Interesting that I have two books on my self where the main character is a pig.  Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm.  They have very opposite ideas and purposes.   Charlotte's Web has a very heartwarming and optimistic feel.  There is friendship and descriptions about how beautiful life is.  The farm is painted as an ideal place to learn and grow.  In Animal Farm the setting is about human oppression and then animal oppression.  The farm is a place for the fittest and smartest to rule the weaker.  

I wonder what E.B. White wanted us to learn from this book? 

I read from one posting how this story can be used to talk about the carbon footprint of raising a pig or that pigs should not die to satisfy a human's appetite.  I guess when I visit my memories of this story and re-read the story, I don't see that message.   I think I prefer to see the power of friendship and mentoring in this story.  Charlotte mentors Wilbur.  Charlotte offers to Wilbur friendship and through that friendship Wilbur grows and becomes a "better pig".  By better I mean he begins to think and act differently.  He then learns to be a friend and mentor to others (Charlotte's children).  Its a small little farm utopia.  

This is a book that I have read with my children several times before.  Reading this book while looking for the principles listed in Oliver DeMille's book "We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident" adds more power to the story in my opinion.   In this speculative fiction story is a post WWIII story where a leader finds a way to eliminate all crime through a behavior modification system implanted in a people.  However there is a problem in that the community is struggling so they capture others to bring them into their system, implant them, and then let them know they are not part of a organization where they will be given the gift of better education, health, food, clothing, and technology.   The other groups that have been captured should be eager to join this more advanced society.  But are they?  

Some of the questions I think the book asks are:
1.  if you remove the ability to choose wrong from a people will they automatically always choose the good and right? Will they be happy?
2.  Can you train people to always be good? Should you?  Why/why not?
3.  How much are we willing to give up for security?
4.  How much are we willing to give up for freedom?
5.  What are some of the freedom's we have lost that should have fought for?  Why didn't we?
6.  If a person is raised without agency, once it is granted to them what will they do?  
7.  What happens do a generation if they have not developed their own moral character but have been forced to "be good"?
8.  What do we do know to promote freedom?

Once again, the power of mentoring takes a book brings out more meaning to me.  I don’t believe I would have had as many notes or thoughts without the guides I used to help me as I read this book.  In this case I used Jacob Allee from Study the Great Books to help direct me as I read through this book for the first time.  Several questions he posed:

1. Dracula is evil incarnate.  Who can stop him?
2. Who can save you and the others you love from his irrepressible grasp once he sets his sight upon you or someone you love?
3. Where will you really, truly, and finally be safe?

Deep ideas to digest and find answers for.
One of the characters, Johnathan is exposed to ideas that he doesn’t quite understand but begins to fear states: “It is only when a man feels himself face to face with such horrors that he can understand their true import (Chapter 1).”
Wow.  How that speaks to me.  There have been times when I did not understand enough to know that something was wrong, so I accepted it as okay.  Now I can see that it was so damaging and continues to create damage in others for the same reason.  This could be as simple as a song or a book that is bent or broken.  If we don’t know enough, we can take in ideas that will take years to label as wrong and then root out.  It could shape our character in very negative ways without our even understanding the damage that has occurred. 
How many times have I thought, ‘well it is not a big deal or not really my problem to say anything about’?  When will it become my problem?  Will it be too late if I wait until it affects me directly?  As that wrong continues to grow it becomes harder and harder to root out.  How big does the issue need to become before I actively do something about it?  Will I ignore those that are trying to warn me in their limited way also?  In the book Jonathan meets several people along the way that try to give him some warnings, one of the first “went down on her knees and implored me not to go”.  Jonathan charged on because he didn’t fully understand and there was business that needed to be done.  How am I like that?
After the death of a female character that unites the characters of this book to find a way to stop Dracula much sacrifice is required to learn what they can do to stop the wrong that is happening.  The group of characters needs to keep at a problem that has many mysteries and scares them.  They have determined that Dracula is the monster, but can they stop him?  How do they stop him?  Their search challenges their beliefs and ideas.  Yet for the sake of love they continue searching.   One of the best lines in the book occurs during this time of struggle:
        “When he had finished he came back and sat near me, reading, so that I did not feel too lonely whilst I worked.
         How good and thoughtful he is.  The world seems full of good men, even if there are monsters in it (Chapter 17).”
 The book ends with success because they can stop evil from destroying others’ innocence and lives.  Now for me to apply that to my life.  What ways do I need to prevent and stop the evils I see from destroying the innocence and lives of those around me?  What do I do now?  Who do I gather around me to help me as I fight the battles I see need fighting? 

​ “No number of policy victories can make up for the country’s loss of shared vision and the institutions of civil society that nurture it.” p. 8
I like the way that sounds and it resonates with the my beliefs.   In the book The Coming Aristocracy I highlighted:
                “Without shared values and standards of truth, there is no shared civilization” (O. DeMille, The Coming Aristocracy p. 89).
Where are these values first taught?  In the family.  To me the family is a vital force in civilization.  It is the foundation of civilization.  Dr. Roberts spends time talking about the importance of the family very early in this book.  I can picture in my head Little House and Little Britches scenes of what families looked like in the past.  They worked hard together and gathered around the table or fire together.  They understood ownership and hard work.  They had home businesses so to speak that they worked at every day.   It would be wonderful if our government made it easier to create this environment again.  A place where family, family work and family business could thrive without interference from the government.  I don’t think you can force this or legislate this.   
There are many points in this book that I agree with and several big points that I have concerns with.  Those points that I have concerns with revolve around family, education and economy.  I might be wrong, but I feel that Dr. Roberts things you can legislate this more with Sabbath Laws and Tax cuts and credits.    In the Coming Aristocracy it talks about the difference between Governance and Establishment principles.  It seems we turn to Legislative measures (compromise with the power players) instead of focusing on the principles and not compromising those principles.  If we are all equal before God and have been all given unalienable rights, we should all be equal before the law.   Single people or people without kids should not be punished for their choices.  Yes, I believe families are incredibly important to society but why legislate that?   I would rather see the 16th and 17th Amendment appealed instead of more legislation to benefit only those with families. 
If Communities want to have Sabbath Day laws, then let the town meetings decide that.  If families want to practice a Sabbath Day, then no one can stop them from choosing to not spend their time and money at places that don’t honor their beliefs.   For those that have work issues, I think it will be hard but possible to work with employers in a way that could benefit both.  This allows for each family to keep their personal Sabbath in a way that they believe.  I believe that everyone should have a way to practice their beliefs without laws to force one set of beliefs.  Yes, we are a Christian based society, however we have enough diversity that it would be unfair to impose Sabbath laws on those that have a different day for Sabbath observance.  Besides just because there is a Sabbath Day law, does not mean it will be followed the way the creator of the law intended. 
Dr. Roberts moves from Family and Family Practices (Sabbath Observance) to Education.   The books title is called “Schools Should Teach Piety”.  Intriguing title.   What does piety mean?  How is this enforced?  I am not sure I saw a definition for piety.  I did see “parental rights” along with many ideas about what is broken about the education system.  And then I saw some words that concerned me:  “We want to teach our students the right things to love (p. 90).   Who decides the right things?  Is that not what is happening now?   There is a government group in power that has decided what they believe is the “right things to love”.  How is that different from what?  Seems like it is still a force-based system to me.  I am not sure how piety fits in there.   I love the idea of having classics in the education models.  But who decides the classics?  Which classics?  Why?   I will hold out for the hope that parents will have more rights in the educational systems and wish to continue to make those choices myself.   I might get it wrong but that is okay with me because I think my goals in education are different from many people’s.  I love the idea of the Hebrew model of education where the focus is training on HOW to think and lead while caring about what is right and true.  I try to focus my time on learning wisdom still to this day so I would like to pass that model on to my family.
How can you talk about Saving America without talking about economics?  There has been a lot to say here.   Dr. Roberts talks about the need to fix our economy in a way that supports the small businessman.  Sounds good on the surface.   Small businesses should have the same opportunities and privileges as big business but that is not the plan to make all equal before the law with Dr. Roberts.  He would like to penalize and punish big businesses.  That is concerning to me.  There are some businesses I think that work better as large businesses (like phone services and internet to name just two I use every day).  I don’t believe it is far to punish a person for being too successful.   I do believe that EVERYONE should be equal before the law.  No special perks and privileges for the big guy or the little guy sounds like more freedom for all to me.  I would rather have a free enterprise system not more regulations.  We have so many regulations now.    I think that it is important to have small, localized communities and services based on the needs of each community.  I believe in regenerative agriculture and the potential that we bring to our communities as we revitalize the land and our communities.  I disagree with a legislated action that forces these ideas.  Force has never worked in my home, and I have never appreciated force (even and especially when it was for “my own good”).
In my head I picture a teeter totter that has Anarchy on the far end of one side and on the opposite far end is Tyranny (Making of America).  For me the perfect spot in the middle is where Liberty sits.  Just enough government to not have anarchy and mob rule but not so much that we have regulation and abuse of regulation.  It’s a hard spot to manage.   Even though I disagree with many parts of this book, I love the conversation I had because I read it.  I took the time to clarify and record my thinking.  I researched past books to help me better understand and support my ideas.  It was a great experience.  

This book had an interesting way of looking at leaders.  There were a lot of comparisons made between leaders and managers.   The author defines management is “about manipulating resources to get a known job done” whereas leadership is “about creating change that you believe in”.   As you read through the book Seth Godin emphasizes the need to build tribes instead of factories.  Tribes are about connection and growth whereas factories are about producing goods and services efficiently and without the individual needing to take responsibility. 
One quote that I really liked was: “Great leaders create movements by empowering the tribe to communicate.  They establish the foundation for people to make connections, as opposed to commanding people to follow.”    That is an interesting way to look at leadership.  I had not considered that before. 
When I finished the book, I asked myself “so what?”   So, what do I want to do with this information.    I was not sure but one thing I decided was that I need to stop doing is being a lurker.   Under the heading “Leaning In, Backing Off, Doing Nothing” Seth Godin shared a story about an online forum where he talked about those that chose not to engage but to sit and watch.  He made a comment that really struck home to me, “they were hiding, afraid of something that wasn’t likely to happen”.  Hmmm is that what I do?   I know that I am not fully engaging in (or investing in) the group so why am I there?   Do I lurk out of fear?  That was hard hitting but he might have a point. 
I have been pondering the areas that I highlighted and thinking about what my takeaways were.  As I was pondering, I was reading in a Steven Covey book this idea, “J. McDonald taught: “To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.”  Leadership is not so much a matter of techniques and practices as it is fundamental character and integrity, humility and morality.”
Seems like there are a lot of different ideas about what leadership is and what it looks like.  Leaders can guide, influence, and direct others towards a common vision or goal.  According to Mr. Godin we all can and should be leaders.  We just need to do what we believe in and step out to create a tribe.   Since being introduced to the Thomas Jefferson Education Model I find that I want to be more than a leader.  I want to develop statesmanship.    I am not able to articulate well what the differences between leadership and statesmanship are but one thing I do understand is that leaders can be good or bad.  They can uplift or drag down.  We have a lot of people in the world that lead but the question that I really want to ask myself is where are they leading?   What are they promoting?   Are they dedicated to serving the greater good?  Promoting freedom?  Uplifting society?   I think that is what I want to become more of.  A person who promotes freedom and uplifts wherever I go while serving the Greater Good.  

On my first read of this book I could not see how this book was different from Homer's works.  Homer addresses in the Odyssey the ideal man and woman.  This book lists out a lot of those same ideas about the ideal man.  So why do we need Beowulf also?

This book is listed as Christian literature but it didn't really appear to be very Christian other than some occasion references to Christian ideals. I read a summary by Jacob Allee on substack (Study the Great Books) that was very insightful.  Beowulf was a hero and did rescue the people from monsters and feuding, but the moment he died they went back to the feuding so did they need Beowulf or something more?   They had a Beowulf but they might have needed a Christ.  

Oh now that is interesting.  I had to read the book again.  I can' see that idea better now.  at line 1611 is states: "He is the true Lord'.   So is Beowulf the true lord?  Can we rely on him always?  Unfortunately he is mortal and he dies in this book.  

It was a very insightful idea to me so wanted to share this idea. To me it helps add to the great conversation about what an ideal person is.  

There are so many things that I disagree with.   Thanks to books like “The Coming Aristocracy” and “Free Enterprise vs Capitalism and Socialism” by Oliver DeMille I can have internal conversations regarding why I agree or disagree with ideas and ways that might be better solutions to the issues that were brought up this this book.  Because of the conversations I am having this book has value.   If you are going to read this book, then I suggest the books above be read first and then compare the thinking between the two others.  Which do you prefer?  Why?
I agree very much that the foundation of our civilization should be the family.  I just don’t believe you can legislate morality or culture.  People must choose to create a family culture.  Cities and states may make laws about Sabbath hours, but the federal government should not.   However, having Sabbath laws does not mean that people will choose to spend this time with their family.  They could be doing that now regardless of the laws.
I agree very much that the tax law needs to be changed but changed to support free enterprise (all are equal before the law – no special rules for any group).  Anything less is not in line with the Declaration of Independence.  Trying to legislate everything creates the environment we have now – full of corruption and abuse.   In my opinion anything that creates classes or maintains classes is against true freedom.  Regardless of its intentions.  To me any other form of economic system will create classes (to include Distributism, Socialism, Corporatism, mercantilism, crony capitalism, etc.).  There is a lot of helpful information in the books ‘Free Enterprise vs. Capitalism and Socialism’ and ‘The Coming Aristocracy’ by Oliver DeMille.
Both books helped me express clearly where I disagreed with the author’s point.  Without these books I would have still disagreed about some of the proposals but not been able to express clearly what I disagreed with nor could I name clearly the system that the author was talking about but not naming himself.   Without digging deeper into this author’s beliefs, I don’t really think this author supports the Freedom Party that Oliver DeMille explained in ‘The Coming Aristocracy’ which is:  Localist, Free-enterprising, Entrepreneurial, Familial, Individualistic, Creative, and Connective.  They are loyal to principles and people.   (p. 45-46)
Kevin Roberts talks about Familial, localist, entrepreneurial, and creative but his approach is through government force (regulation and law).  Doesn’t sound like it is based on the economy of free enterprise or the society of democracy (see Free Enterprise vs Capitalism and Socialism).   After reading this book, I felt that the author wants to just create a different aristocracy in America called the New Conservative Movement.  I would prefer to see programs that move us away from class systems and special rules for special groups.  I would prefer to see us all equal before the law (tax and regulation) and that we have more freedom from government.  I prefer the ideas of Free Enterprise Economies and Societal Democracy (small local focus for most of our needs with the old-fashioned town meetings involvement). 

A quote that struck me in this book is found at the end of the Chapter 'Happy Days' :  "The day was ending in perfect satisfaction.  They were all there together.  All the work, except the supper dishes, was done until tomorrow.  They were all enjoying good bread and butter, friend potatoes, cottage cheese, and lettuce leaves sprinkled with vinegar and sugar."

What a vision of what family can look like.  The satisfaction of being with your family, accomplishment of the work needed, and enjoyment of food and time together.   So simple sounding and so hard to pull off.

This book is full of nuggets about creating a successful home culture and community.  I think sometimes when we read these books as youth but don't re-read them as adults we miss out on a lot of lessons or ideas.

I don't know that I appreciated this book the first time I read it.  Recently I have been studying family culture and decided I needed to revisit this book.

When I was starting to homeschool, I was looking into so many things and ways to figure it all out.  I had not intended to homeschool.  It sorta just happened.  When I started raising a family, I did not think about family culture or what a good family culture would be.  I was too busy trying to get a list of things done that I thought needed doing.  I didn't set out to build a specific family culture...it just kind of happened.  I have to say this is one area that I am studying more now because I can see the affects of my family culture on me and those things that I tried to change in my family.  As I think about how to deliberately build a family culture, Understood Betsy becomes a classic for me in that it contrasts independence and dependence.   What do we want to teach in our homes and why?  Why is it so important to examine what we might or might not being doing in our homes?

I have to believe that Aunt Frances did the best she could with the knowledge that she had but as we see in the story it creates a lot of fear and feeling of helplessness with Elizabeth Ann (Betsy).  In many ways the transition that Betsy experienced when she moved to the farm is how I felt being introduced to the TJEd philosophy.  There was so much that I didn't understand or know how to do. I have never felt that I had a great education and have struggled with what that even looks like or means.  I just knew something was missing and I wanted different.  But I didn't know what that difference was.  I started to see how things could be different as I studied the ideas taught in the TJEd philosophy.   Today I have been spending more and more time liking about how to build a family culture that unites and heals people and communities.   

Interesting how as you better understand who you are and who you want to become, your classics change.  Books that you thought were only okay become books that you later can use to help you see yourself and the world around you better.   

After first reading this book I wondered how this book was different than The Odyssey in its main idea of what an 'ideal man' was.  I reviewed the Teaching Company recordings by J. Rufus Fears which state that a major theme for this book was in that we will all die (fate).   The book seems to focus on living as best you can and leave a legacy of greatness.

As I was re-reading this book I noticed how much the book talk about feuds.  Why do we feud so much?  Why do we seek revenge and not let things go?  Why is the warrior so much a focus in writings?  The Iliad is a long feud...and then a feud within a feud.  Why is this such a common theme?

The warrior is a common theme in our literature, sometimes just named differently through time.  I can think of many books along these lines:  Ender's game (Most of Orson Scott Card), L'Amour books, Sanderson books, Tolkien books, and many others.  We seem to still be grappling with this idea of what an ideal man is.  What makes a man a good warrior or hero?  Why?   Why is it so important for us to be remembered?  

One question posed by Prof Fears was "How will you handle trouble?  as a warrior with honor or with pride? "

I liked this question and have wondered how would I handle trouble?   Of course I don't know that I am facing a Grendel but maybe I am after all.  It just acts, looks, and smells different then the monster in this story.  What is the best way to handle the troubles we are facing?  Is it important to me to leave a legacy of greatness and what does that look like for me?