For me, it seems the obvious that European state nations evolved from their own historic tribes into the powers that eventually shook off the unity base of the universal Christian church, aka Roman Catholic via Emperor Constantine, in revolutions as separation was not peacefully granted. European tribes and monarchies were native to their regions, granting migration of the Celts et.al. westward. Their lands and traditions are their own to value and uphold. That they choose to unite at this point brings them back together as a political unit. Good for them if that’s what they peacefully choose for themselves. It may be what they need in order to combat the forces that exist from the East. That Switzerland has led the charge of socialism, and centers the world banks, and coerced the Monarchies and then the Nazis to leave them alone during the World Wars, should be duly noted as something to keep in mind as the world turns.

As per deriding democracy as necessarily corrupt, it deserves defense as far better than the alternative loss of vote. Voters “rights” began with “responsibilities” including literacy. There’s no reason to deprive anyone who has studied the issues and the candidates their vote. Our government taxes provide public education to the poor (currently, citizen or not) and to everyone through highschool. The idea of taking away voter rights doesn’t sit well in America. But requiring literacy IN ENGLISH would bode well for national unity. (In Texas, the signs are bilingual, and the Spanish word stands out with the English in the background.) Offering the legislature’s online outline READILY ACCESSIBLE would improve things today, as it’s a hunt to track down ammendments prior to voting, and wording is always oriented to influence one’s initial reaction by the author.

The corruption is within man, regardless of political persuation. There is still a “benevolent monarch” in Monte Carlo, no? If a people have what works well for them, good. But note well that since King James of England, benevolent monarchs grant the people’s voice to be heard. Our America is a democratic Republic based upon the best Constitution ever, IMHO.

The ruin of any culture occurs when the worst element pervades the finest. The same freedoms that we treasure allow for our demise ONLY when left unchecked. Ours is a government with the balance of powers established. Though they’ve teetered during social unrest, no majority wants to see our Constitution or our national Union dismantled. So long as there are intelligent folks who share their views openly, things will remain balanced. It is when evil demagogues twist goodness in order to suffocate conservatives that the alarm awakens our strength as American brothers, and a cultural reaction occurs. Progressives since Wilson have always promoted the division of America in order to conquer us and rule as Fascist dictators, prosecuting anyone in their way, slandering and ruining anyone pointing out the obvious. PC promotes such.

Our problem thoughout the world today, as I see it, is that progressivism, having taken the “free world” of democracies to the brink via public education from the Left, cultured a younger generation too stupid (ignorant, lazy and self-serving) to recognize the difference between right and wrong, survival of liberty vs. subserviance to Big Brother. The progressives have deliberately and SUCCESSFULLY indoctrinated new speak, the revised convolution of definitions. Hence, to the young, “Big Brother” is simply the POTUS instead of the power that put the POTUS in office and since Reagan left office, now dictates the New World Order from both political parties. The New World Order is Big Brother. Stop “him”, be “he” the Communist or the Fascist or the Progressive, or the “scientist” who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes. Big Brother, not Democracy, sucks the life out of us all.

My own opinion of nationalism is that in and of itself, pride of character, as with ANYTHING, too much or too little of an essential element can become troublesome. An American does not denote race; and our experience has shown that the single “pure” race eschewing ALL OTHERS as less pure or righteous is a fraud. As per cultural traditions, those that promote the ideals found in the essence of peaceful respect and love for fellow creatures such as influences similar to Buddhism or Christianity are a blessing, particularly when eminating blessings on others beyond one’s own self realm. I’ve found Joseph Campbell’s studies marvelous to read on Myth and Man etc. as he covered every world religion. Though personally I accept Jesus at his Word (though I’ve never been a Baptist, I’ve worshipped ecumenically), I shy away from pushing dogma because to become institutionalized, doctrines corrupt in practice. But that’s simply me. I’ve been through many sects and shared my love for God with many diverse populations. I’ve found the personal element needs sanctity, and that crowds or congregations may be fun, but miss the privacy Jesus spoke of, praying in secret. Still, let your light so shine…and that’s where democracy steps to the plate. Democracy allows free religious practice because of Christianity’s core virtue. Rome may have twisted it to suit its own purpose. Nonetheless, God rules supreme, and Jesus is his beloved. Without Christianity from which our nation emerged, democracy suffers demise progressively becoming totalitarian, one ultra socialism or another mutates the good ideal into evil practice. To despise one’s loving parents proves an ungrateful child; to cast off Roman-Protestant Christianity’s political gift to the world (USA) would bring about the hate spawned New World Order version of E pluribus unum. Visualizing the effects of modern warfare, we know what awaits those who would fawn over their destroyer.

Though in the USA we have regional differences, we find eachother tolerably lovable. Everyone has family somewhere, as we’ve been mobilized by our technocracy. A destructionist would idealize a fragmented USA, easier to conquer bit by bit. But we’re too fond of eachother to allow foolishly needless amputations on our marvelous body.

Recall what Chesterton wrote about the head exploding, trying to explain everything at once ad infinitum, lol. Have a good week. Signing off.

CCRWM on April 6, 2008 at 10:19 PM

A Christian are you? You sound like Bismarck or Wilhelm.

My comment/question about dividing the US was prompted by what I thought was Rosemerta’s assumption that the nation state is a superior form of political organization because its existence was prompted and/or promoted by Christianity, and because it allows for the successful expression of regional differences, as well as poety and light and music, etc–i.e. cultural expressions.

If true (and I tried to offer some alternatives that were very successful), why wouldn’t the same impulses apply to our own huge landmass, where I think several nations could be formed.

I agree about the states’ rights issues you promote, and also enjoy the regional differences/flavors that ensue.

I’m not advocating breaking up the US. But if these smaller, lovely unique units that Rosemerta enjoys in Europe are a good idea there, why not here? You’ve offered some historical reasons why what we began with (Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, Constitution) are our heritage and ought to be continued. I’ll agree with that too. But there is still something in Rosemerta’s point about the beneficial effects of Christianity on political organization that isn’t played out here in the US in the same way they were in Europe. If true, which system is better?

Two other quick points: I purchased Liberal Fascism to show financial support of Goldberg’s efforts. I haven’t read it yet. Also, I think benevolent dictatorship is ok, at least in comparison with an aging democracy going through its death throes. The Austro-Hungarian Kaiser and King (K und K) kept his people safe and his land intact until his death. I worry what the US will be like in 50 years (like the UK?), but assume things will be much better for the Chinese than they are today. Democracy seems to be self-limiting. The mob is granted political power by an increasingly liberal and guilt-ridden elite who then vote themselves other people’s money.Game over. So if you want to harken back to the days of state’s rights and a more perfect union, we’d have to take some voting rights away.

the most efficient form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. An empire approaches that, as long as the emperor is more than a figurehead.

Efficient pragmatic progressive Fascism was led by such a strong political personality as Wilson or FDR, or as Hillary or Obama would assume themselves to be.

…the notion that the political organization of the nation state spawned by Christianity is the optimum. I could well imagine the US divided into several nation states.
JiangxiDad on April 6, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Well, as per the optimum, I go for our Constitutional Republic as it was created. That it evolved from Christianity’s children re-embracing Classical thought as well as a most civilized Native American tribe with philosopher wise men who visited with our founding fathers is for someone else to elaborate, as I simply celebrate their gift to us. It deserves more appreciation and respect than ignorant minds can muster. There is no reason to divide or sunder our United States, as we ARE a united nation, though limiting federal power so as to recognize states’ rights has strong merit.

“very seldom”…Even that author lends madness to any man with a mind of his own as Chapter 2 begins. But since he projects his thoughts honestly, he gives good explanation of how he sees things. From studying the effects of empirical thought on the direction(s) that 19th Century music took (see “War of the Romantics”), it’s interesting to note how religion and politics dealt with contemporary value judgments alongside musicians who at the dawn of the 19th Century considered themselves as social prophets. As far as my interest in their lives is concerned, I side with Liszt: Idea Determines Form (organic growth based upon structural balance) and CARITAS. Having read the entire correspondence between Liszt and Wagner and Watson and Walker etc. on Liszt, I see Wagner as a bastard who never gave credit or friendship where it was due to others. Brahms was a bastard, too. I am not refering to their musical accomplishments that were magnificent. Joachim and Hanslick were horrid bastards who, though stuck on stupid as “the beautiful”, contributed nothing genuine of themselves, only egotistical reproductions or critiques as they mistreated those who truly had creative genius.–Along those lines, I tend to appreciate the brief pages covered this morning from the Victorian British author, Chesterton.

It is of recent years that I’ve become more a student of political history, always pausing to reflect on points that I feel disturbed by or attracted to. Hence I tend not to rush through my readings, but to re-read as I go. As per your question about our USA, from my understanding, our founding fathers went through a confederacy of sovereign states before finalizing on the Constitution and our more perfect union. Slavery aside (yes, it was an abomination, and so were the horrid worker conditions in factories and mines that provided LESS to live on than on a decent Southern plantation–also, children were harvested from starving working class families by the government and farmed out to Western frontier settlers as serfs basically, so there was a lot of misery shared regardless of skin color by anyone poor–AND anyone new was abused and treated poorly in America)–so putting all of that aside, the Civil War affected our Constitution more than it should have. It affected the perpetual derogatory visualization of the South and the Northerners’ pompous self-righteous attitude towards the rest of the nation though they’d deny minorities work or decent wages before and following that war. Until the government protects citizens rights from abuse resulting from preferential treatment given to illegal aliens, it IS a big deal that states’ rights have been suffocated by the North’s IMBALANCED interpretation of right and wrong. Naturally, everyone has their own opinion. And yes, I am a product of our great Southwest with parentage from both the North and the South and a family history that was simultaneously agricultural, academic, legal, and musical.

As per Fascism, it is damn depressing! That people today find bliss in ignorance is damn depressing, too. If you’re reading Jonah’s Liberal book, what say you?

I was browsing through II. The Maniac finding good observations…

maverick muse on April 6, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Thanks, maverick! Chesterton has something to say about everything. I never get tired of reading him. He’s endlessly wise, kind, entertaining, and quotable – the most unjustly neglected author of the twentieth century.

For more on patriotism and the individuality of nation-states, read Chesterton’s The Napoleon of Notting Hill.

Manual of the Law of Scotland
By John Hill Burton

Page 327

SECT 18 Bigamy The crime of bigamy is committed by entering on a second marriage while a previous one is valid and subsisting It is necessary that both marriages should be formal and regular at least to the extent of a clear legal engagement between the parties to hold each other as man and wife and so the crime will not be committed if the first or second marriage or both be inferred from a promise followed by connexion which the law pronounces to be marriage in as far as the civil rights of parties are concerned for in such a case it may be far from the intention of a party to hold himself married 2 It appears to be held however that if the first union though irregular in its commencement has assumed the character of a regular marriage by the parties living together as man and wife a second marriage will constitute bigamy 3 and the offence will be committed where either marriage is not solemnized by church rites if it has taken place before a justice of peace or is otherwise a formal contract 4 Manual of the Law of Scotland By John Hill Burton

Also, frankly, I didn’t understand Rosemerta fully. Religious conviction aside, I don’t understand what makes the Roman way inferior to what succeeded it, at least in terms of political organization.

Very possibly nothing at all – I remember vividly one teacher who told us the most efficient form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. An empire approaches that, as long as the emperor is more than a figurehead.

I hope I am understanding what you said and am responding to the point. I suppose what I am getting at is a questioning of the notion that the political organization of the nation state spawned by Christianity is the optimum. I could well imagine the US divided into several nation states.
JiangxiDad on April 6, 2008 at 10:59 AM

I think in terms of imagination, interest, beauty, and variety, there’s more to be said for nation states. To me it’s the difference between visiting towns full of their own interesting little local shops and restaurants, and driving endless highways with nothing but Wal-Marts, Taco Bells, and Motel 6’s at every stop. NOT dissing any of these – I’ve been a fond customer of all three – but I wouldn’t want a world of nothing but cookie-cutter, chain-store experiences.

OTOH, larger political units do have the scale necessary for grand projects such as landing men on the moon, building fabulous cathedrals and monuments, etc. Such projects can be funded and manned by smaller groups, but it’s more of a challenge. Efficiency, as I said – the advantage of the empire.

As I said, it’s called Atheism and hating Christianity.

Thank you for expanding on it.

Indy Conservative on April 6, 2008 at 4:34 AM

Sorry, Indy – I was so eager to bring in Chesterton when I saw a possible tie-in (he’s my favorite author, in case you couldn’t tell!) that I didn’t read your post closely enough. Of course, hating Christianity. :)

Interesting stuff. Thanks for it. But how is the individualistic nation-state concept automatically superior to the Roman model? Simply because it includes Christianity, or for some other reasons? There were Christian empires that were multi-cultural/multi-ethnic. I’m thinking of the Byzantines or Hapsburgs. They persisted for centuries, and were arguably wildly successful.
JiangxiDad on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Sadly, I don’t know very much about the Byzantines or Hapsburgs – there are big gaps in my grasp of history – so if multi-cultural empires truly have worked well then I’m glad to hear it.

I think the point Chesterton was making is not so much that the Roman Empire squashed individual national character, as that national character was better able to thrive when Christianity, in developing an approach of balancing doctrines and practices (fasts of Lent vs. feasts of Easter, pomp of Rome vs. poverty of monks, etc.), also (inadvertently) encouraged a “balancing” approach to national characteristics as well: the passion of the Italians balances the rationality of the Germans, or whatever.

Of course I’m stereotyping here, but what is a national character if not a stereotype? GKC wrote before “stereotype” was a bad word, or maybe even a word at all.

I do not think that cultural homogeneity was the initial Roman’s demand, merely acceptance of Roman sovereignty over its world empire and payment of tribute taxation.

Yes, that’s my understanding too.

The nations that eventually evolved from the broken Holy Roman Empire evolved through Christianity. The EARLY Romantics acknowledged and celebrated that fact.

Thanks for making that point, maverick. GKC says elsewhere in Orthodoxy that “in history I found that Christianity, so far from belonging to the Dark Ages, was the one path across the Dark Ages that was not dark. It was a shining bridge connecting two shining civilizations. … the Christian Church was the last life of the old society and was also the first life of the new. She took the people who were forgetting how to make an arch and she taught them to invent the Gothic arch. In a word, the most absurd thing that could be said of the Church is the thing we have all heard said of it. How can we say that the Church wishes to bring us back into the Dark Ages? The Church was the only thing that ever brought us out of them.”

Asking as a student, DOCTRINES ASIDE, what active similarities exist between Western progressive fascism and the Holy Roman Empire, or Islamic theocracy? Though a gross over simplification, they use dogma to coerce subserviance by penalty of life’s liberty.
maverick muse on April 6, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I wish Chesterton were here to answer that! :) I’m sure he’d see the differences much better than I can. I agree that the use of dogma is common to all three, but again don’t have enough history under my belt to go much further. I do think the Holy Roman Empire wasn’t nearly as keen on spreading religion by the sword as the early Islamic kingdoms were (are) – that while there were certainly any number of wars across the Empire, they weren’t normally religiously motivated – though again I would need to learn more about this period.

But I think often of GKC’s words: “Out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.”

But what do you suggest? What should/could we be doing that we’re not? Or did you already answer that question with your comments on the Catch 22 of Euroweenies vs. Fascists?

American conservatives should advocate mass deportation of Muslims from all Western countries. Make it known that Bush is either ignorant or dishonest about Islam (although we can’t even seem to get that straight here on HA) and same goes for the majority of conservative publications. Stop talking about European self-defense in terms of fascism, far-right populism etc, etc. You guys are all American nationalists so your chilling fear of a resurgence of “nationalism” in Europe is pretty silly.

Absolutely! I just don’t see the perfect reasoning that …
maverick muse on April 6, 2008 at 9:29 AM

I’m with you, but, be careful.

“Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.“

Asking as a student, DOCTRINES ASIDE, what active similarities exist between Western progressive fascism and the Holy Roman Empire, or Islamic theocracy? Though a gross over simplification, they use dogma to coerce subserviance by penalty of life’s liberty. As far as the uneducated little man is concerned (that includes today’s college grads with no manual expertise creating useful objects, not merely farmers, construction workers or dishwashers) there is little effective difference really between systems of power mongers that include our government’s political parties.

maverick muse on April 6, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I was going to ask a similar question to Rosemerta at 1:57 am but couldn’t come up with the “gross simplification” language to make the point adequately. I was going to use the Ottomans as an example. Thanks. I tend to agree with you.

Also, frankly, I didn’t understand Rosemerta fully. Religious conviction aside, I don’t understand what makes the Roman way inferior to what succeeded it, at least in terms of political organization.

I hope I am understanding what you said and am responding to the point. I suppose what I am getting at is a questioning of the notion that the political organization of the nation state spawned by Christianity is the optimum. I could well imagine the US divided into several nation states.

We shouldn’t simply ignore or applaud, but make note at least of comparisons.

Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism notes the progressive left’s subversion of Christianity into fascism throughout Europe (Swiss always ahead) and America via Wilson and FDR, the state replacing the church, the state as the church, statolotry, statism. The New World Order has been underway well over a century now, and yet we pretend it’s something new. The PBS constantly bombard its propaganda to embrace Big Brother in all His sophistication, promoted by Dyer and Deepak Chopra, et.al.

Though Hillary and Obama overtly embrace progressive fascism, ALL of our politicians do. GWBush is converting our economy into a GLOBAL fascist enterprise as we submit our taxes. I noted ironically that besides using the tax rebate “incentive” as a bribe to vote GOP, its a way to get everyone’s full information on the updated gov’t books. McCain won’t uphold rule of law, and won’t ever secure the border. Running a war vet easily presents the sense of false security amongst the mass population.

None of the radio hosts or blogs any longer apply the perpetual pressure REQUIRED until we actually attain secure borders, rule of law, and no amnesty for illegal aliens or their employers.

The only means of leverage that Americans have is our vote and our contributions. VOICE discontent to McCain and the GOP for their plastic good manners that are fabricated as teflon for McCain’s ascent, but do not apply toward those concerned with our national security at home.

From my brief observation, I see that Chesterton notes the demise of the West when it totally embraced empiricism along with materialism and eschewed the metaphysical from modern existence.

I do not think that cultural homogeneity was the initial Roman’s demand, merely acceptance of Roman sovereignty over its world empire and payment of tribute taxation.

Jumping to what Constantine made of Christianity converted to Romanism, it was what it was and consisted of its components.

The nations that eventually evolved from the broken Holy Roman Empire evolved through Christianity. The EARLY Romantics acknowledged and celebrated that fact.

The liberals that evolved through revolutionary perpetuation until monarchies were completely annihilated birthed fascism.

Asking as a student, DOCTRINES ASIDE, what active similarities exist between Western progressive fascism and the Holy Roman Empire, or Islamic theocracy? Though a gross over simplification, they use dogma to coerce subserviance by penalty of life’s liberty. As far as the uneducated little man is concerned (that includes today’s college grads with no manual expertise creating useful objects, not merely farmers, construction workers or dishwashers) there is little effective difference really between systems of power mongers that include our government’s political parties.

maverick muse on April 5, 2008 at 10:56 PM

I hadn’t given it any particular consideration until I read your post. Thanks for that comment, it was thought-provoking!

ORTHODOXY
GILBERT K. CHESTERTON
New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908

What an interesting man you bring to read!

I was browsing through II. The Maniac finding good observations:

In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever.
Let us begin, then, with the mad-house; from this evil and fantastic inn let us set forth on our intellectual journey
Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.
Poe, for instance, really was morbid; not because he was poetical, but because he was specially analytical. Even chess was too poetical for him; he disliked chess because it was full of knights and castles, like a poem. He avowedly preferred the black discs of draughts, because they were more like the mere black dots on a diagram.
To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners.

Beyond Chesterton’s observation of his contemporary scientific empiricists, with our USPS workers, madness strikes both ends of logic’s extremities, those stuck in the box at the low end of infinite filing.

Thanks for the reference.
I wonder how Steyn’s commentary of Chesterton would go.

Absolutely! I just don’t see the perfect reasoning that based upon one phone call by a teenager not to be named or found anywhere, lawmen burst into all homes and remove all children from all mothers.

It’s a complex can of worms. If putting girls underwear on a Muslim’s head is “torture”, what of the state tearing babies from their mothers’ arms in order to get information? These queer white folk deserve the same amount of deference as Muslims get from our government, and the Muslims deserve as much scrutiny and prosecution as the whites get from our government.

“… under Christianity, Europe (while remaining a unity) has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balancing of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, ‘You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.’ But the instinct of Christian Europe says, ‘Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France.’

Rosmerta on April 6, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Interesting stuff. Thanks for it. But how is the individualistic nation-state concept automatically superior to the Roman model? Simply because it includes Christianity, or for some other reasons? There were Christian empires that were multi-cultural/multi-ethnic. I’m thinking of the Byzantines or Hapsburgs. They persisted for centuries, and were arguably wildly successful.

That President Bush could pose with him and ask for a signed copy of his book is monstrous. It describes the conquest of Europe by Muslims and yet he smiles at the book signing and says that “Islam is a religion of peace”. Any European nation that sends even 10 troops to Iraq or Afghanistan is a sucker.

Bush’s policy is perfect if the only objective is protect the US from terrorist attacks but does nothing to stop Europe from being destroyed by Islam. Some alliance!

aengus on April 5, 2008 at 10:10 PM

I enjoy hearing your perspective on these issues, and your criticisms of Steyn and American policy in regard to Europe’s Muslim problem. But what do you suggest? What should/could we be doing that we’re not? Or did you already answer that question with your comments on the Catch 22 of Euroweenies vs. Fascists?

Even if it’s the local authorities busting into the FLDS living quarters and property instead of the Feds, tell that to the screaming babies being pulled from their loving mothers’ arms…

… If our government is going to allow homosexuals to adopt babies, then there’s no justification for interfering with the FLDS families. It’s all or nothing so far as “Justice For All” under our rule of law.

maverick muse on April 5, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Leaving your other points aside for a moment, assuming the forced marriage and sexual initiation of underage girls is true, it’s an abomination.