Brutus says that he introduced me to Brown’s book recently.

I knew Lawrence Brown. I read The Might of the West for the first time in the 1960s. I have two copies here and have read it over a dozen times. I helped get it republished in the 1970s BY MY LITERARY AGENT, Joe Binns.

Bill Rusher, who wrote the Foreword to my first book, helped Brown get The Might of the West published in 1963.

Pain apparently thought I was talking about another Brown, on which Brutus corrected him, which is what people do in seminars.

Backbaygrouch gave us some solid history I am grateful for. He corrected me.

I’m winging it here. I present my own version, not as a tablet of stone, but as a possible substitute for the laughable crap our whole thinking is based on. This is very strange thing to do in our present world, but it is the nature of a seminar.

Pain says he never met a historian who thought the middle Ages were stagnant. In my world, the word “Renaissance” always meant a rebirth of learning when the writings of Classical Society were rediscovered. The Classical Writings were essential to the rebirth True Civilization.

These matters are much more disturbing to Pain and Backbaygrouch than they are to the rest of us. It is essential in a seminar that each participant let everybody know exactly where he is coming from. Pain and backbaygrouch make it clear up front that they are dedicated to different versions of Christianity, and each version of Christianity is rooted in a specific understanding of history. They do not appreciate my seeming to March roughshod over it.

We have all spent decades being trained by priests of different persuasion, capped off by the ultimate priests, those of Political Correctness. It is a major job for us to adjust our thinking to a seminar or the old Anglo-Saxon Moot, where someone simply said what his impressions are and expects corrections. This lesson is more important than any history I come up with.

Another lesson here for US is also not related to whether Father Bob’s stuff needs correcting, a seminar would be useless if it DIDN’T. This other lesson is a PRACTICAL understanding of how critical it is to carefully consider WHERE A PERSON IS COMING FROM.

So some in the seminar are bored sick by this recitation of a version of ancient history, where as others are offended by it. In every area of discussion, you are going to run into this all the time. A basic in persuading people in another direction is to know where they are coming from.

I am getting what I want here. I am positing things and then analyzing your reactions and getting the corrections I need. Those who are used to catechisms instead of seminars, which includes everybody today, may feel I am being tricky.

Call this The Socratic Method, based on the idea that Socrates invented thinking.

What it is the Moot, which was old long before Socrates was born.

Brutus says that he introduced me to Brown’s book recently.

I knew Lawrence Brown. I read The Might of the West for the first time in the 1960s. I have two copies here and have read it over a dozen times. I helped get it republished in the 1970s BY MY LITERARY AGENT, Joe Binns.

Bill Rusher, who wrote the Foreword to my first book, helped Brown get Might of the West published in 1963.

Pain apparently thought I was talking about another Brown, on which Dave corrected him, which is what people do in seminars.

Backbaygrouch gave us some solid history I am grateful for. He corrected me.

I’m winging it here. I present my own version, not as a tablet of stone, but as a possible substitute for the laughable crap our whole thinking is based on. This is very strange thing to do in our present world, but it is the nature of a seminar.

Pain says he never met a historian who thought the middle Ages were stagnant. In my world, the word “Renaissance” always meant a rebirth of learning when the writings of Classical Society were rediscovered. The Classical Writings were essential to the rebirth True Civilization.

These matters are much ore disturbing to Pain and Backbaygrouch than they are to the rest of us. It is essential in a seminar that each participant let everybody know exactly where he is coming from. Pain and backbaygrouch make it clear up front that they are dedicated to different versions of Christianity, and each version of Christianity is rooted in a specific understanding of history. They do not appreciate my seeming to march roughshod over it.

If I expected to be believed, I WOULD be marching roughshod over it. After all our training by priests of the varioud persuasions, including the one of Political Correctness, the idea of someone giving out propositions with the full awareness that many if not most are wrong, and expecting corrections, is a concept that died with the Anglo-Saxon Moot.

Another point: a lesson here for US is a PRACTICAL understanding of how critical it is to carefully consider WHERE A PERSON IS COMING FROM.

So some in the seminar are bored sick by this recitation of a version of ancient history, where as others are offended by it. In every area of discussion, you are going to run into this all the time.

My dog in this fight is to try to look back over our silly history and see how we can make Political Correctness, based on Mankind History, laughable.