Four Pillars of Society, And How to Topple Them


There are four pillars that hold society together. These are institutions that are critical to any functioning group. Without them, the survival of the group is in peril.

We all agree that government is one of those pillars. Government exists to fight evil with force. In government, we bestow the right to kill, imprison, write laws, and enforce them. Without government, it is a simple matter for evil men to band together and overpower the good. Government is simply good men banding together to keep evil men from doing so.

The second institution is business. We need to be economically prosperous, and our amoral corporations are the way we do this. This allows people to come together to seek the economic benefit of themselves, and thus each other. Without business, it is impossible to grow and move food around society, and impossible to secure the physical blessings of liberty.

The third institution is the family. The family is where our newest members are welcomed. They are raised by two loving parents (in the ideal), and are taught how to function in society. The corruption of the family means we have no way of ensuring the continuation of our society.

The fourth institution is religion. While government can only govern men’s actions, religion governs men’s beliefs. Religion sets an ideal, something to aspire to. It encourages men to aspire for it, and lays down the road they must follow to obtain it. In some ways, it can be argued that religion is the pillar that bears all other pillars up. Without a religious belief that laws must be followed, government would cease to exist. Without a religious belief that one must work and benefit society, business would collapse. Without a religious belief in the family and in dedicating oneself to it, families would evaporate.

General Pace (ret.), condemned by fools for expressing the immorality of homosexual acts, repeated his condemnation and clarified it. He stood up to those who fail to recognize the importance of religion and religious moral values. (article) (ht: Drudge)

General Pace defends it quite clearly, invoking such out-of-fashion things as “God” and “morality”. He makes the case that whether government writes a law or not, morality is still morality and God doesn’t change his will according to who is in office.

Note that he isn’t attacking only homosexual acts, but all behavior contrary to morality. Of course, those who scorn him would have us believe General Pace hates homosexuals alone, which General Pace does not.

For that, he was scorned just as the prophets in the Old Testament were. Truth is always hard for the wicked.

I cannot sit by while fools mock the wise. General Pace is right, in every sense of the word. If we as a society fail to acknowledge our religious pillar, if we ignore God and his counsels, we will be punished for it, just as Sodom and Gomorrah were. Don’t think these things were fairy tales–real men recorded these events, and those accounts were carefully transcribed from generation to generation. And we don’t draw from just one account, but several complimentary ones.

There is a law, a law that God issued, and that law has certain punishments ascribed to certain actions. We cannot escape God’s judgment, whether you believe in him or not.

Oh, by the way, if I were to try and destroy the United States, I would do it in the following manner:

  1. Corrupt religion. Put people in positions of power in every church, and then change the churches to no longer teach about God but the precepts of men. Turn churches into centers of philosophy and change doctrines to teach that God permits any action by anybody without condemnation.
  2. Corrupt families. Teach that it is acceptable, even good, to experiment with our procreative powers, that one’s duty does not lie in the home and with raising children, and that economic success is more important than success in the home. Turn the children against the parents by lying to the children and telling them their parents don’t understand. Use whatever methods available to teach people these things, such as music, television, novels, newspaper articles, teachers, and movies.
  3. Corrupt business. Turn the businesses from focusing on profits to focusing on their non-existent social duty. (The duty of a corporation lies only to its shareholders.) Do this with shame. Make “profit” a negative word by focusing on the wealth of those who profit and not focusing on the benefit to society that that profit represents. Punish those who succeed with punitive taxes. Protect those who fail with insurance and bail-outs.
  4. Corrupt government. For those duties to which government is charged, fail on them. Rather than protecting the borders, open them up. Use law enforcement agencies to punish the good people for minor offenses, while ignoring festering problems such as murder rates and sexual offenses. Fill the courts with frivilous lawsuits. Fill the prisons and refuse to build more. Simultaneously, consume the government’s time with debate and concern for things it shouldn’t concern itself with, such as helping those in a tragedy or solving diseases.

If you look closely, you will see that this is precisely the Democrat Party platform, as well as the Socialist and Communist parties. In fact, any institution bent on destroying American society will focus on one or more of the above.
Don’t be caught up in this foolishness. This attack on General Pace is nothing new, and it is calculated to destroy our country.


12 Responses to “Four Pillars of Society, And How to Topple Them”

  1. Mark Knapp Says:

    Your principles are expressed very succinctly and persuasively. The fact is that the U.S. dollar is now under severe threat. This results, at least in part, from the huge trade deficit that the U.S. has developed, which in turn has resulted in China positioning itself to influence U.S. economic policy and governmental options, up to and including our military posture and foreign policy. By purchasing Euros, China is making some kind of a statement. The obvious message is that the U.S. dollar is perceived as weak and this may be just a temporary phase, a readjustment, if you will.

    Could there be a sub-text to these economic developments that goes beyond the surface of the news stories about the economy? China is only a so-called economic powerhouse as a result of many years in which the U.S. taxpayer subsidized China’s build-up of infrastructure that certainly will be a factor in any future military confrontations. What is your analysis?

  2. Commie Says:

    Hail to you who exploit the most lowly of workers in favor of lavish, extravagant lifestyles of business executives!

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Would to God that all enjoyed the lifestyle of the business executive. Only capitalism can deliver on such a promise and only capitalism has. Today’s poorest live a richer lifestyle than the Roman emperors.

  3. Ed dunn Says:

    Does there have to be a god for a society to exist? If we look back we can see that religion is used by the rich to control the poor. The roman catholic church became incredibly powerful and wealthy in Europe, it’s power is most certainly dwindling now. Are we worse off now? If there is a god it would not require us to believe in his existance. The problems that are caused through religion are around us everyday. Terorism from extremists harms our society. There is no way to have a religion without extremists and power hungry men harming a society. Don’t choose to believe that religion is what makes society moral. It is not. People choose to help others for selfless reasons without Christianity, but with it it becomes a way to get into heaven. The prospect of heaven corrupts too many of us.
    Maybe I am wrong, but from what we have seen throughout history religion causes more harm than good.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      “Religion is used by the rich to control the poor”: Religion is a system of beliefs. If you are going to control anyone, no matter who you are, you need to make them believe you are in control. So religion has always been used by X to control Y, no matter who X or Y is.

      You can no more eliminate religion than you can eliminate humanity. We are human, so we have faith and we believe and we hope. We aren’t robots and we never will be. Eliminate religion and eliminate humanity.

      “There is no way to have a religion without extremists and power hungry men harming a society.” Bad religions will teach people to do bad things. The answer isn’t to eliminate bad religion, it’s to replace the bad with the good. Teach these men who murder and lie and cheat and steal that God will burn them in eternal hellfire, teach them that God elevated Himself by subjecting himself to all things as a lamb to the slaughter, teach the rich that the path to heaven will only open once they’ve liberated themselves from their material wealth, teach the father and mother to love each other and their children, and teach the stranger to love the stranger, and you will see the bad elements of society go away.

      “People choose to help others for selfless reasons without Christianity, but with it it becomes a way to get into heaven.” I really don’t get this line of thinking. Taking a man’s selfish desires and turning them inside out by teaching eternal salvation through selflessness is a bad thing? Taking a man who is already selfless and elevating him as one we should emulate is bad? If we invented a sport where the winner is the person who can cure the most diseases and save the most lives and provide food and shelter to the most poor, and somehow the sport becomes bad?

      “Maybe I am wrong, but from what we have seen throughout history religion causes more harm than good.” Yes, religion does harm—bad religion, or good religions perverted, as Christianity has been (and all other good religions throughout history.) But you’re living today on the results of good religion. After all, the belief that all men are created equal and that people should be treated equally under the law and that one man cannot own another are all religious beliefs, not scientific calculations. We are free-er than we otherwise would be because of our state religion, the religion that teaches us that government is not the answer but the answer is in our own freedom.

      I have written too much. I think you would do well to open your mind to new ideas, study it out and evaluate them based on their results, not what people claim the results are. Discard all that is bad, adopt all that is good, and you will have a fine religion of your own.

  4. jimmy Says:

    What a shame you twisted such an insightful piece into republican propaganda Jonathan and in your doing so you’ve actually missed it. You foolishly blame the problems of your country on the democrats, but allow me to tell you this: Your religion is no longer christianity it is now consumerism which has insidiously infiltrated the four pillars of society like a parasite breeding greed, competition and fear. The future lies with the very foundation of christianity which was/is ‘love thy neighbour’ but christianity has had its day as it has fallen prey to this consumerist beast. We need a new set of beliefs and direction based on love. Love of ourselves, each other and our environment. Blame is an old game, its time to enter the new paradigm which will allow us all to come together and live sustainably in this world forever.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:


      You don’t know who you’re talking to. I hardly worship at the altar of consumerism. My only goal in life is to love myself and others and God as well. (Sorry, the environment is not something worthy of worship, it being only the handiwork of God’s hand.)

      We don’t need a new direction. We simply need to turn back to what was taught to us plainly 2,000 years ago.

      Please revisit your philosophy. Adam Smith was hardly an idol worshiper. Read his book, and tell me if he wasn’t intent on serving his fellow men by discovering and preaching the truth of where wealth comes from.

      • Adrian H. Says:

        I have to agree with Ed Dunn on this one. When I saw that religion was listed as a pillar of society, I immediately shook my head. To say that “families would evaporate” without religion is an extremely indoctrinated response. It is within every person to do the right thing and to look after each other, not the result of religion. However most religions have claimed any good doing as their own influence, not simply from the good within the person who is doing the it.
        So no, I do not believe that families will evaporate without religion. If anything relationships with fellow human beings would most likely flourish as religion is certainly a major barrier between different cultures; just look at the strained relations between westerners and those from the middle-east.
        Also, the fact that you say it is incorrect to love nature just proves the negative effect religion can have on society. Christianity, as you yourself mentioned, views the environment as simply something a ‘god’ made for people. It’s this kind of arrogant thinking that is leading to the destruction of the only planet we have. I think a more valid pillar of society would be one that focuses on sustainability & harmony with nature, so that a short-sighted group of “bible-readers” doesn’t leave a barren earth for unborn generations!

        So to say it simply, I think that although you have made some good points on the first three pillars, I disagree with you completely on the last one. But hopefully, society, which seems to be slowly and wisely rejecting religion as its source of guidance, will for not much longer cling to the cocky ways of religon.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        I think you’re misunderstanding what I mean by “religion”. You’re thinking established churches like the Catholic of LDS, or other sects. That’s not what the Founding Fathers meant when they spoke about religion, it’s not what our ancestors understood, and it is wholly contradictory to my understanding of the word, even though I strictly adhere to the doctrines of the LDS church.

        Religion is a system of beliefs, most important of which are the ideas of what is good and bad. If you are a serious philosopher, you should know how difficult if not impossible it is to describe good and evil. We all want to be and do good, but none of us can tell what it is. The one definition you seem to give—good is what we each think is good—leads to horrible paradoxes. Certainly Adolf Hitler thought he was doing good for Germany and the world when he committed the atrocities he did and started the worst war in our world’s history. So we must reject the self-referential definition of good as evil. We cannot define good in relation to the ideas of the actor. What is good and evil must be defined way beyond the mind of one person.

        In American society, we all adhere to different religions. Even in my faith, probably the most homogeneous in all the world, there is still disagreement on the fringes of our religion as to what is true and what is not, what is good and what is not. But as a society of Americans proud to bear that name, we do have a common religion. We all “know” that life is good, that rights are good, that freedom and independence are good. But we “know” these things not because of our careful examination of nature, but because our national religion taught it to us from a very early age. This religion is not promulgated by government. Government merely refuses to oppose it, and disallows others from using coercion to preach against it.

        Marriage and child-rearing are good as well for the same reason. We see today how many kids are being raised in an environment that preaches that marriage and devotion to one’s family are not the primary good in society, and we see what is happening to those communities. What worth is wealth, or peace, or justice, if we do not have a family to enjoy life’s blessings with?

        Ultimately, there is only one source of good, and that is God. Even if you are Atheist, you cannot deny that there is a universal good, and it lies far beyond our understanding. (One day, you will understand why that “good” must be embodied in a living, breathing, supernatural creature who calls us his children. I will not digress here.) Regardless, my concept of good, my neighbors concept of good, your concept, our national concept of good, are not perfect. Maybe one is better than the other, but the only way we can really tell is by laying it side-by-side the definition of good that the universe conforms to, the good that is God.

        If we embark upon a journey to redefine our national good, not improve it, but to lay aside what we used to think was good for little reason more than pleasure and conformance to the world’s concept of good, then we embark upon a dangerous path that will likely mean the ruin of our country.

  5. Caleb Peiffer Says:

    Reblogged this on A Musing Author.

  6. J. Says:

    None of your points are founded on objective data or methodology, instead using nuance and the basis of “agreement” to approximate this model of “four pillars”. This model takes little account of the sheer complexity of more or less every variable involved in these arguments. I commend you on your persuasive conduct and diction, but I must implore you to open your mind and use your obvious intelligence to process the bigger picture. Acknowledge that your viewpoint is completely subject to falsification, and revel in that. Ask “why” and “what” to everything you believe, when you can, on smaller and more minute scale until you reach the actual fundamental scale you postulate with this model. Why does government exist? What should government be? Why are there differing perspectives? Why do they differ? What’s the middle ground? How can that exist in mundane reality? The more the most prominent minds of a community are bound by the convention and modular limits of the community thinking and feeling together, the more limited those prominent minds are in making genuine change for the good of all. When you consider the democratic and conservative spectrum, you realise that this is linear. We have to expand beyond this in order to progress, and treat these issues with the complex outlook in accordance with the complexity of their impact on society, rather than a monochromatic view which begins to devolve into a “black or white” disparity between viewpoints.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: