« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The End of an Era

From 1661 to 2008, It was a good run.

The End of an Era

*From 1661 to 2008, It was a good run.
*

From time to time in the course of human events there exists new Ideas and new ways of thinking. These can have a profound effect upon history either for good or bad. It is my belief that this nation, and Great Britain before it, followed a new way of thinking, which arose during the enlightenment, much to the betterment of mankind.
That time has now ended. What do I mean by this? In the 347 years since the end of the theocracy of Oliver Cromwell to the election of Barack Obama, the world was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern era by the thoughts and ideas of the northern enlightenment. It is a system, for want of a better word, I call Anglo-Saxonism. But it is not based upon ethnicity.


First things First

There is nothing new under the sun, and these ideas have all been debated before. In ancient northern China, the cradle of the Chinese civilization, there existed two contemporary philosophers. Lao Tsu, and Kong Fuzi (Confucius). Confucius spoke of the necessity of “good government” and an educated bureaucracy to administer the benefits of government to all. Confucius was the first Leftist. His views led to a massive governmental leviathan where feckless nobles squandered the wealth of the populace while an immense army of bureaucrats held the real power over the lives of millions of common folk.
Lao Tsu, on the other hand, posited a completely different view. He said that the morality of the nation came from the people, neither the very poor, who were desperate, nor the very rich, who were greedy. But that the enlightened ruler would punish looters, maintain the defense, and do very little else. In Lao Tsu’s own words. “ I did nothing and the people prospered. I dallied and they were full.” He was the first Libertarian.
Now, the history of mankind since then can be seen as one constant struggle of the individual against the state. The Democracies of Greece gave way to the tyranny of Alexander. The Republic of Rome gave way to the tyranny of Augustus. The nascent democracies of the European city states gave way to autocracy and the divine right of kings.

Then came the Two Enlightenments

There was not one Enlightenment, but two. The ideas of the two overlapped, but not completely. The first Enlightenment began during the restoration of Charles II. It included people like Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Smith, Jefferson, Madison, and ended with Mills. The second enlightenment was an affair of the French, and Germans. It began with Voltaire and Rousseau and continued a long time through Marx, Neitzsche, and ended with Jean Paul Sartre.
The northern enlightenment enshrined the values of the individual, hard work, faith, patriotism, the family, the small community, private enterprise and the values of the middle class. The southern enlightenment, hated faith, individualism, morals, and the middle class. The first one led to the United States, the second one led to the Reign of Terror, the International Communist movement, National Socialism, and anarchism. As the bible says, Ye shall know them by their fruits.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The history of the English speaking peoples is by no means clean and pure. There was Imperialism, Slavery, Manifest Destiny, and Exploitation. However, these are characteristics of every single world power which ever existed. What made us unique was that we freed our slaves, tried to make amends for our excesses, and tried to live up to our high standards. This was a new thing in human history.

Anglo Saxonism, is now dead

No, I don’t believe that Barack Obama is some sort of big ogre

who will institute a new Comintern. But I do believe that there will now be a deathgrip on politics by the party of collectivism and that we will follow our former brethren in Europe on the slow road to decline.
Let there be no doubt about this, there is now NO place in all the world which follows polices of free enterprise, individual liberty, and morality and responsibility. Everything is now collectivism of some sort or the other. Nor is it likely to ever return in our lifetime. It shall await another people, in another age to rediscover these truths.

But is was a pretty good run.

COMMENTS

  • birdmojo

    The worst thing that will happen is that the Gods of the Copybook Headings will have to come back and explain a few things to those who will listen.

    That said, it’s so much better when they don’t have to.

  • 1SGinTN

    My knowledge of competing ancient Chinese political philosophies is lacking. You now have imposed upon me the burden of more knowledge-seeking activity.

    As for your pessimism, let me temper it with the fact that Obama’s Fascism and big-government style is not new under the USA sun, either. We have overcome Wilson, FDR, and LBJ – so shall we overcome BHO.

    • kyle8

      During the previous times of big government, we still had a big wellspring of middle class dynamism, rugged individualism, and conservative thoughts and habits. My Grandfather, for instance, never cashed a single one of his Social Security checks, although he had paid taxes he still thought of it as charity.

      Such is no longer the case. Even if, as I suspect, the economy tanks and the Democrats make a hash of things, they will stay in power now forever.(or virtually forever).

      They will take control of the media, they will populate the electorate with new, poor socialist, third world voters, they will gerrymander, and they will intimidate and cheat.

      Who will stand up to them? The current lackwits who populate most of the internet? The beltway republicans?

      I hope I am wrong, but probably not.

      • aaronbg

        You have read Liberal Fascism…you know that the big boom of Progressivism went from the turn of the century all the way into the fifties before it saw any real decline. With this in mind I would then ask how Kirk and Buckley managed to come out, or how Goldwater and Reagan were able to gain popular support? People will reject it once again. Nothing is new, it only seems new to those who have not studied history.

        I suggest you read something a bit more positive for a little while, not that you should be pollyannish, but rather that you don’t become so dispirited that you give up the fight.

        • kyle8

          But I really do not think we are the same people we once were. There comes a time in each civilization when it sort of runs out of steam.

          It can make a rebound but that might not come till centuries later as is the case with China.

          I don’t see anything but mindless left wing zombie-ism in the future unless maybe one of the rising nations like India or China throw off the yoke of socialism and become freedom loving.

          • 1SGinTN

            Not likely to be duplicated for some time. I watched three of the Shelby Steele interview segments on NRO TV last night. You can access them fron the NRO website. Check them out, see if you can get my drift when I say: those that voted for Obama for the reasons they did may not show up to vote in 2010. They will have no focal point that interests them.

          • aaronbg

            Glad to know you aren’t giving up…but i have to ask why you believe that the domination of the left now is more insurmountable than the domination of the progressives then? Other than what you already said about the middle class, which I actually reject, what is confining us today that wasn’t present in years past?

          • kyle8

            We just are not the same people. At least not the majority. Think back on when you were young and what kind of people you saw in public life, and who the heroes were.

            We had reserves of greatness to call upon. What do you see now? Sure, we still have a core of good people, but even among people who are not leftists there is apathy, fear, and despondency.

            Like I said, I hope I am wrong.

          • kyle8

            there will be many thousands of newly minted amnestied democrats. They will have even more control over the election process, we already have seen how they stole at least three elections outright this cycle.

            They will pass the fairness doctrine and use various intimidation to shut up their opponents. I don’t think it has fully sunk in yet to many people just how much power they now have, and they WILL use it.

            Even the donkey party has changed for the worse, there are no more of the “good liberals” left. They are all radicals now.

          • Tamblin

            at calling Confucius a leftist. He was the original social conservative if anything. Confucianism explicitly says that there is a strict moral order that needs to be adhered to. It decries change mores and morals.

            Taoism on the other hand says that things move in cycles, what once was moral bedrock becomes taboo, and vice versa.

          • 1SGinTN

            not four. Taking back congress in 2010 is the intermediate goal in stopping the result you fear. We need to use the Dems weight as leverage to bring them down. They will overreach and overwhelm the mass of Conservatives (and those who don’t realize or have forgotten they prosper under Conservative governance), causing the electorate to vomit them out of their system.

          • aaronbg

            This is a response to both your response to me and to 1stSgt above.

            First wrt the Fairness Doctrine Reagan rose to power during its reign so to say that it will destroy our chances to rise again would be silly, will it make our job harder? Yes, but that just gives us more reason to fight.

            Second wrt the amnesty Dems…they are as likely to side with the R’s as they are to side with the D’s we just need to make the case to them.

            Third wrt good libs…I would still count Lieberman as one and also I would count or very own LeftyLurker and Han Pritcher. They can be won over, maybe not to Libertarianism or Conservatism but in a general election…maybe

            Now on to your response to me.

            The people of America still want to find heroes to look up to today…look at pop culture…Superman is back, Batman is back, Ironman is back…now I know these weren’t really the heroes you were referring to but they open the door of possibility for conservative political heroes to emerge. The desire is there we just need to fill the gap, and I would say that Libertarians and Conservatives are far better poised to fill it than liberals of any flavor.

          • aaronbg

            The leftism would be that he favored to enforce his moral standards by gov’t rather than just realizing the existence of a moral standard and urging community to adhere to it without it being mandated by gov’t. At least thats how I read it.

            Also you seem to be of the impression that to be a SoCon means to want to mandate morality. This is a misunderstanding of what a SoCon is. In general SoCon are trying to resist the mandate that we deconstruct the moral order which has served us since our country’s inception.

          • Alberta

            I had to take a class about this joker, taught by a crazy anti western fat lady who insisted we refer to her as doctor because she had a phd in eastern philosophy. What crock.

            Confu didnt care much for the individual. His craving for an educated bureaucracy betrays his contempt for the comman man. He is a Caste system supporter.


            Kyle
            I like your 2 enlightenments. I read Carlyles “French Revolution” and he makes the point that the french replace (paraphrase) the Divine Right of Kings with the Divine Right of Jean Jacques.

          • Spiral

            Aaron,

            You make an excellent point that the Reagan revolution occurred under the fairness doctrine, in a pre-Limbaugh time period.

            Also, the existance of alternative forms of communications, forms that we did not have back in Reagan’s day (cable television, internet), is going to make it very difficult for the Left to shut the Right up…. short of turning the US into North Korea.

            I look at the challenge ahead of us this way…….

            It’s hard to get people to support change when the economy is performing reasonably well. Most voters are non-ideological. This explains, I think, why Clinton got reelected in 1996, two years after the Gingrich revolution.

            The 1996 reelection of Clinton was very demoralizing for the conservative movement because the 1994 elections convinced many conservatives that the American people wanted conservative government.

            But what Clinton was able to do was to use the residual economic benefits of Reaganism-supply-side economics to his advantage. Clinton put the question to the voters: “Do you want to completely overhaul Medicare? Isn’t that risky?”

            The people, in good economic times, saw no reason to vote for Dole-Gingrich conservatism.

            But at some point the creeping socialism that we are experiencing is going to sink the economy. Perhaps it already has.

            In that case, we could be returning to the politics of the 1970s, when presidents of both political parties governed while the economy struggled. But this didn’t continue forever. Once the Democrats won control over the presidency in 1976, the Republican party had “hit bottom” (as stock market analysts like to say).

            By 1980, the American people, while not fully endorsing conservatism, were willing to give conservatism a chance.

            While I do believe that the American people prefer the security of socialism over the restlessness of capitialism, they also prefer the material prosperity of captialism over the stagnation of socialism.

            At some point, the American people will see that it’s an either or choice. They will move to the Right once they see that the Left is a dead end.

          • Tamblin

            We all know that social conservatives would not tell others how they should live…

            Wait, what?

            Both parties, and every faction of those parties is ALL about forcing their views on others. That’s the entire point of politics.

          • aaronbg

            You might as well have not read my post at all if that was all you got from it.

          • Tamblin

            it just doesn’t bear up to scrutiny. Gay marriage bans and Human life amendments are very clearly efforts to force others to conform to the moral standards of the Socons.

            Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly blame them for this, as I said all political factions do this, but it’s just silly to pretend socons have some live and let live agenda. Obviously they don’t. They have a “live as we say” agenda.

          • aaronbg

            or maybe just coming from the wrong angle.

            Are SoCons trying to change the culture or preserve the culture. Are we trying to enforce our beliefs on others or asking that a minority not force their beliefs on us.

            Who is fighting against allowing workers to say Merry Christmas? Who is trying to change the definition of Marriage? Not the SoCons. They are merely trying to preserve the culture for future generations.

            So really who is infringing on who and who is really asking for a live and let live policy. Who is making the case to change society and who is hoping to preserve society?

          • 1SGinTN

            You speak as if gay marriage was the natural order of things and SoCons want to abolish it.

            Just because I’m willing to let consenting adults be responsible for their own actions, doesn’t equate to government sanction.

          • Tamblin

            the question is not one of changing or preserving the “culture.” It is a question of forcing your views on others (i.e. controlling their actions based on your beliefs).

            If people want to change the definition of marriage for themselves (i.e. them marrying each other) and you tell them they can’t then that’s pretty clearly you forcing your views on them. Historical precedent doesn’t matter, what matters is who wishes to act within their own life and who, by force, prevents it.

          • Tamblin

            automatically means government sanction?

          • 1SGinTN

            nt

          • 1SGinTN

            nt

          • Tamblin

            it’s a definitional argument.

          • aaronbg

            Hangings used to be common place in the south. Should we still allow them?

          • aaronbg

            Tamblin just got blammed by Moe for lying about being a physicist…So he/she won’t be answering.

          • 1SGinTN

            In all that time until recently we’ve never had gay marriage – there must be a good reason.

            I see little to recommend it. It is a genetic dead end. It does nothing to advance the species. Homosexual behavior between consenting adults is a decision they themselves bear responsibility for. Government sanction of said behavior sends the wrong message to society.

          • 1SGinTN

            lol. That’s a new offense for the record book – lying about being a physicist.

          • aaronbg

            Maybe he/she would have told us he/she was a Priest and therefore had some sort of authority on the subject of marriage as defined by the church…;^)