Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At 1776 + 244, is the American Revolution dead or dying?

US Const preamble, Sept 17, 1787

The American Revolution was a catalyst that showed that a sustainable modern, representational, Constitutional Republic of significant “we the People” democratic character was feasible. It served as a beacon of hope for the world, nowhere better captured than in key words from the American Declaration of Independence, 244 years ago today:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

Let us add, also, a summary excerpt showing the grand statement structure of the US Constitution, which sought to deliver on the Declaration’s intent:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I – VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].

Such words are always a challenge to live up to, but that is why they are needed; to be that challenge. The American Republic is the first long term in the main successful experiment to live under the umbrella of that challenge. Where, freedom with reasonably just order in a stable community is always a challenge.

Accordingly, let us ponder the implications of fostering such a strident critique that it loses sight of why an ideal is beyond our grasp but is a challenge we must keep before our finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed souls.

Accordingly, let us ponder the challenge of good government, using a 3-dimension model that pivots on state power, lawfulness and leadership:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

This allows us to now put on the table an alternative political spectrum (running along the main diagonal just above) that is more attuned to the dynamics of tyranny vs anarchy, thus more suggestive in analysis and guiding prudent action:

(Yes, I know, I know. Many will hotly contend that Fascists, Nazis [ often equated to “white nationalists”] and “Theocratic ‘Fundy’ Christofascists” are “the extreme right” — which nowadays means, roughly, anybody not sufficiently cowed by rampant culture-form marxism, its agit prop, Red Guards and their backers, street theatre, lawfare and ever advancing agendas of perversity mixed with anti-civilisational misanthropy. Such are simply wrong, never mind what profs, pundits, pols and ill-informed or willfully manipulative media talking heads like to say. But then, that should be no surprise to anyone familiar with how widespread say unsound economic notions or outright fallacies are in much the same contexts, and for similar reasons. [Cf. here.] As for associated worldviews and cultural agenda blunders, let’s just put a 101 on the table.)

U/D Jul 5: Blood libel and contempt for the US in front of the White House, in a “protest” July 4th 2020:

Notice, use of the word, Fascism and that of “people” meaning Marxists.
This is street theatre of hate and projection in action. The “cannot be VOTED out” is a declaration of intent to overthrow by force. [HT: Breitbart News]

Oh, yes, a reminder from Hitler on Labour Day, may 1st, 1927:

Yes, it rather seems he really did say that, emphasising the “Socialist”
part of his Party’s name, on — yes — Labour Day 1927.  And, no,
that does NOT mean that we can equate socialism with Nazism, or even
Communism with Nazism; thank you. The main concern is, and has ever been,
political messianism, of any species, as IDOLATRY,  as of the literally
demonic spirit of ANTICHRIST, a blasphemous counterfeit of
our Risen Lord and Saviour. [Speech of May 1, 1927 as quoted in John Toland
(1976), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 224.]

It’s not hard to see that if it is not yet dead or mortally wounded, the American Revolution (a great hope for all humanity) is in serious peril.

Can we at least read the signs of the times and be willing to turn back from the crumbling edge of the cliff?

I believe, the next twelve to eighteen months will tell. That is, we are at civilisation-level kairos. END

PS: If you don’t understand my reference to Red Guards and to Mao’s Cultural Revolution coup, 1966 – 76, that they were cannon fodder for, let us use that ever so humble source Wiki confessing against interest:

Red Guards . . . was a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized and guided by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1966 through 1967, during the first phase of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which he had instituted.[1] According to a Red Guard leader, the movement’s aims were as follows:

>>Chairman Mao has defined our future as an armed revolutionary youth organization…. So if Chairman Mao is our Red-Commander-in-Chief and we are his Red Guards, who can stop us? First we will make China Maoist from inside out and then we will help the working people of other countries make the world red…and then the whole universe.[2]>>

Despite being met with resistance early on, the Red Guards received personal support from Mao, and the movement rapidly grew. Mao made use of the group as propaganda and to accomplish goals such as destroying symbols of China’s pre-communist past, including ancient artifacts and gravesites of notable Chinese figures. Moreover, the government was very permissive of the Red Guards, and even allowed the Red Guards to inflict bodily harm on people viewed as dissidents. The movement quickly grew out of control, frequently coming into conflict with authority and threatening public security until the government made efforts to rein the youths in. The Red Guard groups also suffered from in-fighting as factions developed among them. By the end of 1968, the group as a formal movement had dissolved.

Resemblance to events now in progress, most assuredly, is not coincidental.

F/N: to see what a radical Libertarian or even borderline anarchist view looks like, here is a clip from Lew Rockwell, The Left, the Right & the State, von Mises Institute:
n American political culture, and world political culture too, the divide concerns in what way the state’s power should be expanded. The left has a laundry list and the right does too. Both represent a grave threat to the only political position that is truly beneficial to the world and its inhabitants: liberty. What is the state? It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against per- son and property. Why would any society permit such a gang to enjoy an unchallenged legal privilege? Here is where ideology comes into play. The reality of the state is that it is a looting and killing machine. So why do so many people cheer for its expansion? Indeed, why do we tolerate its existence at all? The very idea of the state is so implausible on its face that the state must wear an ideological garb as means of compelling pop- ular support. Ancient states had one or two: they would protect you from enemies and/or they were ordained by the gods. To greater and lesser extents, all modern states still employ these rationales, but the democratic state in the developed world is more complex. It uses a huge range of ideological rationales— parsed out between left and right—that reflect social and cul- tural priorities of niche groups, even when many of these ratio- nales are contradictory.
Of course, this is over the top. There are excellent reasons why "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," i.e. as guardians of the civil peace of justice. KF PS: Isn't it interesting to see the absence of attempted rhetorical pouncing? We can safely bet that if what was being put up was poorly warranted, the penumbra of attack-sites would long since have struck. The dog that didn't bark, again. We may freely conclude that the current agit prop that is trying to frame the so called right . . . L/R is, as seen above, an incoherent, largely meaningless propagandistic taxonomy . . . as "nazi" and "fascists," even -- as we see from the pickets put on display while trampling the US flag just across from the White House on US Independence Day just past -- using it to "justify" attempts to drive "fascists" from power, are not only ill founded but outright indefensible, mischievous and misanthropic. For shame! kairosfocus
F/N: I find Britannica an instructively studiously evasive contrast:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Fascism politics WRITTEN BY Robert Soucy Professor Emeritus of History, Oberlin College. American historian specializing in French fascist movements (1924-39), European fascism, and 20th-century European intellectual history; French fascist intellectuals... See Article History Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period.
And of course, growing up I was taught the usual spectrum. Just, it doesn't fit key facts and is pretty useless save as a political rhetorical club to bludgeon opponents with. KF PS: Enc Brit on Leftism is again studiously reined-in:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/left Left ideology WRITTEN BY The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree.... See Article History Alternative Title: left wing Left, in politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
PPS: The Enc Brit on Rightism, is even more a case of the dog that didn't bark until pressed and pressed and pressed:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/right Right ideology WRITTEN BY The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree.... See Article History Alternative Title: right wing Right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c. 1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism. See also left. This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeannette L. Nolen, Assistant Editor.
F/N: L K Samuels, author of Killing History: the false left-right political spectrum and the battle between 'the free left' and 'the statist left," discusses his strange experience with the above clip and with Wikipedia:
[D]uring my research, I encountered something curious in the writings of Benito Mussolini. In his famous “Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” everything came down to one word in defining the entire modern political spectrum, the Holy Grail of words that determines political orientation. I soon discovered that a controversy had erupted over that one word in Mussolini’s 26-page booklet. So, I bought a copy of the first authorized English edition, found the exact page and slid my fingers across its indented, lead-type printed page. The word was not “Right,” but “Left”—not what I had expected. This discrepancy made no sense, and for some time, I could not figure out why. But that one crucial word spelled a world of difference to the orientation of the political compass, in positioning people and ideas on the political spectrum. Most books and internet sites had Mussolini writing that he was on the “right” or “tending to the right.” But that was not the phrase found in my 1933 original copy, nor in the 1934 edition, which I also bought. Then I found books and publications from the 1930s that verified that Mussolini had indeed written, “. . . it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism.”[6] All I could conclude was that Mussolini’s explanation of fascism in his most famous work had been doctored to keep alive certain fallacies about the political spectrum; that fascism had to be the complete opposite of Marxism, despite its close ideological and historical relationship. But this anti-Marxist narrative did not jibe with direct quotes from Mussolini himself, particularly his 1932 interview with biographer Emil Ludwig. In that interview Mussolini stated for the record:
It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. . . [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet.[7]
This was an important quote that until recently never made it to the public spotlight, although the 230-page book Talks with Mussolini was published in many languages . . . . This obvious attempt to rewrite history drove me to write more on the subject, but it also made me wonder what else had been sabotaged, forged, or hidden from public view to tilt the political spectrum in someone’s favor . . . . I decided that it was important to correct the Wikipedia page on “Fascism” by inserting the authentic version, showing that Mussolini considered Italian Fascism to be on the Left. Wikipedia’s editors were not amused; they quickly deleted my new material. I don’t blame Wikipedia; this kind of back-and-forth editorial revision is typical of crowdsourced informational platforms. So, I had Mussolini’s booklet scanned, along with other well-known publications and books of the 1930s, and eventually made it available to the Wikipedia page editors and the general public. Finally, after a few editors acknowledged that the booklet had indeed read “Left,” they merely scoffed, insisting that it had to have been a misprint, or mistranslated. They often referred to the 1932 Italian version but never could produce a copy from the actual Enciclopedia Italiana volume. Apparently, the few volumes printed had been lost or destroyed during World War II.[10] But Jane Soames from the Times of London correctly translated the word “left” in other sections of Mussolini’s “Doctrine of Fascism,” and since it was an authorized translation, someone in Mussolini’s administration had to proof it and sign off on it. To prove that Mussolini had meant “Left,” I wrote a new Wikipedia page—“Controversies over Italian Fascism’s Political Placement”—citing over 114 sources from historians and political scientists, who basically concluded that Mussolini’s Fascism was either a heretical revision, variety, or consequence of Marxism, demonstrating that Mussolini had indeed thought of himself and his movement as left-wing social revolutionaries who opposed classical liberalism, individualism, free-market capitalism, religion, monarchies, and limited government. Prior to and during his fascist years, Mussolini repeatedly demonstrated his appetite for hardcore socialism, verifying that Italian Fascism was actually just one of many variant shades of Marxist-influenced socialism, which snuggled up to the political left. Moreover, Mussolini’s dedication to his socialist comrades was such that he worked hard to make fascist Italy the first nation in the West to officially recognize the Soviet Union, in 1924. Does this sound like the mindset of an anti-communist? In 1934, Mussolini boasted in a major speech that he had nationalized three-fourths of the Italian economy. Who but a Marxist or communist sympathizer would boast about heavily socializing his nation’s economy? Isn’t the true measure of a dedicated socialist his following Karl Marx’s wishes to have the means of production owned by government or public entities? The Wikipedia editors continued to remove my demonstration of Mussolini’s left-wing orientation of Italian Fascism. Eventually, my Wikipedia page on Italian Fascism was deleted.[11] Many months later, I made the requested changes and resubmitted the page with more than 350 citations, still retaining Mussolini’s controversial sentence. The Wikipedia editors had had enough; they refused to consider reposting it. One editor said that to display Mussolini’s avowed dedication to leftism would overturn “80 years of historiography.
We "know" that it cannot be so, so much the worse for actual fact to the contrary? As of a few moments ago, the lead to the Wikipedia page on Fascism reads:
Fascism (/?fæ??z?m/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6]
The only hint of the obviously extensive exchange and facts put before them is the word "traditional." (BTW, the "banned" submission may be found here: https://fascistcontroversies.weebly.com/ ) That is an outrage and part of why Wiki deservedly lacks credibility once matters of ideology become material. Something is wrong. It's time to think again. KF kairosfocus
Ms Ilhan Omar shows what the radicals have in mind https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1280561312527982595 KF kairosfocus
PS: One may ask, what does such dead history matter? I amswer: truth matters, accurate analysis matters, sound modelling of political dynamics matters, correcting slanders and deliberate campaigns of smearing matter, properly appreciating the contribution of the US DoI, 1776, critically matters. And we now have in hand a more accurate window on the truth, a window that makes nonsense of the ongoing attempt to create a perception of a mythical racist fascist, theocratic fundamentalist right wing bogeyman as a handy strawman target to legitimise slander and ill founded political messianistic, culture form marxist extremism and linked dubious policy agendas. kairosfocus
F/N: As a key case study, I note a clip from Mussolini's pamphlet on Fascism, from the original, approved, authentic 1933 translation into English:
https://9bd4dd83-fa68-491b-a83c-aa6b967759e8.filesusr.com/ugd/927b40_fdaafd8aa1dd46b28236e0d4ee644ef6.pdf The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism Benito Mussolini (1932) (ONLY COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TEXT ON THE INTERNET) Editor Note: Although written in 1927 by Benito Mussolini, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” was first published in 1932 in the fourteenth volume of the Enciclopedia Italiana, of which supposedly all copies were destroyed before the end of World War II. The Times of London journalist Jane Soames was first to be authorized to translate Mussolini?s “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” into English. The translation was published through Leonard and Virginia Woolf (Hogarth Press), London W.C. in 1933, 26-page booklet. Jane Soames's translation was widely republished in major journals of the time, including ''The Political Quarterly'', London, vol. 4, issue 3, July 1933 edition, pp. 341-356, and in ''The Living Age'', November, 1933, New York City, entitled "The Doctrine of Fascism." Parts of Jane Soames? translation were also republished in President Herbert Hoover?s 1934 book The Challenge to Liberty. Some versions of this essay on the internet have been abridged or altered for ideological reasons—some might call it historical sabotage. The original 1933 and 1934 editions of Jane Soames?s English translation are posted at: http://historyuncensored.wix.com/history-uncensored . . . . >>The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism This is an authorized transition of an article contributed by the Duce in 1932 to the fourteenth volume of Enciclopedia Italiana. It is the only statement by Mussolini of the philosophic basis of Fascism. WHEN, in the now distant March of 1919, I summoned a meeting at Milan through the columns of the Popolo d’Italia of the surviving members of the Interventionist Party who had themselves been in action, and who had followed me since the creation of the Fascist Revoluntionary Party (which took place in the January of 1915), I had no specific doctrinal attitude in my mind. I had a living experience of one doctrine only— that of Socialism, from 1903-04 to the winter of 1914—that is to say, about a decade: and from Socialism itself, even though I had taken part in the movement first as a member of the rank and file and later as a leader, yet I had no experience of its doctrine in practice. My own doctrine, even in this period, had always been a doctrine of action . . . . Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be indicated as the opening year of the succeeding semi-Liberal century: we do not desire to turn back; Fascism has not chosen De Maistre for its high-priest. Absolute monarchy has been and can never return, any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority. So, too, the privileges of the feudal system “have been,” and the division of society into castes impenetrable from outside, and with no intercommunication among themselves: the Fascist conception of authority has nothing to do with such a polity. A party which entirely governs a nation is a fact entirely new to history, there are no possible references or parallels. Fascism uses in its construction whatever elements in the Liberal, Social, or Democratic doctrines still have a living value; it maintains what may be called the certainties which we owe to history, but it rejects all the rest—that is to say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples. Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was the century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State. It is a perfectly logical deduction that a new doctrine can utilize all the still vital elements of previous doctrines . . . . The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious, and has itself a will and a personality—thus it may be called the “ethic” State. In 1929, at the first five-yearly assembly of the Fascist regime, I said: “For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions of life; for a mere council of administration would be sufficient to realize such objects. Nor is it a purely political creation, divorced from all contact with the complex material reality which makes up the life of the individual and the life of the people as a whole. The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself, since its political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation is a concrete thing: and such an organization must be in its origins and development a manifestation of the spirit. The State is the guarantor of security both internal and external, but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people, as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith . . . >>
Astonishingly, later translations render "LEFT" as "RIGHT" in as blatant a case of doctrinal translation as may be seen. Mussolini, consciously, was of the left and so was Fascism. Just as, when "nazi" is properly expanded as NSDAP, we end up with "National Socialist German Workers' Party." And simple perusal of the 25 point platform makes it clear that they meant every word of that name. KF kairosfocus
F/N: I wish to draw attention to a discussion on the conventional political spectrum and its telling incongruities:
https://quillette.com/2017/05/03/time-retire-political-spectrum/ Published on May 3, 2017 It’s Time to Retire the Political Spectrum written by Hyrum Lewis American culture is dominated by the idea that politics is a contest between two philosophies that occupy opposite sides of a unidimensional spectrum. People can be placed on either the “left” side (with “liberals” or “progressives” leaning that direction), or the “right” side (with “conservatives” leaning that direction). This paradigm rules in the media, scholarship, punditry, informal conversation, social networking, and virtually every other site of political discourse. Here’s the problem: it’s completely wrong. Humans create models to simplify and impose order on experience, but the models are only valuable if they improve, rather than distort, understanding of reality. Some theories—such as the germ theory of disease—are valuable and accurate, while others—such as the ‘four humors’ theory of disease—are harmful and inaccurate. The political spectrum is one of the inaccurate and harmful models. Just as the four humors theory led doctors to bleed their patients to death in previous centuries, the political spectrum is bleeding our republic to death today in three ways. 1. Confusion The political spectrum creates confusion. It tells us, for example, that both fascist Adolf Hitler and libertarian Milton Friedman are on the “far right,” yet Hitler advocated nationalism, socialism, militarism, authoritarianism, and anti-Semitism, while Milton Friedman advocated internationalism, capitalism, pacifism, civil liberties, and was himself a Jew. George W. Bush’s big-government, militarist philosophy is considered “right wing” as is Rand Paul’s small-government, anti-militarist philosophy. We say that liberals believe in free speech and conservatives believe in free markets, yet moving to the “extreme left” means clamping down on free speech (as with Stalin or Mao) and moving to the “extreme right” means clamping down on free markets (as with National Socialism). In short, the political spectrum teaches us that opposites are the same and the same are opposites. This is absurd. Some try to save the spectrum by bending it into a circle, saying that if we go too far to the right or left we wind up in the same place—totalitarianism. But we are still left with the vexing question: what do we mean by “right” or “left” (or, for that matter, the new “up” and “down” the circle has introduced)? This modification of the spectrum only tells us that totalitarians are the same, but we don’t need a meaningless circle to know this. The reality is that the two sides of the spectrum are largely mixes of incoherent, unrelated, and constantly shifting positions lumped together by the accident of history. What does being aggressive in military have to do with free markets?1 What does opposing abortion have to do with favoring the Iraq War or capital punishment? What does belief in “getting tough on crime” have to do with opposing gay marriage? [--> this of course takes for granted that we can arbitrarily redefine what is built into our manifest nature under colour of law, i.e. we see another pernicious error surfacing, nihilistic legal positivism] And what does favoring tax cuts have to do with expanding military spending? Defenders of the political spectrum may acknowledge this variation, but will claim that, underneath all the difference, there is an “essence”—some core idea, assumption, philosophy, or disposition—that ties all people of each side together.2 They might say, for instance, that all those on the right (conservatives) want to conserve and all those on the left (progressives) want change. But when we consider the actual views of those called conservatives and progressives, we find that this doesn’t hold. Saying conservatives want to conserve only begs the question, “conserve what?” Both progressives and conservatives want to change tax rates, abortion laws, immigration policy, gun laws, and safety net spending—they only differ in which way they want to change them. Some modify these definitions a bit, saying all those on the right are “backward-looking” while those of the left are “forward-looking,” yet Yuval Levin, Brink Lindsey, and others have shown that both left-wing and right-wing policies are backward-looking and marked by nostalgia, depending on the issue.3 The most prominent leftist economist in America, Paul Krugman, constantly pines for the more equal and regulated economy of the 1950s while leftist icons Karl Marx and Jean Jacques Rousseau were wistful for a primitive time before property introduced corruption. Claiming that someone is “forward looking” also assumes we know the future. We don’t. If we did, our track record of prediction as a species wouldn’t be so poor. Of course, most people don’t use these definitions, but invent their own. If you pose the question, “What is a conservative [or progressive]?” to a hundred people, you will likely get a hundred answers. And most of these answers will tell us more about the person answering the question than about the ideology itself. A progressive might say, “Progressives care about the poor while conservatives care about the rich”; a conservative might say, “Conservatives love America while progressives hate America.” Neither of these definitions describes actual progressives or conservatives, but only reveal the prejudices of the person answering. The vast majority of people on both the Left and Right are patriotic and concerned about the disadvantaged. It clarifies nothing to say otherwise . . .
Of course, there is much more. I also think a pivotal issue now largely forgotten is the built-in moral government that even governs our rationality itself:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
We have much to think about, if we are to restore soundness. I fear, the cost, now, is unavoidably high. KF kairosfocus
BR, the Russians aptly say, dwell on the past and lose an eye; forget the past and you lose both of your eyes. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus: American history has been so washed away by the history books that we are left with mostly idiots who think they know everything. Einstein made a reference to technology surpassing humanity will result in a generation of idiots. If history were taught as it was, rather than how it wasn't, there would be mention of the Fire Eaters and their view of Jeffersonian democracy. BobRyan
BR, political activists of all sorts of stripes use short catch phrases, images, icons, memes etc to promote their message. Unfortunately, too often that becomes pretty dirty. Nihilistic ruthlessness and addictive power lust are not the property of any one side. Also, there is a desperate need for sound civics and history education, also exposure to sound logical thinking including exposing basic fallacies and propaganda dirty tricks. I am not at all happy to see how Jefferson the man is attacked without reckoning with balance, tainting a breakthrough contribution to the rise of modern democratic governance. Many are also unaware of the widespread impact of his manual on parliamentary procedure. Such misanthropic, anti-civilisational activism is a bad sign. That said, indeed we are seeing Red Guards and their backers pushing cultural revolution with street theatre, agit prop, media amplification, trumpeting, slander and deliberate or irresponsible strawman caricaturing, further multiplied by lawfare. Such are pretty ruthless. Going beyond, yes, conservativism is relative to an existing order and as the US DoI observes, such hold that major changes should not be undertaken for light and transient causes so long as [inevitable] evils are sufferable. Regulation and amelioration pending sustainable critical mass is a watchword. There will always be a cal for reform, but those who trifle with what they don't understand or are misanthropic or lawless are hardly to be trusted with power. KF kairosfocus
Socialists use scare tactics and bumper sticker slogans to attack anyone who disagrees with them. They pain all political conservatives in the same light without the use of a single truth. Socialists do not believe truth has any value, since the ends justify their means. A political conservative varies from one country to the next, since it is based on conserving the political system that is in place. Political liberals are those who wish to liberate the people of a given country from their current system to at least some degree. Those who wish to make great changes are referred to as radicals. An American conservative believes in conserving the American Republic, which includes limited government. It is the socialists who are radically liberal who wish to destroy the government as it is. They believe government should have absolute power to do anything it wishes, while accusing conservatives of having the same goal. Government, when not contained, becomes a brutal force of oppression every time it has been tried. BobRyan
Jerry, there are some sobering issues about the usual l/r political spectrum, best illustrated by the so-called horseshoe or circular model that in effect accepts that the polar opposite totalitarian systems -- communism "l-ward" and fascism "r-ward" -- somehow bend back closer to one another in the new implicit 2-d space than either is to the more or less constitutional, we the people democratic centre that for well over a century has been exemplified by the USA. Where also, none of the Republican presidents or major candidates of the post-war era have legitimately been characterised as extremists, though if you took talk points at face value you would imagine that since maybe Eisenhower, they were all clones of Herr Schicklegruber. A party that put up a trained agitator of the Chicago neo-marxist Alinsky school and has set out to undermine and utterly distort a key cultural institution such as marriage or to defund/abolish police cannot be called essentially centrist. It is at minimum in thralldom to extreme factions, with many in the nominally conservative party going along for the ride as the political wind shifts. That horseshoe ends are close together observation is a huge clue of two things, first, the spectrum is incoherent and, second, it is unable to explain how two authoritarian extremes are in fact more or less kissing cousins. That's a clue that it is an after the fact ad hoc patchwork that is effectively empirically unfalsifiable -- we have to realise that core incoherence is falsification. Instead, it suggests that totalitarian or authoritarian, autocratic and oligarchic ideologies cluster together and their polar opposite is anarchic chaos. Between the two, we can see oligarchic systems that seek to be lawful and conservative in following precedents seen as tested, generally just law, the lawful state. Then, with the American Revolution we saw constitutional polities of significantly democratic character. Some wish for minimal government or are outright suspicious of government to in my view unwarranted degree, increasingly state of nature oriented libertarians. This is of course the alternative I gave in the OP. DV in the next day or so, I intend to build on this, making reference to key considerations. KF PS: Bombacci is indeed another clue. In the Wiki article on this man, the same picture of the executed bears this caption: >>From left to right, the dead bodies of Bombacci, Mussolini, Petacci, Pavolini and Starace in Piazzale Loreto, 1945.>> Petacci was of course Mussolini's mistress. The Bombacci article, next to the photo, reads as at my time of loading it just now:
Italian Social Republic From his days in the Socialist Party as a fellow Massimalisti, Bombacci was a friend of Mussolini. In the La Verità journal in 1936, Bombacci confessed “his adhesion to Fascism but also to Communism,” writing: “Fascism has made grandiose Social Revolution, Mussolini and Lenin, Soviet and Fascist corporate state, Rome and Moscow. Several stands already taken had to be rectified, we have nothing of which to ask pardon for as both in present and past we are impelled by the same ideal: the triumph of work.”[4][5] Later in life, although he was not an official card-carrying member of the National Fascist Party, Bombacci tried to help Mussolini legitimize the Italian Social Republic and relegitimize Italian Fascism after Mussolini was ousted as Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Italy.[6] He was the author of the economic theory of socialization in 1943. Nicknamed “the Red Pope”, Bombacci told a crowd in Genoa in 1945 that “Stalin will never make socialism; rather Mussolini will.”[7] Death Bombacci was shot on 28 April 1945 at Dongo (province of Como) where he had been captured -along with Mussolini - by Italian communist partisans. He was summarily shot alongside Mussolini. Before his execution, Bombacci shouted out “Long live Mussolini! Long live socialism!”[8] After his death, he was hung upside down at Piazzale Loreto in a public display, along with Mussolini, Clara Petacci, the head of the Republican Fascist Party Alessandro Pavolini, and others.[9] Four days after his death, his old friend and comrade Victor Serge read of the event in a newspaper in Mexico, where he was living in exile, and wrote several thoughtful pages in his journal describing the life and difficult choices of this complex man. Engaging in what he called "practical psychology", Serge tried to imagine how a former communist could become a fascist: "Among some Italians, particularly among the ex-Marxists and ex-syndicalists, two visions became apparent: that with the liberal democracies exhausted and socialism weakened, the corporatist regimes were going to impose their new formulas; and that through this narrow gate would pass collectivism, the precondition for a socialism different from that desired by the nineteenth century, ... corresponding better to man's basic nature." [10]
Testimony against known ideological interest. kairosfocus
Mussolini is given credit for the origin of fascism, though most people associate the term with Hitler and his Nazi movement. Mussolini was a socialist before his fascism movement and he died hanging upside down with his mistress and one of the top early articulators of communism, Nicola Bombacci. At the time Mussolini and Bombacci were trying to rewrite the Communist Manifesto. To show you how the left tries to rewrite history and disassociate fascism with Communism, here is the link to the death of Mussolini in Wikipedia. https://bit.ly/2ZM6do3 No where is Bombacci mentioned in this Wikipedia article. In the famous photo of Mussolini hanging upside down, Bombacci is first in the photo right next to Mussolini. https://bit.ly/3iGWeZS This is how the re-education of the people is accomplished. jerry
F/N: The italian Fascist Manifesto (published as a newspaper article!) is hard to find. Here is a translation with the Italian: https://zelalemkibret.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/the-fascist-manifesto.pdf Of course the pivotal issue for our purposes is totalitarianism, all in the state none outside, none against, coupled to dictatorship. KF kairosfocus
F/N: Now, on the root spirit, per record of scripture:
Gen 10:6 the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim [from whom descended the Egyptians], Put, and Canaan; 7 the sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan. 8 Cush became the father [or, ancestor] of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. [--> foundation of river civilisation empire] 9 He was a mighty hunter before [or, against] the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” [--> hunter not just of beasts but men, it seems; the old principle is land is taken and held by the sword, it is only the heart softening principle that has moved us beyond that] 10 The beginning of his kingdom [--> conquering, kingly autocracy] was [b]Babel
[--> so, river valley civilisation, think about the resources, technology and power to build cities and hold control of hinterlands, unification by the sword, mobilisation by power, notice the wealth to start and the implied economic boom driven by construction; and of course, scattering by Divine action]
extension across empire] 11 From that land Nimrod went to Assyria, and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 12 and [Nimrod built] Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; all these [combined to form] the great city [Nineveh]. 13 Mizraim [the ancestor of the Egyptians] became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim 14 and Pathrusim and Casluhim—from whom came the Philistines—and Caphtorim. [AMP]
Empire building by the ruthless strong man was foundational to river valley civilisation and to civilisation flowing from that. This raises the issues that lurk in the OP's infographics. Including, just what land is now held by any people of significance that was not in the end seized and held by the sword? How then can we address and balance our inheritance through a sounder approach than cancel culture revolution? What happens to those who forget or dismiss or materially distort the past? (Especially as the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears.) KF kairosfocus
The 25 points of the NSDAP -- I add comments: 1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples. [--> thus violating self determination of Germanic states that do not wish such, also setting up a dangerously aggressive colossus] 2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated. [--> Cancelling the history of a lost war of aggression and need for other states to have security] 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population. [--> intent of aggression on other peoples] 4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman. [--> creation of a petty, blood based nobility, with citizenship a blood line based privilege; denying fundamental universal brotherhood as children of God of "one blood" cf Ac 17. Specific enshrinement of hatred of Jews under false colour of law] 5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens. [ --> Ditto] 6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen. [--> ditto, the pharaoh-spirit speaks] We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness. [--> hatred of constitutional democracy] 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. [--> setting up the rail roads to Auschwitz and Dachau] 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately. [--> The same] 9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. [--> having already set up one tier of nobility, others follow creating an oppressive oligarchy or autocracy] 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. [--> freedom of enterprise and economic freedom banned. As the state is the means to enforce, totalitarian state control. Where, such control is tantamount to ownership. This is a forcing of state ownership in the name of the national people constituting a nobility] Therefore we demand: 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. [--> Expropriation of investment] 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. [--> Expropriation of profits, notice also the clear intent to wage war] 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. [--> Further drawing out the means of state seizure of the economy, state controlled cartels, with the secret police looking over the shoulder.] 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. [--> presumably, employee trusts as effective shareholders] 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. [--> state pensions] 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople [--> further socialist control, targetting department stores], and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. [--> land under state control, by seizure; real estate investments banned. Under accusation of such, with corrupt ideological courts, land seizure at will] 18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. [--> Again, the capitalist/investor as bogeyman, with life forfeit on accusation] 19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law. [--> Replace Corpus Juris and/or Code Napoleon; protections and precedents removed] 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. [--> Seizure of control of education by the state from K to PhD. This is a precursor to indoctrination replacing sound education.] 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young. [--> Organisation of youth organisations locked into the totalitarian system] 22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army. [--> ideological army, the SA then SS. The Communists used the Zampolit to control military forces] 23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand: [--> Abolition of the free independent press] (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved. [--> newspapers that try to fight will be destroyed] 24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. [--> meaningless assertions tantamount to cartelisation of religion under state domination. See the 1934 Barmen Declaration of protest] The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle: [--> Apostasy] COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD [--> state control of the soul] 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. [--> dictatorship] The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states. [--> ditto] The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives. [--> a menacing, distorted echo of the US DoI] +++++++ See the point? KF kairosfocus
U/D: It seems that one of Rochester, NY's 13 statues of escaped former slave and noted abolitionist, Frederick Douglass (who spoke at the unveiling of the Lincoln Statue in Boston that Red Guard activists wish to pull down) was pulled down by parties unknown:
Ben Densieski @BenDensieski · 14h The base of a Frederick Douglass statue torn down overnight here in Maplewood Park. Bits of the statue scattered around the area.
KF kairosfocus
AYP, Good to hear from you. I think the 1619 project, so called, requires correction; as, this historically ill-founded cultural form marxist agit prop, blood libel initiative is being pushed by the still influential NYT and has (regrettably) entered some school curricula. As well as, helping to stoke the polarisation behind the Red Guard tactics being used to try to undermine civilisational confidence, thus key buttresses for constitutional democratic self-government. Yes, I know, I have used strong language; regrettably, there is good warrant. And of course, there is a key set of anachronisms. While yes, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, the pseudonymous pivotal work usually attributed to Phillipe Duplessis-Mornay et al is 1579 and the subsequent Dutch Declaration of Independence against Philip II of Spain is 1581, the key anglophone markers are Rutherford's 1644 Lex Rex, the linked English Civil War of the 1640's, the Glorious Revolution against the restored Monarchy in 1688, The Bill of Rights of that time and Locke's work clustering about 1690. In the meanwhile, the ferment in the background was gradually building up sufficient of a literate public with enough leisure and enough opinion and influence circulating for there to be a public sufficiently interested in governance, experienced with leadership and organisation (e.g. in churches) for opening up government input to the masses to be a credible prospect. Observe, English translations of the Bible began to be officially supported and widely spread from about 1540, only a few years after Tyndale was burned at the stake in Ghent for the "crime" of publishing a translation, seen as subverting the oligarchic order. (Guess why, i/l/o principles of law, justice, essential brotherhood and freedom taught therein.) Where, notice, the summary in Wiki:
The 1619 Project is an ongoing project developed by The New York Times Magazine in 2019 with the goal of re-examining the legacy of slavery in the United States and timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first Africans in Virginia. It is an interactive project by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for The New York Times, with contributions by the paper's writers, including essays on the history of different aspects of contemporary American life which the authors believe have "roots in slavery and its aftermath."[1] It also includes poems, short fiction, and a photo essay.[2] Originally conceived of as a special issue for August 20, 2019, it was soon turned into a full-fledged project, including a special broadsheet section in the newspaper, live events, and a multi-episode podcast series.[3] The New York Times has said that the contributions were deeply researched, and arguments verified by a team of fact-checkers in consultation with historians.[4] However, in interviews on the World Socialist Web Site, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Richard Carwardine, and James Oakes have criticized the 1619 Project, stating that the project has put forward misleading and historically inaccurate claims.[5][6][7][8]. Historian Leslie M. Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the project, contends that the authors ignored her corrections.[9] Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for the 1619 Project.[10][11]
Now, let us observe, this is essentially an exercise in advocacy journalism, and is being panned by historians. A clue. At American Thinker, we read from a year ago:
August 31, 2019 The Lies of the 1619 Project By Marc A. Scaringi The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America -- that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it? . . . . the major premise of the Project is based upon a lie. It claims America was birthed in slavery in 1619 when the first 20 African slaves disembarked at Jamestown. It claims America was not a nation, “conceived in liberty,” as Abraham Lincoln intoned, but instead a white, racist state begat through the original sin of slavery. However, Jamestown was founded by a British company over a decade before the introduction of slaves; its purpose was to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was born in 1776 when we declared our independence to free the American people, including blacks, from British rule. Even the Project’s claim that the blacks at Jamestown were enslaved by whites is based upon a half-truth. It states, “The pirates had stolen [the slaves] from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola.” But these Africans were likely captured and enslaved with considerable assistance from blacks. In 1619, the Portuguese allied themselves with the Imbangala, a fierce African tribe that lived by marauding other villages and enslaving other Africans. The Portuguese used the Imbangala to attack, defeat, and enslave the neighboring Ndongo tribe. The Portuguese then sold the enslaved Ndongo to the Americas. Concerning the African slaves disembarked in Jamestown, Hannah-Jones writes, “They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women… Just a few months earlier… [t]hey were free.” Yet, it’s highly unlikely that they had been free. The Mbundu were part of the Ndongo kingdom, which had a large slave population. About a third of the population of the Akan states were slaves or serfs. By the late 19th century, slaves still constituted about 50 percent of the Fulani Emirate. In African society, which was based upon the caste system, the upper castes did not sell their sons and daughters to the Portuguese, they sold their slaves. Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too. Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe [--> insofar as this is so, it owed much to the influence of Philemon etc], it flourished in Africa [--> and in many places around the world] . . . . Contrary to what the 1619 Project would have you believe, slavery and racism do not define what America was in 1619 or what it is today. America was born in freedom in 1776 for most and then born again with a new birth of freedom in 1865 for all. After segregation was ended and the full panoply of civil rights ensured to all black Americans, America has fulfilled the promise of its original charter -- that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” . . . Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi
A key point is that the first permanent Anglophone settlement in the US was established on May 4, 1607 O.S. i.e. some twelve years before a shipment of slaves trafficked from Africa arrived and many centuries after slavery had already been in the Americas. Indeed, slavery was the universal plague. Slavery is not what needs explanation, general freedom and linked constitutional self government of democratic character are. And that traces to the ferment in Northern Europe described in the OP. A better-warranted, historically justified view of the US DoI of 1776, is that the founders had the moral courage to put on the table in a consciously foundational state document, the declaration that core rights including life and liberty are self evidently endowed by our Creator, are therefore built-in and "unalienable" . . . adding that the purpose of the state legitimised through the consent of the governed is to secure these unalienable rights; thus, challenging the world and its governments alike to liberty and justice for all and even challenging their own practice. Where, a measure of the painful compromises made to simply win the declared independence is the edited out paragraph of accusation:
he [= Geo III, Rex] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers [--> an allusion to the Barbary pirates that would later be the target of the first American overseas war], is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Notice, that in editing this out, the declaration of self-evident, Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty were left in. That has to be bedrock-foundational and intentional. Where, as design thinkers commonly smeared with the notion that phrasing edited out and replaced by authors of Pandas and People once a more apt wording was found somehow proves conspiratorial intent, it seems "interesting" that much the same thinking here steps over a key pattern of obviously painfully negotiated compromise through logic with a swivel. The agenda-serving contrast is striking. Furthermore, notice a pivotal concept we have frequently discussed in these pages: self-evident truth. Truth, that once duly reflected on and understood i/l/o our experience of ourselves and our world, we will see as actually true and patently necessarily so on pain of immediate absurdity. We are rational creatures, or all of the life of mind collapses in utter incoherence. Including, arguments by the 1619 project's authors. To be rational, we must be free within so we can choose to accept ground-consequent links and judgements tied thereto. Where, as free, we are governed by inescapable first duties of reason:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
One can indeed deny or ignore or reject or subvert what is self-evident, but only on pain of patent, instant absurdity. Where, once we recognise the commonality of our nature, it is instantly obvious that the civil law should recognise freedom as a core right. Only under tightly circumscribed circumstances can we properly restrict freedom. Indeed, that is part of why Locke discusses enslavement as in effect a sentence of in effect imprisonment as alternative to execution for cause. Obviously, we must protect children and those with relevant disabilities and the like. And, in protection of society while hopefully providing opportunity for reform, we incarcerate convicted criminals. We need to honour the moment of breakthrough 244 years ago, not undermine it through a cultural marxist stigmatisation by demand for unobtainable instant perfection. Then, we can continue to genuinely work towards the civil peace of justice which duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Without needlessly, misanthropically undermining the cultural buttresses of constitutional democratic self-government. KF PS: In light of the above and current events, manifestly, Mr Trump and his speech writers are well justified in speaking unwelcome truth to power at kairos, at Mt Rushmore, SD on the eve of the 244th anniversary of the US DoI, e.g.:
We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the history of nations: July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should swell with pride. Every American family should cheer with delight. And every American patriot should be filled with joy, because each of you lives in the most magnificent country in the history of the world, and it will soon be greater than ever before. (Applause.) Our Founders launched not only a revolution in government, but a revolution in the pursuit of justice, equality, liberty, and prosperity. No nation has done more to advance the human condition than the United States of America. And no people have done more to promote human progress than the citizens of our great nation. (Applause.) It was all made possible by the courage of 56 patriots who gathered in Philadelphia 244 years ago and signed the Declaration of Independence. (Applause.) They enshrined a divine truth that changed the world forever when they said: “…all men are created equal.” These immortal words set in motion the unstoppable march of freedom. Our Founders boldly declared that we are all endowed with the same divine rights — given [to] us by our Creator in Heaven. And that which God has given us, we will allow no one, ever, to take away — ever. (Applause.) Seventeen seventy-six represented the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason. And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. AUDIENCE: Booo — THE PRESIDENT: Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them. (Applause.) AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! THE PRESIDENT: One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America. (Applause.) This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life. (Applause.) In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished. It’s not going to happen to us. (Applause.) Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Not on my watch! (Applause.) . . . . Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that were villains. The radical view of American history is a web of lies — all perspective is removed, every virtue is obscured, every motive is twisted, every fact is distorted, and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition. This movement is openly attacking the legacies of every person on Mount Rushmore. They defile the memory of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Today, we will set history and history’s record straight. (Applause.) Before these figures were immortalized in stone, they were American giants in full flesh and blood, gallant men whose intrepid deeds unleashed the greatest leap of human advancement the world has ever known . . .
He has obviously declared intent to resist the culture form marxist, critical theory agenda as a threat to liberty and justice, instead standing on the premise of self-evident, creation rooted truth. No compromise between the two is possible, the issue is, which will prevail politically. On warrant, of course, culture-form marxism is utterly fallacious and ruinous. kairosfocus
Seversky @ 8: The parable of the "little acorn" tells much about America. Time to live in 2020 and not in 1619 as you seem to be Sev. Removing your blinders shutting out 1619 to 2020 would show you so much, if only you would choose to see. https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/from-little-acorns-mighty-oak-trees-grow/ ayearningforpublius
F/N: I have added a photo from in front of the White House yesterday, showing "protesters" stomping/wiping feet on the American Flag and using placards stating "Fascism cannot be voted out, the people must drive it from power." This is outright rejection of peaceful transition of power by the vote, and a blood libel projection that pivots on the widespread confusion that "Fascism/Nazism" is a right wing phenomenon. The implication is, they think they will not win the upcoming election but are going to resort to escalated force in its aftermath, in a context of blood libel driven attempted delegitimisation of the electoral process. Remember, the signs are pre-printed by a specific group that on seeing their opening page accuses the current US president of supporting the Confederacy. This ties in with recent media loaded q's and talk points as well as implying support for racism and slavery, further blood libels. KF PS: Also, Hitler's very inconvenient May 1 1927 remarks. kairosfocus
BR, there indubitably are social advantages to being white or light complexioned, especially if one is also tall and handsome/pretty and for preference blond. That is a problem, but it does not rise to the level of the culture form marxist blood-libel, which by exploitation of the construct "structural" is then plastered across every caucasian person and across the entirety of our civilisation and its vital heritage of genuine progress. That is where misanthropy enters, and that is a deliberate allusion to Robespierre and his heirs in dozens of radical revolutions. Those playing at revolution today need to ask themselves how many revolutions avoided falling into bloody reigns of terror and tyranny, and why it is that the revolutions of political Calvinism in N Europe and N America were exceptional. KF kairosfocus
News, major media are now often captive to large corporations who use them as mouthpieces. Or, they may be on the Government dole. Neither is conducive to independence, fair mindedness or truthfulness. Social media, so called, are an alternative but much of that scene is caught up in the same networks. A key step is to insist that one cannot edit ideologically and keep protections in law for neutral platforms. However, in a deeply polarised 4th gen civil war situation (now with Red Guard insurrectionists in the streets) critical mas to act has to be built up. Hence the challenge of failing to heed signs of the times before the cliff's edge collapses underfoot. KF kairosfocus
The United States has been slowly moving away from the importance of individual ability and being replaced by those who have the right thoughts and say the right things. Political correctness and social justice are no different than what was found in the Soviet Union and China today. Ability does not matter in China and being a good Chinese communist is all they require to achieve anything. There is a reason China has stolen everything they use from more than just the United States, which is the same reason the Soviets did the same. When it is better to be a good communist, than a good engineer, nothing can be created. All they can do is poorly reverse engineer what they steal. I do not care what an engineer thinks, anymore than I care what an astrophysicist says. I do not care if a mathematician believes the world in thousands, instead of billions of years old. The only thing that matters to me is their ability to do the job. BobRyan
Seversky: White privilege does not exist. It's a bumper sticker slogan designed to create a victim mentality. In the United States, white people are prosecuted for the same crimes as any other race. Men and women both face the same judge under the same law. Equality under the law is what should be sought, which has nothing to do with social justice. The history being taught today has nothing to do with history. There is the claim that the Dixiecrats came about in 1968 to oppose Civil Rights, which Nixon used to change parties the following election year via his southern strategy. The Dixiecrats came about in 1948, not 1968, hoping to split the Democrat party vote and have a recurrence of 1860. Truman won, which denied them their chance to repeat history and the Dixiecrats never came back, not did they become Republicans. The next presidential election year was 1952. Eisenhower, the Republican running, swept most of the country. Every Dixiecrat state voted for the Democrat that year. One of the first things Eisenhower did was end segregation in the military which had been put in place by Wilson. There were several Democrats that followed Wilson into the White House, including Roosevelt, but none ended segregation. BobRyan
One of the really big changes today is that major media have morphed into mere courtiers for progressive government. Thus, they have little interest in traditional Freedom of the Press ideas. That weakens the constitutional order in subtle ways. At once time, I needed a newspaper to tell me if rain was expected, who had a bike for sale, who won last night's game, and who was offering the best deal on cans of coffee. That kept a check on how crazy media could be. Not now. They survive today mainly by fomenting divisive progressive opinion. For the average person, finding alternative news streams that offer a variety of commentary takes time. Prediction: Former mainstream media will be the biggest opponents of freedom of the press in the next couple of decades until they finally obliterate themselves. That will become a big challenge, to the extent that they are powerful corporations. News
For Today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=9ttDUGM-1mU&app=desktop jerry
The modern world mainly flowed from Great Britain then through the United States. If there were better paths to individual freedom and prosperity for the average person, make your case for such a system. I will give you a hint, if you can do so you will be the first person in the world to do so. Aside: individual freedom grew in Great Britain due to religious wars amongst Protestants. In order to maintain stability religious freedom was accommodated. This eventually led to the industrial revolution and the modern world. Even with this growth of individual freedom, there was a very ingrained class system. Just witness Upstairs/Downstairs. This freedom of religion did not extend to Catholics but eventually led to political acceptance of them too in the Anglo world. jerry
JVL, the UK and others did make significant contributions on which the Americans built, but it is the American experiment that was the key breakthrough. Next, the point was onward reforms, and BTW did you see Jefferson's draft. The problem is not protests or marches but Red Guardism, an entirely different matter. In which, the issue is not the cannon fodder in the streets but the backers moving strings behind the scenes and the ongoing cultural form marxism year zero agenda. Where BTW, the key destructive means of amendment is legislation from the judges bench, where there is a Court Packing proposal on the table for the Supreme Court. This reflects the nihilism implicit in so called legal positivism; the system has been quite deliberately undermined and broken for many years. The Rubicon crossing issue is the attempt to abolish the police, which has leaped from negligible support to a majority support among the followers of the US' natural majority party, seemingly within days of the agit prop push. The position itself and its rate of progress speak sobering volumes as to the state of key cultural buttresses. Though of course, it has taken generations to reach that degree of undermining. KF PS: I add, a key section of Jefferson's draft:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
I note, this clearly acknowledges humanity and rights of Sub-Saharan Africans, denouncing the slave trade as piracy [which he would have known from scripture attracts a death penalty in the OT and in the NT is specifically denounced as incompatible with sound Christian faith]. Those who caricature Jefferson et al on this are gravely mistaken. Of course, this text was removed during debate, but that reflects the realities of a world where evils often cannot be waved away with a magic wand. Of course, over 80 years later, a terrible price would be paid in blood and tears for onward hard hearted refusal of patently due reform. 600,000 dead, ignoring the ruin otherwise. In Jefferson's own case, he was hopelessly indebted and was evidently enmeshed in a web of laws such that were he to manumit, his creditors could seize the freed in payment of debts. Apparently the only point one could free slaves without such was in one's will. I should note out of sheer respect for evidence, that the balance of genetic evidence did not substantiate that Ms Hemmings' children were fathered by Th Jefferson. Instead, one or more of his near relatives are more plausible candidates. kairosfocus
Kairosfocus: The US DoI was directly responsible for the breakthrough to modern representational self government of democratic character, opening up a political space that hitherto was not there. Arguably the British paved the way beginning with the Magna Carta; by the time of the American Revolution the House of Commons was already seen as the primary source of political power in the UK. The synthesis of hundreds of years of thought on government, rights, liberty and justice, setting a framework for peacefully reformable government was a huge achievement. I do agree that the American system is one of the best systems of government ever created; given that a large country could not have an Althing like in Iceland (it's the oldest surviving parliament in the world). In your further assertions, you seem to have never learned in Sunday School — one of those buttresses — the story of the laws of the Medes and Persians that could not be amended once decreed and the mischief that this repeatedly led to. Yes but the point was that slave-owning white men came up with the system which, yes, eventually took away their kind of lifestyle. It is clear, that there is a serious want of basic recognition of reality, bound to a determination to taint and dismiss, bound up with determination to slander — “white privilege” is little more than culture form marxist claptrap meant to build in the bigoted assumption that to be white is to be irredeemably racist and a parasite on the oppression of others. I call it a blood-libel slander. I'm not sure how far the protests and marches will take the US but, again, the system is designed to respond to the changing needs of the populace. We have already noted on legitimate reform, I note now on the premise that as rights must all be so together, and as a right implies duties of support on the part of others, one only has a legitimate right claim when one is manifestly in the right; which of course points to the inescapable first duties of reason which even you are forced to imply as universal even as you try to argue to disregard their full import.. No protest or march can change the method of amending the US constitution. The system will work. JVL
Sev, "evolving" is a trite word that usually means, we approve of the changes being demanded and imagine them an improvement. In this context, I insist that we must face the implications of the cross the Rubicon incident: the cultural form marxism call to defund/abolish police. That, in the end is the sort of misanthropy and anticivilisation agenda you and to many others are enabling or even trying to justify. This is the step that locks in high kinetic 4 gen civil war and it is something that was planned for years. I was shocked, for cause, when I saw this in a list of demands for a group that is thus shown utterly misanthropic. Worse, two years ago, candidates for a party were being briefed and quizzed about it. This is horrible. Talk of structural inequalities in this context is usually about the cultural marxism oppression thesis and their agenda to institute a year zero start on their terms. Terms, that start with defund/abolish the police. Which, is civilisation suicide. Where, claims that the DoI and Constitution do not deal with oppression, providing means of reform is frankly an irresponsible blatant falsehood. The US DoI was directly responsible for the breakthrough to modern representational self government of democratic character, opening up a political space that hitherto was not there. It could do so because there were cultural buttresses present that could stabilise such a move. Buttresses that the Red Guards baying in the streets, their backers, the agit prop operators, the media manipulators, too many in the academy and in government and law are assiduously working to undermine. All the while pretending that they can ignore predictable consequences. Next, the two documents actually instituted the framework that has been the engine of liberation for the world for over two centuries. The synthesis of hundreds of years of thought on government, rights, liberty and justice, setting a framework for peacefully reformable government was a huge achievement. Further developments in what we now call democracy came from these, and that is something no educated person is ignorant of once s/he has even a cursory exposure to the history of the past three centuries, so the falsehood is inexcusable and telling. In your further assertions, you seem to have never learned in Sunday School -- one of those buttresses -- the story of the laws of the Medes and Persians that could not be amended once decreed and the mischief that this repeatedly led to. The creation of a process of amendment of fundamental law is one of the key innovations, which is the exact force of:
. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Right of reformation and if necessary of revolution, duly conducted through responsible representatives. Huge structural innovations. Further to such, you seem to be determined to refuse to examine the issue of hardness of hearts, impossibility of utter elimination of evils while retaining a human population, the use of ameliorative regulations to restrain evils that there is not a critical mass to eliminate at a given time, multiplied by heart softening progress of frankly the gospel which opens up reforms. Notice, the US attempt at a step too far, prohibition of alcohol, which had to be taken back after large segments of the population flouted it and as organised crime drew power and riches form it becoming far deeper entrenched. It is clear, that there is a serious want of basic recognition of reality, bound to a determination to taint and dismiss, bound up with determination to slander -- "white privilege" is little more than culture form marxist claptrap meant to build in the bigoted assumption that to be white is to be irredeemably racist and a parasite on the oppression of others. I call it a blood-libel slander. Here, the premise is obvious, if you do not toe the line on every perversity and demand of the radicals, we will slander, crush and subjugate you as irredeemably deplorable and demonic. For shame! We have already noted on legitimate reform, I note now on the premise that as rights must all be so together, and as a right implies duties of support on the part of others, one only has a legitimate right claim when one is manifestly in the right; which of course points to the inescapable first duties of reason which even you are forced to imply as universal even as you try to argue to disregard their full import.. If that mutuality and duty of showing a claim is just is disregarded, one is oppressing others under false colours of rights and lawfare. Which is exactly what has been happening. Where the dynamics at work show the predictable result, anarchy or lawlessness triggering a tumble into the vortex of tyranny. Which is precisely what is on the table today. KF kairosfocus
How Trump is Making Black America Great Again ET
Neither dead nor dying, just evolving. For all their noble aspirations, neither the DoI nor the US Constitution prescribed any practical remedies for the structural inequalities built in to the society and culture of the period - for example, equal rights for non-white men and women of any skin color. The 13th Amendment was not passed until 1865 and the 19th Amendment not until 1920. If the DoI and the Constitution are held to have established some principle of universal human entitlement to equality of rights, then why were those amendments required at all? The uncomfortable reality is that it is quite clear that today prejudice and discrimination against others on the grounds of color and sex or gender are still endemic in all human societies to some extent. The irony is that, in the US, those who wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim themselves as patriots and upholders of the original Constitution are probably right. They want to perpetuate their own white privileges and deny them to anyone else. What we face is a continuing struggle between what we might call exclusivity and inclusivity. With the upsurge of nationalist movements and leaders and isolationist sentiments expressed in events such as Brexit, it would appear that the exclusivists have the upper hand at the moment. Could that lead ultimately to civil war? Who knows? But it has happened before and could again if we are not careful. Seversky
Y'know, the Israelite calendar had the feast of booths. Once a year, move into tents and eat simple bitter food, as a lesson on where you have come from. Do we need to go back there? KF kairosfocus
Happiness equals gratitude. Gratitude leads to happiness. Trouble is most are not grateful and can’t conceive that it is possible for a worse world. So they are unhappy and act in a way that is not productive for themselves. If I can’t have it then no one can have it. Or in this case if they cannot have it then you cannot have it either Without thinking that they will also end up not having it either. The middle finger only provide satisfaction for a very short time. My analysis is that the natural tendency of people is to look for a 180 degrees solution and not a 5 degrees or 355 degrees solution. The answer to problems with religion is not modifying a little but atheism. jerry
Jerry, there is, thankfulness. The USA has a whole holiday devoted to that, but it has been subverted. Gratitude for the BLESSINGS of liberty is due to the One who blesses, God. Thereby hangs a very long tale . . . KF kairosfocus
There is an interesting phenomenon built into humans. Success builds complacency which builds a lack of appreciation for the reasons for one’s success. We are certainly seeing that in the United States today amongst the most affluent. There doesn’t seem to be any cure for that. It’s a human trait. People are naturally resentful and express that resentment at anything visible without thought as to what that will lead to. This resentment could always be ignored in history because most were not better off. What we have now is incredible success amongst the large majority that the attitude towards the resentful is not ignoring but what can be done. The problem is the resentful do not not want a slow solution which has been working but an instantaneous one which was and is always impossible. jerry
Polistra, nope. Take time to read and respond to the 2nd para of the DoI. Understand why it was truly revolutionary, opening up the space of political possibilities with freedom beyond oligarchy without disintegrating into anarchy, thanks to cultural buttresses. Then, ponder what happens when those buttresses are undermined through misanthropic, anti-civilisational radicalism and perversity. KF kairosfocus
Nonsense. 1776 was just the first in a long series of fake emergencies designed to enrich NYC and ruin everyone else. polistra
At 1776 + 244, is the American Revolution dead or dying? kairosfocus

Leave a Reply