Europe Must Find its Roots in America

When the Emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed in 476 the Roman Empire ceased to exist. The dark ages descended upon Europe. Christian civilisation in the West collapsed. The second christening began about one hundred years later from an area that had itself been christened by Roman missionaries but had geographically never been part of the Empire because it was situated across the sea, even more to the west than the Western outskirts of the Empire had been. From here the Saints Columba and Aidan and other holy men travelled east to bring the ancient heritage back to the lands where they had originally come from.

History never repeats itself, and yet similarities are often so striking that in a way there is nothing new under the sun. In the 17th and 18th centuries North America was colonised by freedom loving people who brought the political institutions and traditions from Europe to a new continent across the sea. Many of them had left Europe because they wanted the freedom to live according to their own conscience instead of the conscience of the centralist absolutist rulers of the new age that was sweeping across Europe from the 16th century onwards. Their traditions were rooted in the decentralised traditions of the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Europe’s Middle Ages had been characterised by an absence of central power, while man was bound to multiple legal systems: the legal order of his city, that of the land, that of his guild, that of the church. There was not one monopolistic ruler, as in China or in the Muslim world, but many, which guaranteed greater freedom for the individual. The philosophy of Aquinas, moreover, was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life including, as Aquinas’ followers later pointed out, his economic activities.

Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in the new continent was in a sense older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When the Americans rebelled in 1776 they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution. Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onwards, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even extremer form: totalitarians. These were not satisfied with controlling their subjects’ political and economic lives but also wished to control their minds and souls, i.e. to become their god.

The different historical evolution of Americans and Europeans has greatly influenced them. American society is a society whose culture and view of mankind resembles that of the old mediaeval Europe from which it organically evolved. It puts man before the state because it accepts that man should come to God as a free being. Europe, having lived through the perversions of the Modern Age, has absorbed much of the absolutist and totalitarian spirit. Though the state was rendered democratic in the second half of the 20th century – an event, moreover, that would not have been possible without American assistance – it has in fact developed into a totalitarian democracy. Europeans still tend to put the state before man, still see the government as a god (a benefactor who feeds and supports his people), while the real God – He who wants people to come to Him freely because otherwise their “choice” for Him is no choice at all – has almost totally disappeared from present-day European society.

Americans have never lost the vital understanding that freedom has to be indivisible in order that man may lead a virtuous life. Democracy and freedom of expression represent only the political and moral-cultural fields of life. There is a third important field of social life: economics. In this field the Americans have adopted a system that allows citizens the greatest possible economic freedom and severely restricts the power of the government. It is called capitalism, which to most Americans is something positive, while to most Europeans it appears deeply repulsive.

The strength of America's political system lies in the fact that ordinary Americans have never underestimated the supra-economic function of their economic liberty. One way or another, consciously or unconsciously, ordinary Americans have always felt economic liberty to be an indispensable guarantee of their democracy and freedom. Most ordinary West Europeans do not. In “welfare state” Europe, capitalism is a dirty word, as despicable as communism. Its euphemistic equivalent is “free-market liberalism.” But many West Europeans aren't even in favour of that. Economic freedom in Western Europe is severely restricted by a multitude of regulations and laws. Although these are designed to protect the citizen against risks, they discourage him from taking risks altogether and thwart his prosperity.

Hence Western Europe's economy stagnates while America’s keeps growing. This causes jealousy, which reinforces the political frustration Western Europe already has towards its Atlantic partner. Many Europeans compensate for their frustration by feeling culturally and morally superior to the Americans, whom they regard as backward. Though the Americans live in the so-called new continent, they represent the old, pre-modern Europe: They believe in God, they refuse to realise that the state can be a benevolent institution and subsequently distrust it. Large parts of the West European population consider Americans to be naive, simple, unsophisticated, even dumb – a nation without any real culture or significant history. Such views are held not only by ordinary West Europeans (who get their political education in state run schools and from state run and/or state controlled media), but also by many intellectuals who ought to know better.

Europe, however, is being overrun by barbarians. Its populations are dwindling, its welfare systems are collapsing and its old religion, Christianity, which the Europeans had cast aside, is being replaced by another one: Islam. If Europe is to be saved it must return to its old heritage which has survived in the land across the Ocean. We need to bring America’s values to Europe. These values are our own lost heritage. To survive as Europeans we have to become Americans. It is time to save ourselves by establishing a Society for American Values in Europe.

This is a very interesting article, one thing I would say from the UK point of view is that in the 80s Mrs Thatcher drove a bulldozer through the power of the state and the unions bringing Capitalism to the forefront of the Britain. None of this happened in continental Europe.

The question everyone keeped asking in Britain for years after that was "where have all the commies and socialists gone?". The answer was that they appeared in new guises, i.e. left wing think tanks and quangos, politically correct focus groups etc, all working for the state. Such was their rage and anger at being quashed by Mrs T.

They realised that Capitalism in Britain was here to stay and they could do nothing about it, but their vile mindset was accustomed to revenge in a different way like the above and now we seem to be reaping the awful consequences of the liberalists revenge since Tony Blair's New Labour was elected and the state has almost gone back to being as big as it was in the 1970s.

I think from this we can conclude that Britain is much closer to the US in the free market policy area but that we still have the same amount of state worshipping lefty's as continental Europe who keep trying to pull us backwards all the time.

This viev by the Dutchman is a recurring feature here in Iceland and in other places I am afraid. It is the result of to much power of the government in some ways, but interestingly I beliewe it is also the result, partially, of the more individual freedom in the market, wich seems to keep many content.

But it helps the status qo and the increasing power of the leftists/government in many other issues.

>>and although we would not call it americanism, we must pick and choose what the US has done right and apply it in the various European countries.

I think that because the Left in this country, and abroad, have hammered so hard on what we've done wrong, in an effort to take America down, that it's hard to have a substantive discussion on it, because Conservatives tend to immediately circle wagons when these issues come up.

But you're right, and I don't think anyone, least of all this author, would suggest that all aspects of America need to be picked up and carried across the pond to replace what's in place in Europe.

>>The thing is that european nations are probably nearly as divided in these issues as Americans, but only one voice is allowed to be heard unlike across the pond.

Here, alternate communications for political ideas really got going in the late 1960s/early 1970s with things like Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum newsletter (she was huge in stopping the Equal Rights Amendment), direct mail with Richard Viguerie for Reagan, and then Rush Limbaugh on radio in the late 80s. The Internet really got going for us in the late 90s, and I think we're really seeing the political results of all of this today.

The point is, it takes time, perserverance, and willingness to be painted as "evil", or made as invisible as possible, by your current media elites (as all of the people mentioned above were/are), to build the alternative political communications paths to overcome the existing system.

So get to work! ;-)

I took a one semester linguistics class in college and was fascinated to discover that the Southern “drawl’ is closest to the English accent as spoken in the 18th Century in America. To this day, both Southern and British speakers use the word “reckon” frequently.

Has the general ownership of guns in the US actually limited the auhtorities and can you point to me some examples of this (not the civil war though weather you see it as such an example or not), both in the old days and today?

It's hard to point to what to examples of what has happened due to Americans being armed. Rather, we can point to what hasn't happened.

We've seen too many disarmed citizens of other countries marched off to their deaths. Tyrants know they will expect no resistance, so it's easy for a small number to murder a much larger number of people.

We've also seen instances, even in America, where local disasters leave our deputized police ineffective. Anarchy has a hard time making headway here when the local bad guy can be terminated instantly.

Finally, it's much easier to put up with the leftist hate and insanity when you realize they have no means of imposing their will by force of arms.

Our Second Ammendment is doing its job when it doesn't have to be used. It's a deterrent that every citizen has available.

It is interesting that in Peter Hitchen's excellent "The Abolition of Britain" a powerful and often funny conservative diatribe on the last 40 years in UK history - he dislikes Margaret Thatcher's legacy and said that she was more like an American Conservative and didn't honor British traditions - especially working class traditions (new Labour has also trampled over them but that is another story).

I admire thatcher - but I think he is right - she was outside the traditional British Conservative tradition and probably more love now by conservatives across the pond that on these shores.

To this day, both Southern and British speakers use the word “reckon” frequently.

I have noticed that. *Reckon* is also used by the other Commonwealth peoples, such as Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans.

When I watch British TV shows, however, I usually have to put on the captions in order to get every word, especially if there are Scots or Northern accents. Hearing and seeing at the same time has helped me to be able to understand more easily without the captions. The last time we traveled to Australia and NZ, it was much easier to understand everyone.

I wonder if the difference, over 25 years, was the prevalence of American media in those countries. Perhaps the Anglo-sphere is tending towards a more common pronunciation?

I have lived in the central & northern US all my life and there was a difference from central Illinois to Wisconsin that I noticed when I moved north forty years ago. Today, I can only sometimes pinpoint the differences, such as *pin* for pen in people from the more southern of the central plains.

I think American regional accents are gradually trending more toward a common *American* accent. Since I like the southern and the tidewater accents, I think this is sort of sad.

I loved reading your post about Ice;and - virtually ignored in my education. It sounds a very interesting society where freedom and tradition (often at odds with each other) seem to work together.

We have a big problem in Wales where there is a big push by the government to side with the nationalists and increase Welsh speaking with a slide to independence that goes with it.

I would argue (and many would agree with me) that the break up of the UK will be Tony Blair's true legacy.

Sad.

we use the word "reckon" in Wales a lot.
we reckon that this or that is worth doing....
I reckon I'll cut the grass today

that sort of thing?

That is exactly the way those with a Southern accent speak. "Reckon" is also heard often out here in the West as many Southerners migrated this way after the Civil War though the Western accent is less regional sounding. An Aussie friend of mine also used that word a lot.

This article has a lot of truth in it that is rarely commented on in history or politics. The United States is the last of the Medieval states. Shortly after our revolution, the French revolution, father of totalitarianism, forever put the US and Europe on different paths.

In medieval times, the king has little influence on an ordinary person's life. Government's responsibility did not include health care, welfare, or education. These were the domains of private institutions, mainly the Church. The Europeans, in their fight to plunder and destroy the Church, handed these domains to government, making their governments ever more intrusive. In the US, these have been the battle lines between conservatives, and "progressives" who look to Europe as their model.

I have lived in the central & northern US all my life and there was a difference from central Illinois to Wisconsin that I noticed when I moved north forty years ago. Today, I can only sometimes pinpoint the differences, such as *pin* for pen in people from the more southern of the central plains.

I think American regional accents are gradually trending more toward a common *American* accent. Since I like the southern and the tidewater accents, I think this is sort of sad.

I remember traveling from Illinois to Wisconsin in 1977 and as soon as I crossed the state line the accent changed.

I used to spend a lot of time in east Texas when I was younger and all of the broadcasters on TV and radio had a heavy Southern accent. After an absense of a few years, I returned last year and was suprised to hear almost all the broadcasters using what you call an "American" and I would call Mid-Western accent which is becoming the universal accent of broadcasting.

About your second amendment to your constitution, can you explain to me how you have come to this conclusion? I am not contesting it, it is just so "alien" thinking to me, as an Icelander, where guns are rarely seen, except in the movies (from the US).

It is diffcult to prove to an outsider that our 2nd has kept us free. There haven't been too many occasions in which it has been used to correct government recently, but the Battle of Athens is a good example.

I do believe that when policy makers convene in secret, the 2nd is always on the back of their minds when deciding how far they will go. For more immediate needs, it provides protection from fellow citizens who prey on others. There are many examples daily of criminals meeting an untimely end at the wrong end of a home owners weapon. Just look at Great Britain. They've all but abolished legal gun ownership, and now brazen criminals invade homes in broad daylight with no fear of retaliation.

I've heard, and seen from pictures and films, of the beauty of Iceland. It's nice you can have a society without the need for guns. Our nation is very different, with racial and political tensions boiling below just below the surface of a much larger population. Guns are a necessity here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.