I have been reading your work for about a year now. I have followed you as you have wandered. You are at the perfect age for wandering and searching. I think you've finally stepped on to solid ground with this piece. A truly original and thoughtful perspective. I feel the shift in your soul through your words. I encourage you to continue to be bold. To be true. Being popular and authentic is impossible. Never forget that authenticity comes with persecution. Have great courage. Gain wisdom from the wisest of men. Forage ahead, young man. Us women need ya'll. We desperately need good men to fulfill their proper design in this world as our protectors (physically and spiritually). Maybe, just maybe, this is a turning point. Maybe this will not be a time of brutality. But order. Maybe this will be the time in history women won't have to be so afraid of the evil men that steal life and ravage souls in this current society. We need more dangerously good men. My husband is one of those men. A man of few words. Observant. Authentic. Humble, yet confident. Filled with moral integrity. Gentle, yet strong. Wise and intuitive. Steady in the storm. Not easily provoked. But fiercely protective. He has a presence that makes weak men tremble. If an evil man dared violence in his presence, he would easily beat him to a pulp. I know my husband would have scooped that young woman up. He would give his life to protect a woman or child or any innocent life. Yes, he is a dangerously good man. I would feel safer having a man like my husband patrolling this land than a weak, whinny man like Mr. Hubbertz who I hope is merely a bot. I look forward to reading more of your works. Many blessings, Mr. Smith.
Thank you for sticking around for so long. It makes me happy to hear that…and, by the way, I think you’re right about what you said.
I will say that I actually like Klaus. He’s been amazingly supportive throughout my time in The Preparation. But, I suppose we don’t agree on this. That’s alright and I hope it won’t affect anything.
Maxim, this is tremendous insight — not just because of the clarity of your argument, but because it comes from someone your age. Awareness is the rarest commodity today, and you’ve proven it here. History shows that every generation faces a defining test, but it feels like Gen Z will bear the brunt of the hardest ones. That you can articulate this so clearly is encouraging — it proves there is leadership and perspective rising where it’s most needed.
Great post Maxim, it reminded me of the quote 'better to be a warrior in a garden, then a gardener in a war'. We all pray for a peaceful life, but we need to prepare physically, and even moreso mentally, for the opposite.
Max..................Glad you responded to the gentleman below on the Indian issue. I know a lot about the Indian tribes; because I live in a state that welcomed them on their journey across the plains. I also know that much about the persecution of the tribes is kept alive by the liberal Indians who will never assimilate into the culture today, and have no intention of doing do. When they came here, they were offered prime land (on the river) for free, and instead of being grateful, immediately set up sovereign rules and regulations against those who disagreed with anything they did not like. What they call the " 5 civilized tribes", according to history in Oklahoma, included the Cherokees, who are the major players here. Just like in olden days, they wage war against the other tribes of lesser wealth, refuse to pay many of the taxes due the state, and have their own attorneys who wage war against the politicians here who are even descended from them. They drive carelessly on the roads with no insurance, refuse to hire anyone who is not a Native in their businesses, have put up casinos that never pay what is owed to anyone, create general havoc, and cannot be arrested and prosecuted unless the crime happened on tribal land . Their hierarchy ( princes and princesses of the tribes) get approximately $6000 dollars a month tax free just for existing.
The Cherokees were a warring tribe who killed and made war against the other tribes; and during the Civil War persecuted the black race terribly. Many of the present mixed races in our state are trying to claim homestead rights; as many are descended from black and Indian parents, and have had their land taken away from them in Indian courts.
While I realize that not all of the tribal people here are of this ilk, never let it be said that any of this persecution is one sided. I live here; and am seeing the push, at this time, to take over more land and have it declared sovereign. They are just as evil as anyone else, and work avidly against the government of the US. Not everyone had slaves (another myth); and not everyone killed the Indians. The movie "Killers of the Flower Moon", is not what the vast amount of the people in the Old West sadly did. Hollywood makes out that all whites hate everyone.
Thanks for your today's post about a very sad and stirring topic that seems to go deep, not only with you ...
But what's that ??? ... 🤔🤔🤔:
{...That is Comanche-level evil...though the Comanches would have done more than that... The Comanches were wiped off the map? Good. When good men are confronted directly with evil they should have the ability to use violence to end the threat...}
I usually enjoy your posts about The Preparation, your adventures, infos about your steady personal progress and genuine conviction that you are on the correct path to lead a life worth living. Today's post includes the above, rather unexpected comments from somebody who does his best to become "A Great Man" and tells us to know history and pretends to know how to discern between "good" and "bad" men (and women).
The Comanche still have current descendants and could tell you that it's THEM (along with dozens of other indigenous tribes, the NATIVE Americans) who inhabited the lands for thousands of years BEFORE the (mainly European) colonists (who fled from religious or political persecution, plain famine, etc., etc. from their own homelands) arrived in NA and wrecked havoc among the natives with utter violence.
Btw: Same story currently going-on in Gaza, West-Bank, south Lebanon, Syria ...
History tells us that it's the attacking colonist who broke a 1000 treaties. Just as an example of utter deception and GREATEST evil, during Pontiac's Rebellion at Fort Pitt in 1763, British forces provided smallpox-infested blankets and a handkerchief to Delaware tribe representatives with the explicit intent of spreading the disease (to which the Natives had NO immunity whatsoever, causing the death of fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, wifes, etc. ...
Current Native Americans are being penned into reservations and kept idle with plenty of booze, etc.
Maybe, you better contact the Comanche Nation at their headquarters in 584 NW Bingo Road, Lawton, OK 73507 and listen to THEIR story about the "events" before you ever make comments like this in a public space again.
Or you subscribe to Paulo Kirk (or Paul Haeder) (NO family ties to Charlie) here on Substack. He's a treasure-trove for detailed info about the Natives and their own ordeals and bleak fate after the arrival of the colonists.
GREED is the mother of all evil and Europeans are masters in quenching it by ANY means on a truly world-wide scale.
As an African proverb goes: Until the lion knows how to use a pencil, the hunter will stay the fearless hero.
Klaus, I don’t claim to “know” history. I enjoy it and have read much about it. Frankly, anyone who spends 20 minutes reading about what the Comanches would do to people is bound to be horrified. They were pure evil in what they would do to outsiders. They may have been admirable for having their own code and being some of the best (if not the best) horsemen in the world, but they were satanic in their level of violence. And no, they weren’t harmless natives who had to defend their territory against the evil white man. They were very obviously offensive attackers. We also can’t forget that the Comanches would happily slaughter other natives…and seriously? I’m sorry, but the “smallpox blankets” is a myth dispelled many years ago. But lets say it was real and did happen — that’s awful and evil…and, according to the theory, it would have come from the U.S. government (an organization known for committing evil), not the people who ventured west simply to seek a better life. I despise evil in any form. Comanches were largely evil (though I’m very sure their descendants are not) and therefore a perfect example to use in the essay. Is it not obvious that the example was used to show a contrast between good-willed, family-oriented Americans seeking a better life and those of the Comanches who would happily slaughter and rape that family — good people vs. evil? I ask sincerely. I couldn’t have predicted that bringing up a small aspect of true history would lead someone to believe that I’m not only an idiot but also ill-willed and that I am the antithesis of everything I believe. I’m disappointed actually.
I recently listened to your father on the AOM podcast, which brought me to your Substack, and I’m beginning to see the weaknesses in self-education in place of college. History is nuanced. People are complicated. History doesn't fit neatly into "good" people vs. "evil" people. The Comanches were violent, but they were also part of a larger world of alliances and survival. Settlers were no better as they often fought for displacement and conquest.
Before shooting from the hip, you should look to the primary sources or at least attempt to analyze a historical situation using the 5 C’s of historical thinking—really, something anyone who has taken an AP Euro course in high school or a European History course as a freshman in college would recognize.
Good luck with your project. I look forward to reading your father's book.
Absolutely. You’re 100% correct about history being nuanced. I’m fact, in replying to another comment, I mentioned as aspect of the historical nuance. I was using the idea of the Comanches within the larger context of an idea. It simply wouldn’t have stayed on the tracks if I decided to write a dissertation on the American West.
So, I will say, your comment on “seeing the weakness in self-education” is unwarranted. The comment isn’t taking into account the clear comparison I made: ruthlessly Comanches (evil) vs. good-will, family oriented settlers (good). Is that an outright wrong comparison to make? I ask genuinely.
Anyway, I say this because I think your comment is not only unfair, but untrue. So, I wanted to address it.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Who initiated the violence. The settlers who encroached on Comanche land or the Comanches? What was the settlers’ intent? Did they have a legitimate claim to land, even though the government that granted it often broke treaties? And even if there was a legal claim, what about the moral one?
Hence my pushback. History is more complicated than clear-cut contrasts (as you acknowledged). I understand the point you were making, but I don’t believe the comparison holds. We may just see it differently. For me, history is complicated and I’d rather not diminish it. I’ll leave it at that.
I can’t help but feel as though you didn’t read what I actually wrote and understood it through the lens of the topic. The questions you’re asking are valid, but completely sidetracked from the context of the essay.
King David, your namesake, was a conqueror. He is also considered a good ruler, a “a man after God’s own heart”. He was also an adulterer. And the beat goes on...
I have been reading your work for about a year now. I have followed you as you have wandered. You are at the perfect age for wandering and searching. I think you've finally stepped on to solid ground with this piece. A truly original and thoughtful perspective. I feel the shift in your soul through your words. I encourage you to continue to be bold. To be true. Being popular and authentic is impossible. Never forget that authenticity comes with persecution. Have great courage. Gain wisdom from the wisest of men. Forage ahead, young man. Us women need ya'll. We desperately need good men to fulfill their proper design in this world as our protectors (physically and spiritually). Maybe, just maybe, this is a turning point. Maybe this will not be a time of brutality. But order. Maybe this will be the time in history women won't have to be so afraid of the evil men that steal life and ravage souls in this current society. We need more dangerously good men. My husband is one of those men. A man of few words. Observant. Authentic. Humble, yet confident. Filled with moral integrity. Gentle, yet strong. Wise and intuitive. Steady in the storm. Not easily provoked. But fiercely protective. He has a presence that makes weak men tremble. If an evil man dared violence in his presence, he would easily beat him to a pulp. I know my husband would have scooped that young woman up. He would give his life to protect a woman or child or any innocent life. Yes, he is a dangerously good man. I would feel safer having a man like my husband patrolling this land than a weak, whinny man like Mr. Hubbertz who I hope is merely a bot. I look forward to reading more of your works. Many blessings, Mr. Smith.
I appreciate that, truly. It means the most.
Thank you for sticking around for so long. It makes me happy to hear that…and, by the way, I think you’re right about what you said.
I will say that I actually like Klaus. He’s been amazingly supportive throughout my time in The Preparation. But, I suppose we don’t agree on this. That’s alright and I hope it won’t affect anything.
Maxim, this is tremendous insight — not just because of the clarity of your argument, but because it comes from someone your age. Awareness is the rarest commodity today, and you’ve proven it here. History shows that every generation faces a defining test, but it feels like Gen Z will bear the brunt of the hardest ones. That you can articulate this so clearly is encouraging — it proves there is leadership and perspective rising where it’s most needed.
Great post Maxim, it reminded me of the quote 'better to be a warrior in a garden, then a gardener in a war'. We all pray for a peaceful life, but we need to prepare physically, and even moreso mentally, for the opposite.
100% no doubt about that. You’re absolutely right…and thank you by the way. Really do appreciate that coming from you - means a lot!
Max..................Glad you responded to the gentleman below on the Indian issue. I know a lot about the Indian tribes; because I live in a state that welcomed them on their journey across the plains. I also know that much about the persecution of the tribes is kept alive by the liberal Indians who will never assimilate into the culture today, and have no intention of doing do. When they came here, they were offered prime land (on the river) for free, and instead of being grateful, immediately set up sovereign rules and regulations against those who disagreed with anything they did not like. What they call the " 5 civilized tribes", according to history in Oklahoma, included the Cherokees, who are the major players here. Just like in olden days, they wage war against the other tribes of lesser wealth, refuse to pay many of the taxes due the state, and have their own attorneys who wage war against the politicians here who are even descended from them. They drive carelessly on the roads with no insurance, refuse to hire anyone who is not a Native in their businesses, have put up casinos that never pay what is owed to anyone, create general havoc, and cannot be arrested and prosecuted unless the crime happened on tribal land . Their hierarchy ( princes and princesses of the tribes) get approximately $6000 dollars a month tax free just for existing.
The Cherokees were a warring tribe who killed and made war against the other tribes; and during the Civil War persecuted the black race terribly. Many of the present mixed races in our state are trying to claim homestead rights; as many are descended from black and Indian parents, and have had their land taken away from them in Indian courts.
While I realize that not all of the tribal people here are of this ilk, never let it be said that any of this persecution is one sided. I live here; and am seeing the push, at this time, to take over more land and have it declared sovereign. They are just as evil as anyone else, and work avidly against the government of the US. Not everyone had slaves (another myth); and not everyone killed the Indians. The movie "Killers of the Flower Moon", is not what the vast amount of the people in the Old West sadly did. Hollywood makes out that all whites hate everyone.
Wow that’s wild. I didn’t know about that…
Thanks for your today's post about a very sad and stirring topic that seems to go deep, not only with you ...
But what's that ??? ... 🤔🤔🤔:
{...That is Comanche-level evil...though the Comanches would have done more than that... The Comanches were wiped off the map? Good. When good men are confronted directly with evil they should have the ability to use violence to end the threat...}
I usually enjoy your posts about The Preparation, your adventures, infos about your steady personal progress and genuine conviction that you are on the correct path to lead a life worth living. Today's post includes the above, rather unexpected comments from somebody who does his best to become "A Great Man" and tells us to know history and pretends to know how to discern between "good" and "bad" men (and women).
The Comanche still have current descendants and could tell you that it's THEM (along with dozens of other indigenous tribes, the NATIVE Americans) who inhabited the lands for thousands of years BEFORE the (mainly European) colonists (who fled from religious or political persecution, plain famine, etc., etc. from their own homelands) arrived in NA and wrecked havoc among the natives with utter violence.
Btw: Same story currently going-on in Gaza, West-Bank, south Lebanon, Syria ...
History tells us that it's the attacking colonist who broke a 1000 treaties. Just as an example of utter deception and GREATEST evil, during Pontiac's Rebellion at Fort Pitt in 1763, British forces provided smallpox-infested blankets and a handkerchief to Delaware tribe representatives with the explicit intent of spreading the disease (to which the Natives had NO immunity whatsoever, causing the death of fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, wifes, etc. ...
Current Native Americans are being penned into reservations and kept idle with plenty of booze, etc.
Maybe, you better contact the Comanche Nation at their headquarters in 584 NW Bingo Road, Lawton, OK 73507 and listen to THEIR story about the "events" before you ever make comments like this in a public space again.
Or you subscribe to Paulo Kirk (or Paul Haeder) (NO family ties to Charlie) here on Substack. He's a treasure-trove for detailed info about the Natives and their own ordeals and bleak fate after the arrival of the colonists.
GREED is the mother of all evil and Europeans are masters in quenching it by ANY means on a truly world-wide scale.
As an African proverb goes: Until the lion knows how to use a pencil, the hunter will stay the fearless hero.
Klaus, I don’t claim to “know” history. I enjoy it and have read much about it. Frankly, anyone who spends 20 minutes reading about what the Comanches would do to people is bound to be horrified. They were pure evil in what they would do to outsiders. They may have been admirable for having their own code and being some of the best (if not the best) horsemen in the world, but they were satanic in their level of violence. And no, they weren’t harmless natives who had to defend their territory against the evil white man. They were very obviously offensive attackers. We also can’t forget that the Comanches would happily slaughter other natives…and seriously? I’m sorry, but the “smallpox blankets” is a myth dispelled many years ago. But lets say it was real and did happen — that’s awful and evil…and, according to the theory, it would have come from the U.S. government (an organization known for committing evil), not the people who ventured west simply to seek a better life. I despise evil in any form. Comanches were largely evil (though I’m very sure their descendants are not) and therefore a perfect example to use in the essay. Is it not obvious that the example was used to show a contrast between good-willed, family-oriented Americans seeking a better life and those of the Comanches who would happily slaughter and rape that family — good people vs. evil? I ask sincerely. I couldn’t have predicted that bringing up a small aspect of true history would lead someone to believe that I’m not only an idiot but also ill-willed and that I am the antithesis of everything I believe. I’m disappointed actually.
I recently listened to your father on the AOM podcast, which brought me to your Substack, and I’m beginning to see the weaknesses in self-education in place of college. History is nuanced. People are complicated. History doesn't fit neatly into "good" people vs. "evil" people. The Comanches were violent, but they were also part of a larger world of alliances and survival. Settlers were no better as they often fought for displacement and conquest.
Before shooting from the hip, you should look to the primary sources or at least attempt to analyze a historical situation using the 5 C’s of historical thinking—really, something anyone who has taken an AP Euro course in high school or a European History course as a freshman in college would recognize.
Good luck with your project. I look forward to reading your father's book.
Absolutely. You’re 100% correct about history being nuanced. I’m fact, in replying to another comment, I mentioned as aspect of the historical nuance. I was using the idea of the Comanches within the larger context of an idea. It simply wouldn’t have stayed on the tracks if I decided to write a dissertation on the American West.
So, I will say, your comment on “seeing the weakness in self-education” is unwarranted. The comment isn’t taking into account the clear comparison I made: ruthlessly Comanches (evil) vs. good-will, family oriented settlers (good). Is that an outright wrong comparison to make? I ask genuinely.
Anyway, I say this because I think your comment is not only unfair, but untrue. So, I wanted to address it.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Who initiated the violence. The settlers who encroached on Comanche land or the Comanches? What was the settlers’ intent? Did they have a legitimate claim to land, even though the government that granted it often broke treaties? And even if there was a legal claim, what about the moral one?
Hence my pushback. History is more complicated than clear-cut contrasts (as you acknowledged). I understand the point you were making, but I don’t believe the comparison holds. We may just see it differently. For me, history is complicated and I’d rather not diminish it. I’ll leave it at that.
I can’t help but feel as though you didn’t read what I actually wrote and understood it through the lens of the topic. The questions you’re asking are valid, but completely sidetracked from the context of the essay.
King David, your namesake, was a conqueror. He is also considered a good ruler, a “a man after God’s own heart”. He was also an adulterer. And the beat goes on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David