“. . . the Mexican Revolution [1910-1920] established the first anticlerical socialist state, years before Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution in 1917”

In the wake of the election results in Mexico, I offer the following, “Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador–Leftist and Freemason,” from history teacher, Charles Burris, over at Lew Rockwell.com.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has been elected the new president of Mexico. In Mexican political history for over 200 years Freemasonry has played a dominant role. I first discovered this seminal fact from reading a very impeccable mainstream establishment historian, Amaury de Riencourt’s 1968 book, The American Empire, where he discussed this in reference to the one-party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) “as a self-perpetuating Establishment for the training and disciplining of the country’s technicians, economists, and officials, and in full if indirect control of the lives and destinies of most businessmen, physicians, lawyers, artists, bankers, and engineers — of Mexico’s professional elite, in fact.”

He goes on to say “the PRI is a political front for a more powerful, but secret organization — Freemasonry.” Freemasonry was all-pervasive throughout the leadership cadre of Mexican life, civilian and military.

He then briefly discussed the internecine struggle within Masonic organizations for dominance — the atheistic French-inspired Grand Orient, and the York Rite and milder theistic Scottish Rites of Anglo-American persuasion. During the French military occupation that began the reign of Maximilian I of Mexico to the throne in 1864, various French military lodges, dependent on the Grand Orient de France, arrived in Mexico but disappeared when the French left the country. Thus it is very likely that these Itinerant Lodges of the French Rite, regarding to their status as invaders, left no sustaining influences of ritual. At the museum of the Masonic Grand Orient of France is retained the standard banner of one of those lodges and is conserved.

However, Masonry and anticlericalism dominated the politics of France during the seventy years of the Third Republic.

Anticlericalism and hostility to the Roman Catholic Church have been central to Mexican Freemasonry from the beginning. It reached its apogee during the Cristero War with its brutal savagery and persecution of Roman Catholics. The above video traces this narrative.

Plutarco Elías Calles was a Mexican Freemason, general and politician. After leaving office as president, he continued to be the dominant leader from 1928 to 1935, a period known as the Maximato [where, as countrystudies.com puts it, “Calles exercised behind-the-scenes control over Mexican politics through the actions of three presidents who were essentially his puppets”]. Calles is most noted for a fierce backlash against Catholics, which led to the Cristero War (1926-29), a civil war between Catholic rebels and government forces, and for founding the Partido Nacional Revolucionario (National Revolutionary Party, or PNR), which became the Partido de la Revolución Mexicana (Party of the Mexican Revolution, or PRM), which eventually became the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), that governed Mexico from 1929 to 2000 under these three different names. Tomás Garrido Canabal was the governor of the state of Tabasco. Canabal was so fanatical in his hatred of the Roman Catholic Church that he named his children Lenin, Lucifer, and Satan.

High-ranking members of the racist and anti-Catholic US organization the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1920s offered President Calles $10,000 to help fight the Catholic Church. The offer came when the Knights of Columbus in the US secretly offered a group of Cristero rebels $1,000 of financial assistance for guns and ammunition. This was made after the fact that Calles also sent a private telegram to the Mexican Ambassador to France, Alberto José Pani Arteaga, advising that the “. . . Catholic Church in Mexico is a political movement, and must be eliminated in order to proceed with a Socialist government free of religious hypnotism which fools the people . . . within one year without the sacraments, the people will forget the faith . . .” Most persons are willfully ignorant of the fact that the Mexican Revolution established the first anticlerical socialist state, years before Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. As in Russia after the Revolution, civil war followed.

The Fugitive is a 1947 American-Mexican drama film starring Henry Fonda and directed by John Ford, based on the novel The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene. The film was shot on location in Mexico and utilized the skills of Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa.

For Greater Glory (also known as Cristiada) is a 2012 epic historical war drama film of the Cristero War.

Both films are excellent and focus upon the Mexican governments’ intense war of persecution upon Roman Catholics.

No doubt much has changed in Mexico since de Riencourt’s book was written. The authoritarian PRI no longer holds a monopoly on power, and a surface diffusion of power by alternate political parties has arisen.

But the intriguing question remains: what of the influence of anticlerical Freemasonry upon the leadership cadre of narco-gangster Mexico, particularly under the new leftist regime of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?


“People would spend 5 to 7 years standing in lines”

h/t Economic Policy Journal

Yuri Maltsev, former Economic Adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev, explains the terrors and absurdities of socialism.  Truly, folks, this is not something you’d want to advocate for.  There is nothing just or equal or fair or righteous about socialism.  It’s only destructive.  


“43% of the 2017 Fortune 500 companies were founded or co-founded by a first- or second-generation immigrant”

h/t Robert Wenzel @ Economic Policy Journal

by Caroline Baum @ Market Watch

“Murderers.” “Rapists.” “Animals.” “Invaders.” What about entrepreneurs?

In his frequent tirades on immigrants, President Donald J. Trump distorts the facts, invents statistics and relies on inflammatory language to describe those who leave their country of origin to seek a better life in the United States. And he completely ignores the positive role immigrants play in the U.S. economy.

What Trump refers to as a “flood” of immigrants pouring across the U.S. southern border with Mexico has slowed to a trickle in the last two decades. Rather than “invade” and “infest” our nation, immigrants offer an antidote to what ails us.

Designating immigrants as “murderers” and “rapists” flies in the face of data that show that undocumented immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than their native-born counterparts. And legal immigrants are even less likely offenders than their illegal counterparts.

Before you insist that Trump is protesting illegal immigration, consider that his administration has tried to clamp down on all forms of legal immigration, starting in week one with a travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries and moving on to the issuance of fewer visas, limits on the number of refugees and asylum-seekers, an end to DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and even an effort to deny immigrant entrepreneurs the opportunity to establish a business in the U.S. 

It is on this last category that I want to focus.

It’s no secret — except, perhaps, to the Trump administration — that immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans. Which makes perfect sense. Immigrants have to work harder because of an initial handicap, so to speak. They are different: they are “the other.” In order to succeed, they have to overcome the stigma associated with the color of their skin, perhaps, or their native customs — and excel at what they do just in order to be accepted.

Scholars of immigrant entrepreneurship theorize that immigrants have “intrinsic capabilities — risk propensity, high education, unique knowledge, or identity — that increases the likelihood of entrepreneurship compared to their host country counterparts,” according to a Kauffman Foundation review of immigration research.

Immigrants are twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans, for example. Forty-three percent of the 2017 Fortune 500 companies were founded or co-founded by a first- or second-generation immigrant, according to the Center for American Entrepreneurship. Those 216 companies generated $5.3 trillion of revenue and employed 12.1 million workers worldwide last year, according to the CAE.

In other words, in their role as entrepreneurs, immigrants are providing employment opportunities for Americans — high-paying jobs at established companies — not stealing jobs from American workers.

“The net result of immigrants’ innovation and entrepreneurship is job creation,” according to an article by John Dearie, founder and president of the CAE, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum.

Immigrants’ success isn’t limited to business. Immigrants have been awarded 39%, or 33 of 85, of the Nobel Prizes, won by Americans in chemistry, medicine and physics since 2000, according to the National Foundation for American Policy. The three-fold increase in the period 1960-2017 compared with 1901-1959 illustrates the positive impact of legislation that ended some of the “national origin” quotas (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) and increased quotas for employment-based green cards (Immigration Act of 1990).

Economists may disagree about a lot of things, but there are two areas where they seem to have reached broad consensus, according to Ian Hathaway, research director at the CAE: “the importance of entrepreneurship to economic growth and job creation, and the outsized role that immigrants play in founding American companies.”

While immigrants account for less than 14% of the population, they founded “almost a quarter of all new businesses, nearly one-third of venture-backed companies and half of Silicon Valley high-tech startups,” according to Hathaway’s research.

To restrict immigration now would be tantamount to tightening the vise around the economy, which relies on innovation and disruption to drive productivity and growth. Business dynamism, or the process by which new firms are created and old ones die off, has been slowing for more than three decades, across all 50 states and most metropolitan areas, according to research by Hathaway and Robert Litan, both nonresident senior fellows at the Brookings Institution.

Yet the U.S. remains “one of only a few industrialized democracies that does not have a designated visa for foreign-born entrepreneurs” who want to establish a business in the U.S., the CAE’s Dearie said.

Introduced a handful of times in Congress, most recently in September 2017, the Startup Act has never been able to gather critical mass. The act would have opened the door to foreign-born entrepreneurs with advanced degrees in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, math), a verifiable business plan and private funding source to establish a business and remain in the U.S. as long as the business was creating a specified number of non-family jobs.

Last year’s effort at a startup visa ran into opposition in the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose Republican members seem to have decided that legal immigration is already too high; that the only way they would support a startup visa was if there were an offsetting decrease in other visas.

This is America First?

As a workaround to congressional stonewalling on a startup visa, President Barack Obama used his pen (executive action) to craft the International Entrepreneur Rule to encourage immigrant entrepreneurship. While not as effective as a legislative solution, the rule would have granted qualified foreign entrepreneurs temporary residence for five years to build a business operation.

Trump put a hold on the rule before it could go into effect in July 2017 and last month moved to rescind it. Does that sound like the act of someone who supports a program of legal immigration for foreign entrepreneurs?

Creating a hostile environment for immigrant entrepreneurs is not the way to Make America Great Again. One of Trump’s predecessors, Ronald Reagan, understood as much. According to his former aide Linda Chavez, Reagan used to say he had another term for illegal alien: “willing worker.”

End of article.

. . . 

Thomas Sowell explains that when people leave their host country and come to the United States they actually do much better economically here in the U.S. than in their own country. 

Many groups, he argues, when freed from the constraints of their particular society burst forth with all of the other abilities that they have.

Can Immigrants Be Deported Without a Trial?

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs.

He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional.

Here is the back story.

The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children — some are babies — being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation.

The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience.

The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior — whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president’s political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home — it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children.

After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification — some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas — the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process.

If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process.

The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (and the 14th) provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there. 

This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters, and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.

Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges.

The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him.

The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal.

The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution (“person”) and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated.

President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery.

Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the denial of due process when he remarked that the history of human liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards by the government. The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans’ personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity. If the due process guarantee were to go by the wayside, all other liberties would soon follow.  

Thankful to Lew Rockwell for posting great insights of men and women seeking to protect liberty, men like Judge Andrew Napolitano, and others.  

Do Public Schools Brainwash Kids?

The Pholosopher’s offers “5 Ways [that] Public Schools Brainwash Children”

5. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.  Oh, yeah.  That’s a solid brainwashing technique to align kids with every statist mandate the schools inculcate in the K-12 system.  
4. LOWERED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURES.  This alone should make anyone reading this absolutely sick whenever they hear politicians or school administrators make that insidious claim that “We’re doing this for the children.”  And yet program after program rolls on through the schools where kids are the last to be considered and where their rights are most quickly abrogated.  It explains a lot of the pushback that teachers and faculty get from kids.  School does teach kids to go along to get along.  
3. HISTORICAL REVISIONISM.  An important distinction to make is that there is good and there is bad historical revisionism.  The kind that exists in public schools is, ah, bad.
2. CHARACTER TRAINING BRAINWASHES KIDS INTO OBEDIENCE.  This is true.  It’s insidious because the kids comply with things even though the actual rule or custom is abominable.

Jeeze, where do I start?  The schools give us so much to be critical of.  Let me start with Item #4, the most offensive violation.  I witnessed a handful of search and seizures by administrators and their team (oh, yeah, they always came in with a team; coming in on their own would make them a target) who would use the opportunity to come into a classroom and completely disrupt it, turning a learning environment into security theater, as more official looking adults [with apparently more authority than the teacher] proceeded to rifle through student backpacks.  Low-level administrators, which is what they are or what they’ve allowed themselves to become, rationalized their indecency and illegal searches by telling teachers that they were searching for weapons and drugs always with the presumption that it was done based on some “tip.”  Apparently, attending school means to surrender your right to self-defense.  Some might sneer at that thinking, “Hey, kids learn different ways to defend themselves through joking or ridiculing or ignoring problems.”  And that is true.  Absolutely.  That is until these skills don’t work, until that one hour when someone, or a group of guys, decides to physically attack you.  Teachers, administrators, and staff, oh, yeah, they’ll protect the kids.  Talk about your nauseous gas.  Kids always have the option to decisively defend themselves against aggressive and hostile action from bullies or anybody.  But there will be consequences, and depending on the administrator, the consequences can be light and insignificant or punishing.  What does a kid do when it’s an adult, a teacher, or administrator who is the bully?  

School campuses belong to the district.  Schools are not the kids’ home away from home, though administrators and all sorts of ill-minded instructors will try to gas their students to think it is.  “You are a Green Knight” [a high school mascot somewhere] they will tell their kids.   So because the schools belong to the district, any administrator can do anything that the district has greenlighted, including, especially, search and seizures.  And why not?  It acclimates the kids to other forms of policing authority, like asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, and warrantless surveillance.  The classroom search and seizure ritual stops learning in its tracks and makes police action more interesting and more exciting than learning skills or more important than teaching (administrators have a lot of contempt for teachers) as they gleefully undermine a teacher’s authority in his classroom that’s he’s cultivated up to that point in the year.  But what a creepy thing.  Administrators enter the room with the volume on their radios turned up, so that their action sounds official, like police business.  No one is asked.  No consent is ever given; it is taken, which is not consent at all.  The students are not considered.  Every administrator who performs these unethical searches gets promoted to principal a few years later.  These egregious acts and violations become, in fact, a rite of passage for a career-minded administrator.  The more shocking their deeds, the quicker their promotion as well as to higher levels in the district ranks.  One AP had the gall to threaten an entire English Department.  She told the staff that if any teacher decides to teach any novel against the mandates of this school, then they can go and look for another school.  And this to some teachers in attendance who had 20 plus years of service.  This is what administrators did to get compliance to teach the dumbed-down curriculum recommended by the district.  It is laughable to think that taxpayer dollars reach the students.  They don’t.  Mostly they go to pensions.  

John Holt, father of the unschooling movement of the 70s, believed that schools were a “place where children learn to be stupid.”

After leaving Colorado, Holt sought other opportunities in education. Although it took him some time to come to a conclusion about his own thoughts on education as well as make sense of his observations, studies, and data, ultimately he felt that schools were “a place where children learn to be stupid.” Once he developed this conclusion, his focus shifted to making suggestions to help teachers and parents capable of teaching their children how to learn, thus prompting his second book, How Children Learn, in 1967. Despite his successful career, he still met rejections, resentment, and false hopes from colleagues and school systems surrounding his ideas and methods. This reality pushed him further and further into the idea of deschooling.[2]

So, what’s the message?  Read and learn on your own.  Self-teaching is a real thing.  Need help understanding concepts?  There are a ton of free forums online to ask questions: Reddit, Quora, and more.  If you don’t know something, Google it.  Find a book and its index.  Lots of ways to teach yourself.  I am sure that your favorite site to learn from has its own Google search.  Start there.  

“. . . it is the damning fact that Rose Wilder Lane, her mother Laura (. . . Paterson and Hurston) strongly opposed Democrat FDR and . . . his New Deal.”

That quotation in the headline comes from Charles Burris’ review of biographies on Rose Wilder Lane, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Isabel Paterson, and Nora Zeale Hurston that is linked to in the text below. 

by Charles Burris

A division of the American Library Association has voted to remove Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from a major children’s book award over concerns with how the early-to-mid 20th century author portrayed blacks and Native Americans. The Association for Library Service to Children’s board made the unanimous decision Saturday at a meeting in New Orleans. The name has been changed to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. The association says the work of Wilder — best known for her “Little House on the Prairie” novels — “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values.”

Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books were essentially ghostwritten by her daughter Rose Wilder Lane, at one time the highest paid woman author in America. This is a well-documented fact no doubt well known to these leftist librarians. This Orwellian name change is, in essence, a backhanded campaign against not her mother, but against Lane and the values she stood for. It is not the first of such reprehensible attacks.


The Little House books champion individualism, self-reliance, loyalty to the nuclear family and community. These are forbidden values today’s progressives abhor.

Earlier this year in a diatribe condemning Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books before the American Booksellers Association Winter Institute in Memphis a Pulitzer Prize-Winner Claims ‘Super-White’ Children’s Books Ruined His Youth.

The speech was directed against “white people, white supremacist racists,” and their enablers. It focused especially on authors and publishers Díaz considers to be responsible for the “erasure” of young minority readers by their “relentless, underlying whiteness.” In an embarrassing moment for publishing and bookselling, he received a standing ovation.

This rant by the controversial author Junot Diaz (who was recently accused of several instances of sexual misconduct) before an audience of publishing professionals, booksellers, and librarians perhaps provided the spark that ignited in the award’s name change inferno.

The racism smear is a spurious excuse for the name change. Along with Ayn Rand and Isabel PatersonLane was one of the founders of the modern American libertarian movement in the 1940s. And like her colleague Rand, Rose Wilder Lane was a determined enemy of all collectivism, including the virulent variety of biological collectivism known as racism.

As the Wikipedia entry on Lane notes:

During World War II, Lane enjoyed a new phase in her writing career. From 1942 to 1945, she wrote a weekly column for The Pittsburgh Courier, at the time, the most widely read African-American newspaper. Lane combined advocacy of laissez faire capitalism and anti-racism. The views she expressed on race were similar to those of Zora Neale Hurston, a fellow individualist and writer who was black. Her columns emphasized the arbitrariness of racial categories and stressed the centrality of the individual. Instead of indulging in what she referred to as the “ridiculous, idiotic and tragic fallacy of race, [by] which a minority of the earth’s population has deluded itself during the past century”, Lane believed it was time for all Americans – black and white – to “renounce their race”. Judging by skin color was comparable to the Communists who assigned guilt or virtue on the basis of class. In Lane’s view, the fallacies of race and class hearkened to the “old English-feudal ‘class’ distinction.” She further believed that the collectivists, including those who embraced President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, were to blame for filling “young minds with fantasies of ‘races’ and ‘classes’ and ‘the masses,’ all controlled by pagan gods, name

Originally published at LewRockwell.com.

UPDATE, June 26, 2018: “Biography as a Weapon in the Culture Wars.”

I have been asked by many LRC readers why now the attack on the novelist of beloved children’s’ books Laura Ingalls Wilder (and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane)? It is crucial to put this vilification in context.  One of the key weapons of the Left in the cultural war against Judeo-Christian morality and the nuclear family for well over a hundred years have been attacking biographies on persons admired and respected by the middle classes. It is important to observe that these are not persons especially noted for their political views but who are symbolic of the bourgeois civilization the Left wishes to destroy.

The classic and definitive statement of elitist contempt for bourgeois culture is Eminent Victorians, by the scathing, bitchy biographer Lytton StracheyStrachey, who along with his homosexual lover and fellow Cambridge Apostles initiate, economist John Maynard Keynes, were unabashed advocates of “the higher sodomy,” setting forth the destructive agenda for generations of anti-bourgeois subversion. Later the Apostles served as the breeding nest for treason by spawning Soviet espionage agents Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, and Michael Straight.

The preeminent contemporary literary descendant of Strachey was the snarky atheist Trotskyist turned neocon warmonger Christopher Hitchens, particularly in his vicious biography, The Missionary Position, Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. To Hitchens we might add, for the context of this particular blog,  Caroline Fraser’s Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder, which so pleased the Leftist literati publishing establishment that it was awarded both the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Critics Circle Awards in 2017. It was a major artillery piece in the despicable ongoing campaign by progressives to tarnish and destroy the names of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane for their political views. Such censoring thugs, as in Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four, believe the past must be totally cleansed and brutally disinfected of any vestiges of such treasonous ideas in opposition to the reactionary collectivist regime they wish to reimpose on us. 

He who guards his mouth preserves his life, But he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction.

It is absolutely tragic if and when the Bible is treated with a contempt toward the reader or taught with a tone of condemnation or rebuke instead of with beauty and elegance.  Once a man or woman is mature enough to listen, he shall find absolute beauty in its pages and instruction that is immediately applicable for your life today and beyond.  Proverbs 13 is absolutely elegant.  Professor James Duane recommended this passage at the 13:09-mark in this interview.  

1  A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, (Is. 28:14, 15)

But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

2 (Prov. 12:14) A man shall eat well by the fruit of his mouth,

But the soul of the unfaithful feeds on violence.

3 (Ps. 39:1; Prov. 21:23; James 3:2) He who guards his mouth preserves his life,

But he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction.

4 (Prov. 10:4) The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing;

But the soul of the diligent shall be made rich.

5 A righteous man hates lying,

But a wicked man is loathsome and comes to shame.

6 (Prov. 11:3, 5, 6) Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless,

But wickedness overthrows the sinner.

7 (Prov. 11:24; 12:9; Luke 12:20, 21) There is one who makes himself rich, yet has nothing;

And one who makes himself poor yet has great riches.

8 The ransom of a man’s life is his riches,

But the poor does not hear rebuke.

9 The light of the righteous rejoices,

(Job 18:5, 6; 21:17; Prov. 24:20) But the lamp of the wicked will be put out.

10 By pride comes nothing but (Prov. 10:12) strife,

But with the well-advised is wisdom.

11 (Prov. 10:2; 20:21) Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished,

But he who gathers by labor will increase.

12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick,

But (Prov. 13:19) when the desire comes, it is a tree of life.

13 He who (Num. 15:31; 2 Chr. 36:16; Is. 5:24) despises the word will be destroyed,

But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

14 (Prov. 6:22; 10:11; 14:27) The law of the wise is a fountain of life,

To turn one away from (2 Sam. 22:6) the snares of death.

15 Good understanding gains (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 3:4) favor,

But the way of the unfaithful is hard.

16 (Prov. 12:23) Every prudent man acts with knowledge,

But a fool lays open his folly.

17 A wicked messenger falls into trouble,

But (Prov. 25:13) a faithful ambassador brings health.

18 Poverty and shame will come to him who disdains correction,

But (Prov. 15:5, 31, 32) he who regards a rebuke will be honored.

19 A desire accomplished is sweet to the soul,

But it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil.

20 He who walks with wise men will be wise,

But the companion of fools will be destroyed.

21 (Ps. 32:10; Is. 47:11) Evil pursues sinners,

But to the righteous, good shall be repaid.

22 (A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children,

But (Job 27:16, 17; Prov. 28:8; Eccl. 2:26) the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.

23 (Prov. 12:11) Much food is in the fallow ground of the poor,

And for lack of justice, there is waste.

24 (Prov. 19:18) He who spares his rod hates his son,

But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.

25 (Ps. 34:10; Prov. 10:3) The righteous eats to the satisfying of his soul,

But the stomach of the wicked shall be in want.

Dr. Gary North has written a commentary on Proverbs.  On Page 197, you’ll find his comments on Proverbs 13, which he titles “Character and Capital.”

He writes

We have another pair of contrasts: the sluggard and the diligent. The first is a dreamer. The second is a doer. The Book of Proverbs is forthrightly opposed to sluggards. Lazy people are contemptuous of work, Solomon informs us in proverb after proverb. They are losers, and they deserve to be losers. A continuing message of Proverbs is that God’s system of causation is rigged against sluggards.1 They cannot win. We have to deal with the Hebrew word translated here as “soul.” It refers to anything that breathes. It means “life.”

For sure there is a gulf between the lifestyles of a sluggard and a doer.  This passage is confirmation of that.