Tuesday • October 14 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XLII
Manchester, N.H.
When you show up at large events with mostly like-minded people in a state the size of New Hampshire, you will see people you know. If you write for GraniteGrok, some will know your work. The odds that they will not all love it seem likely, which is a good sign. We’re not monolithic bots. Debate is good.
But sometimes, people feel it is better to walk away and avoid debate either becasue they can’t support their position or, let’s be kind, they’d rather not say some unkind words. I’m unsure which this was, but he was not interested in talking to me. While mingling in the midst of several people, I knew this additional individual was introduced with the common, you know Steve MacDonald, don’t you? From GraniteGrok.
That last part appears to have been a problem. After a weak handshake and a look that went from ‘Hello stranger’ to, I know you (but not really), I was told we (GraniteGrok) should stick to calling out Democrats and that I cost Republicans votes. He was not a fan of what I called our very big woodshed with room for anybody.
As he turned and walked away, I asked if he’d write an op-ed making his case and that I’d publish it, but he wasn’t having any of that. I sensed that short of being the NHGOP’s MSNBC, there was no pleasing him. I shrugged, filed it away in what passes for my brain, and returned to the conversation I’d been having.
And here we are.
Does GraniteGrok cost Republicans votes? Not nearly as many as Republicans do, but the two things are related.
While we have painted the odd GOP candidate in a less-than-favorable light, the why is more important than the how. Politicians and activists, as a class, get filtered through the same lens. NH Constitution, US Constitution, Party platform, and the idea that limiting government is the purpose for which we elect representation.
I get that deal-making is required to move the ball down the field and that sometimes you need to put some points on the board, but if no one reminds anyone why, they increasingly score goals for the other team, maybe without even realizing it. Or, we score goals so they can claim some accomplishment in time for the next election, even when that achievement chips away at natural rights and liberties.
The other – more important issue – is that a member of a private club (the GOP) who feels no requirement to uphold the club charter is less likely to heed their oath of office. If the oath has soft edges, so do the laws those members create. They make excuses for inaction or failing to reign in abuses. The club that got them there takes a back seat to a ruling class club, and at the far end of this path stands many a Democrat for whom the law is a thing to manage society. The Constitution enacted to prevent these abuses becomes less a road map and more a barrier.
Elected office becomes more about what political power can do for them, not how they might use their influence to restrain it.
Yes, we target wayward Republicans, and we won’t always get that right. And not every author agrees with every other on every issue or even how to approach it. We agree that creeping tyranny is a problem, and it is not limited to Democrats. That limited government is always better. And that there is plenty of room in the woodshed.
We are not the GOP’s MSNBC. You won’t get flowery praise for half-measures. If you disagree, we’ll happily publish any defense of your position, but you have to defend it and then send it, or that won’t happen. And not just 300 words but 600 or more. All you have to do is take us up on the offer. You’ll get front-page access, just like the rest of us.
Or you can walk away, but we’ll still be here.
The post At Least One Person Was Not Happy to See Me at the NHGOP Leadership Summit appeared first on Granite Grok.
There were so many important voices during the Revolution that founded our great country. Politicians, Lawyers, Doctors, and, of course, Clergymen! In fact, the brightest stars of the Revolution were the voices of ardent clergymen whose hearts set on freedom for all men and whose tongues were swords of truth to set the captives free!
One Pastor who was an outstanding leader and motivator for freedom was the Reverend John Wise, who was the Pastor of a congregational church in Chebacco Parish in the southeastern part of Ipswich, Massachusetts.
Many people know that Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and of course, Jefferson was brilliant on so many levels. But he drew his revolutionary concepts and ideas from a source not often credited with that Declaration. The ideas came from the pen and the pulpit of the Reverend John Wise. He was the first son of an indentured servant to graduate from the prestigious Harvard University. He was a forceful preacher, a community leader, and a fluent and provocative writer.
He was often at odds with government officials. In 1687, the New England governor, Sir Edmund Andros, at the command of King James II, without consent of the legislative body, levied a tax upon the citizens. Pastor Wise took to action swiftly and sounded the alarm that Tyranny was at hand! Pastor Wise roused the people of his community and others to oppose the tax. Well, guess what? The Governor had him arrested! He brought him before a crown-friendly jury and royalist judges, and he so angered them by his defense that they threatened to sell him as a slave. He was suspended from his ministry and fined. However, he did not stop preaching against tyranny.
A year later, Governor Andros was deposed, and Pastor Wise was vindicated. Wise was very forward-thinking and was able to communicate in print and speech some of the great foundational truths of the Declaration of Independence, a few examples are listed:
As a writer, he penned two important works that the founders read and that fanned the flames of the Revolution. After his death, the reprinting of his books quickly sold out and was reprinted again. His two most famous works are: “The Churches Quarrel Espoused.” and “A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches.”
His stature was tall, and he was considered a very rough man physically. He is depicted as muscular and a formidable wrestler! The story told that he was challenged by Andover’s champion wrestler, Cape. John Chandler. Wise refused at first sighting his age, i.e., being too old and infirm. But the Captain was persistent and prevailed. In a makeshift ring, Captain Chandler grappled with the elderly Pastor. Wise promptly threw him completely over the wall/fence. Captain Chandler got up, shook himself off, and proclaimed that he would be on his way as soon as the preacher threw his horse over after him!
Finally, Cornell University historian Clinton Rossiter, in his great book, “Seedtime of the Republic,” traces six individuals that he considers the most influential thought leaders of the American Revolution. In his estimation, two were political leaders, but four were ministers of the gospel, and of course, Pastor John Wise was named among these great leaders.
Until next week!
Pastor Allen
The post Pulpit Polity – One of Thomas Jefferson’s Revolutionary Inspirations appeared first on Granite Grok.
This is both funny and, well, funny – if you are not one of these people, trapped between the contradictions of the progressive narrative mill and a hard place.
A comedic performance of what it might be like to be an actor who has to pick a side to save his career becasue he has to post something on social media, but there’s so damn much to consider. And here he is considering it.
Watch as he explores all the factors, seeks advice, and …
Actor Not Sure if He’s Supposed to Support Israel or Palestine pic.twitter.com/X3UDB8HWPI
— Ryan Long (@ryanlongcomedy) October 12, 2023
The post “Actor” Needs Help – Not Sure if He’s Supposed to Support Israel or ‘Palestine’ appeared first on Granite Grok.
There was a discussion about an outside agency coming in to “train” students of all grades in “Social and Emotional Learning” at a particular NH-based School District. What concerned folks was its progressive word-salad mission statement (shared below).
And (also of concern) that our Federal and State Government Executive Branches often exceed their statutory authority as written by our elected representatives (and SCOTUS has started a determined effort to rebuff and constrain bureaucracies back into the legal limits set by duly written and passed laws), this is appropriate:
“Acceptance and inclusion” means you must tolerate boys competing in girls’ sports and accept the loss of your parental rights. I voted no on adding SEL to our Definition of Student Success when I was on the School Board. I was the only 1 of 7 to vote No. Divine Right of Bureaucrats is NOT an acceptable substitute for Divine Right of Kings. Free people reject both.
We should reject it all, but we are living in a neo-aristocracy that is often best shown when we bump up against “Left captured” agencies and subdivisions-of-the-State. Many people take Government at face value and accept, pretty much, what it says. This is counter to our Founding when Americans, highly skeptical of government, knew it would develop its own special interests and move away from serving citizens to serving itself.
Doubt me?
WHY, then, has it been so easy for me to publish story after story coming out of the Public (Government) School system where staff members are doing exactly what I just said?
SEL -> Social and Emotional Learning. Time spent on that is NOT time spent on base academics. There can be no objective measures for SEL lessons – and this shows, to me, at least, that they no longer care about standardized testing that allows parents to determine how well their employees are fulfilling their jobs.
And remember, the Left has redefined “Inclusion” to be “we’ll include anyone into our clique as long as you agree with us. Otherwise, our definition of “inclusion” means we can exclude anyone that doesn’t. Like all of their other re-definitions, this tremendously skews any discussion and argument to their premises.
“Acceptance” means “You WILL accept what you are told to believe and told how to behave. Otherwise, there will be repercussions that you won’t like” which will be a cross between the old style of shunning and Mao’s Red Guard’s “struggle session” in which you will learn to love Big Brother. “1984” was meant to be a warning, not a How-To manual.
Here is that Mission Statement:
The Browne Center works with a variety of youth and student populations to promote learning and personal growth in participants.
Our programs consist of a customized sequence of experiential activities that foster individual and team growth. In an environment that is fun, safe, and respectful, our programs also provide opportunities for participants to make positive choices, gain self-confidence, and learn skills that are critical to their development.
With a long history of working with schools, The Browne Center has developed a year-long in-school Social and Emotional Learning curriculum.
Whether a year-long implementation or a “peak day” at The Browne Center challenge course, our programs enhance skills in:
Youth & Student Programs Overview [PDF]
Common outcomes for our youth participants include:
It all sounds “nice”, doesn’t it? As opposed to doing pre-calculus, Physics II, Chemistry, Civics, and American History….
Does any of this speak to our Founding Principles beneath the flowing, smooth verbiage?
The post We Did Not Swap One for Another – We Have Fought for Our Freedom! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Recent data from the Pew Research Center shows that from 1994 to 2022, Americans’ views of opposing political parties became increasingly negative. In 1994, only 21 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats held “very unfavorable” views of the other party. In 2022, that category rose to 62 percent for Republicans and 54 percent for Democrats. If we include those who hold “unfavorable” views, then over 80 percent of both Republicans and Democrats have negative views of the other party.
One of the many undesirable effects of this polarization is an environment in which anything can become a political lightning rod. Whether it involves Dr. Seuss books, Mr. Potato Head, or the Barbie movie, controversy seems to lurk around every societal corner. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred, and anything can be weaponized by one political factor against another. The term often used to describe this perpetual conflict is “culture war”—a depressingly apt term. But through all the angry tweets, op-eds, and “cancel” campaigns, few ask about where these culture wars come from and whether we can end them.
While a complex social event is never the product of just one factor, culture wars generally emerge from one group of people using some form of power to pressure another group into changing its beliefs or behavior. The pressured group may fight back and cause the pressuring group to redouble its efforts. This cycle, if it continues, can broaden into a full-blown culture war.
What does this dynamic look like in practice? Imagine a country where a group of ice cream fanatics decide to make every citizen eat more ice cream. They might try to pass legislation that favors eating ice cream, attack and shame ice cream skeptics, and encourage eating ice cream as a social norm. They would probably win converts, but they would also make enemies (especially the lactose intolerant!). Those who do not wish to eat ice cream would react negatively and maybe try to push an anti–ice cream agenda. Soon, an ice cream culture war could break out, each side pressuring the other to conform to its beliefs.
The catalyst of a culture war is the pressure exerted by one group on another to adopt its ways of thinking and acting. But why do groups elect to use force on others to spread their viewpoints? Prima facie, there is no strong incentive to resort to aggressive evangelism. Societies are built through cooperation, even between those who disagree. The baker sells his bread to members of his political party as well as the opposing party. If he sold bread only to customers who adopted his political beliefs, the market would turn on him. The same incentive to cooperate exists for groups motivated by ideology. While it is certainly in their interest to add to their ranks, doing so in an aggressive and forceful manner is likely to work against them.
The state does not obey the same social norms as its citizens; its injunctions are not optional but coercive in nature. More importantly, such coercion (e.g., taxation, legislation, and law enforcement) does not exist in a vacuum but aims to achieve various ends. Interest groups looking to spread their beliefs can redirect state power to their own purposes. This may involve anything from getting a subsidy for an ideologically friendly company to using state-enforced censorship against ideological enemies.
As the power and reach of a state grows, so too do the opportunities to direct that power. In terms of total spending, the federal government of the United States is the largest in history. It is no coincidence that now, when the power of the state is greater than ever, culture wars are raging all around us. These conflicts are occurring not because people are deciding to fight with one another but because they are compelled to. If there were only free and voluntary associations, then alternative beliefs could coexist. There would be no need to promote, for example, one lifestyle over another, because everyone could live how they see fit.
But state power removes all choice and variety. As the state increases its control over domains like public school curricula and corporate subsidies, fewer ideas and directions are given a chance to succeed. Culture wars fester within such narrowing policy confines because values and beliefs are either represented or excluded.
Conflicts instigated through state power always spill into other areas of society. When the political representation or exclusion of one’s beliefs is at stake, a culture war can become an environment in which any means of defense seems fair game. Social institutions, corporations, and popular media can all be weaponized and wielded against one’s enemies. The result is as familiar as it is exhausting: unending conflict and controversy, with every institution, organization, and event in society politicized and nowhere to hide from the unceasing cross fire.
Culture wars are not created solely by the state, but a state with too much power makes them inevitable. High-minded sentiments about “having conversations” and “understanding the beliefs of others” might sound like appealing options for cooling the tensions of a culture war, but they gravely underestimate the scope of the problem. No amount of civil discussion will remove the divisions created by state power. Until that power is destroyed—or, at the very least, greatly diminished—the culture wars will continue.
J.W. Rich is an economics student and writer in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can find his other writings on his blog at thejwrich.medium.com.
JW Rich | Mises Wire
Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.The post Government Is the Hidden Hand Directing the Culture Wars appeared first on Granite Grok.
