknesses. That’s one reason some who were being asked to “sign on the dotted line” to endorse it’s creation insisted on including a self-destruct sequence ( the 2nd Amendment ) in case what they were creating went “wrong”. A modern multistage rocket with a large payload capacity has the destructive power of a nuclear weapon locked up in it’s fuel tanks and if it veers toward a populated area must be destroyed. At the birth of our nation the “nuclear weapon” was a strong central government. Those who had any knowledge of them feared them the same way we fear the destructive potential of a nuke whether it be an actual nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon with the same destructive potential.

    I won’t go into or pretend to fully understand t he machinations of a nuclear weapon. I think I do have a basic understanding of the machinations of the 18th-19th Century “Nuke”. Large complex government creates entities within itself which tend to take on a life of their own–uber-organisms. They in turn are like the organ systems within an even larger ( and more stupidly-brutish ) larger primitive organism. They survive on feeding and they tend to live to survive.

    All manner of elements are necessary within a government to effectively govern. Police agencies are one. As time goes on they find that they can feed more than when they started by expanding the scope of what they do. What used to , at one time, be between a man, his wife and possibly her brothers or father ( or both ) was eventually brought within the purview of what the police do for a living. Things gradually have changed from the police possibly responding to a domestic disturbance and maybe suggesting the hot-head husband take a walk around the block to “cool off” to the point now where it’s almost the default situation that the husband ( usually ) is taken to jail for the night just to make sure that the wife is “safe” from him. This is a gradual usurpation of the role of the husband from the ultimate authority and protector of the nuclear family to an assumed threat with the police replacing him in that role.

    This is one of those faults in our national diamond-in-the-rough which was exploitable by the “gem cutter” skilled in recognizing such flaws and exploiting them. It already existed and marriage was already under fire before any of these euro-trash commies decided they needed to start their “long march” through our cultural stability.

    This principle comes under the same general heading as “you can’t cheat an honest man”.

    Our national penchant for indulging in foreign adventures which are really probably little or none of our business has also put marriage under stress. During WW II many women had to fill jobs which had traditionally been the exclusive specialty of men. They liked having their own paycheck and economic autonomy. These feelings were not forgotten after Johnny came marching home ( again ). Where at one time it was a case of only younger women who had not yet found a husband or possibly women who’d lost a husband in the national workforce this became more and more an “option” and was argued to be a boon to the stability of the family unit. If the main breadwinner were disabled ( it was argued ) the secondary breadwinner could be a real help with finances until the main breadwinner could come back “online”. Never mind that this put the employers in a seller’s market where there were more potential employees looking for work without a commensurate increase in the population and cheapened the value of labor…

    Which in-turn made all families who derived their stability from work ( as opposed to those born with trust-funds to take care of their needs for the rest of their lives if needs-be ) less secure economically and that’s an issue intimately connected to their emotional and spiritual stability whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

    Another flaw in the national diamond-in-the-rough which was seen and exploited.

    These “long marchers” couldnt’ have gotten very far in their campaign without some cracks in the wall surrounding our national community in which to jam their fingers to assist them in scaling it so they could drop their rope-ladders of seductive lies to the waiting throngs of disaffected rabble which always exist in any society.

    I was a member of that generation which was told to “make love not war”. Mind you this was not the imprecation to drop traditional roles you’re assuming. You can’t go too far “out of bounds” when making these changes just as the skilled gem-cutter cannot pound too hard with his mallet on the parting tool or he risks ruining the value of the raw gem he’s cutting. Here’s an example from the folk/pop singer Phil Ochs. For someone whose name is as unknown as his he had some pretty wide-reaching appeal and influence. He did that tune roughly based on the incident where household after household assumed “someone else” would call the police when the young woman was stabbed to death on the street in plain view of everyone —-and where nobody called. That tune was Small Circle of Friends and was widely-enough known that my parents generation were as aware of it as mine.

    He had another tune which was anti-war in nature Tape from California. One line from it ( if memory serves ) was “the draft board is debating if they’d like to take my life—I’d rather take a wife, or raise a child or two—wouldn’t you?”

    That was a clear appeal from one of these change-agents in a clear-and-present culture war even then to embark upon a traditional model of family life. While there were certainly the Jefferson Airplane type groups who actually reached a lot more ears with their non-traditional family-model messages they were seen more as the overproduced commercial “pap” for the sensationalist youth culture whereas individuals like Ochs were more in-play with people who were actual serious radical types. The other stuff which appealed to the worse angels of our natures was like “bias” in magnetic recording media which merely puts the magnetic particle domains in a state where they can then be influenced by the desired signal that’s to be recorded into them. The actual changed domains with a coherent orientation representing the desired signal in magnetic form are like the smarter more thoughtful youth who were first “shaken up” by the bias signals of the loud garish cultural change elements appealing to base emotions but who were then teased out of the mass of chaos to be impressed with the true messages of change by the more thoughtful or cerebral artists of change.

    And they didn’t really stray that far from the basic cultural norms of the people they were courting because if they did they’d have scared them off—-they were the ones who could think, remember…

    Only later after all the various cracks and flaws in our society were used to afford footholds for the advance squads of the long-marchers were these flaws pounded and loosened up by the easily-swayed “useful idiots” who could be led around by the seductive ring of impractical-but-fun-to-think-about social changes. These were usually ideas which could only appeal to the immature youth and that was a unique time in our nation when the young outnumbered the mature and were being courted by the business community as never before. They even made movies about that like Wild in the Streets.

    That was a unique and one-off exploitable rift in our society but these change-agents made good use of it and the reverberations of what they did still echo to haunt us to this day.

    But you can’t cheat an honest man…

    Our national strength is the supposed free-market economy ( and if you believe that fairy-tale… ) but there are elements of it at work. One is the short-sighted gain of having cheaper labor whether it destroys the warp-and-weft of the national culture–the strong nuclear family with one bread-winner and one home-worker role—or not. While artifacts of a desire on the part of the more responsible employer “business model” where benefits were passed on to a spouse because “this encouraged the family whose product–sane stable well-behaved children—then nourished the business community with productive workers did continue but it’s become more in the nature of one of those exploitable flaws than the boon it was originally taken for. It’s my assertion that the boon was never honestly conceived anyway and was more in the nature of a canard or a rationalization for doing what one’s pastor wanted you as a business executive to do in an age where, increasingly, the linfluence of clergy and god were seen as archaic and in need of such rationalization when there influence was exerted.

    So we came to a pass where it is entirely reasonable for a homosexual or a life-long bachelor, for that matter, to be outraged that some heterosexual or married employee is given a benefit they are not given. And passing down benefits to a surviving spouse is certainly worth something.

    I’m sure whether someone is having an unnatural sexual relationship with their pet as you’re suggesting or whether they’re just a responsible pet owner who realizes that when they have a creature as their hobby/pet which may very well outlive them–parrots and tortoises for example—it is desirable to make some provision for their humane care should the owner become no longer able of providing for them him or herself. A single employee may look at married employees being given a benefit which has a monetary value which is to be reserved only to their surviving opposite-gender spouse and may say ” I work just as hard and am just as productive as that guy, so why is he getting something I could just as easily use for my own purposes but which I am denied?”

    These types of benefits should never have been offered in the first place. That they were merely introduced yet another exploitable “crack” for the culture-wreckers to exploit.

    But the origin of the flaw was not those culture destroyers–it was inherent in our own national culture. You’ve got to expect pastors to attempt to influence their parishioners who are in positions of power whether in government or business to behave in a manner which promotes the precepts of the faith.

    And so we had provisions made to selectively encourage the model of family life which is a basic tenet of the major religion.

    The devil’s always in the details but one of the best rules I ever heard for getting things done most efficiently is the KISS rule. Let the church take care of teaching the church things to individuals and don’t expect business or government to become para-religious effectors because if you do, you might get something for which you were not bargaining.

    Commerce and government are the very essence of the temporal world which is supposed to be “the apple”. It’s good-eatin’ so why not eat it? Well, maybe so but maybe you better not stake your entire parish “bottom line” on the “apple pie social”.

    So what I’m trying to tell you is that the family and other cultural elements which worked to actually form our government were then put at risk the minute that government they militated for was formed.

    Hence the destruct-sequence…

    Because those who acquiesced to a strong central government and all the things that implied—including the way it actually perverts the true free market economy—had seen it all before and knew it was fire with which they were playing and they all knew only too well what playing with fire could bring.

    I suspect we find ourselves currently at a far more important crossroads than the warm-up exercises our nation has been through in the past and the unique national culture as well as the faith out of which even I, an avowed atheist, must admit it grew are either going to be destroyed or will rise again even stronger from the ashes which are about to ensue… If I’m right perhaps some of the survivors of the coming travail who have read this might want to remember the KISS rule and especially the way in which I have applied it to the INHERENT weaknesses which were built into the very fabric of our nation at it’s outset and might want to use that concept to craft a more robust and stable society next time–if we get a next-time/second chance. I’m not sure, looking around me, we deserve one. But if we all got what we deserved then hey! Where would we be?

    I guess what I’m really trying to say is that if you stay out carousing all night and don’t get enough sleep, eat a lousy diet and become intimate with all the wrong people you can’t very well blame the Mycobacterium tuberculosis organisms when you start coughing up your own lungs…

    It’s what they do.

    You taught me that line Professor ; ‘ )

    Comment by James Stenzel — May 3, 2013 @ 6:37 am

  5. Mr. Stenzel. As the Men and Women in merry old England’s Parliament would say when they agreed with a speaker making points on a particular subject “HEAR HEAR,WELL DONE” If I were choosing a course to take, your syllabus on the subject would have moved me to sign up for your course.

    Comment by Mike Ellington — May 3, 2013 @ 11:32 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at







%d bloggers like this: