Posted on 06/02/2013 1:04:38 PM PDT by annalex
In a complete system “proof” deducts theorem from axioms. In real life proof is evidence in front of you based upon which you construct a belief system.
There you go. That is exactly what the Western civilization is losing; and that is what Venner was desperate to restore.
So how would you describe American identity?
Big difference between “for” and “at the behest of”?
I imagine the context in Rand’s writings had to do with her character stating the principles of economic freedom of one kind or another, and indeed that would be nothing to sacrifice for.
In Venner’s case we have a tragic loss of national identity; part of that loss, by the way, is occurring because of Man as image of God is replaced by Economic Man. That is, what he says, something requiring a sacrifice and he indeed sacrificed himself, demonstrably, on the altar of Christ. To tell him “go home, man, put the gun down, don’t you have a magazine to edit” is missing the point of this conversation completely.
The swan song would be his "Shock of [the] History", I think.
Much like, I shouldn’t have to mention, a radical Islamist.
No! You're crazy not to see the difference. An Islamist fights a was of aggression (except maybe in Palestine) by means of terror; the terror is real because the killing of the innocent is real killing. Here we have a learned man who literally put his life on the altar. He did not attack anyone.
There is a certain weak parallel. That is seen from his respect for Islam and other "identity religions". I would describe our predicament simply as weakness of faith. But I would not equate Venner's act with anythign Islamic; in fact such a thing, I would say, is impossible in Islam, because they are not a heroic race, the Europeans are.
And mine. I feel very sorry for his loss of Christian identity , and his country's, and I am afraid we are next.
This is not that simple though. First, Venner IS a hero. Formally it is a suicide and grievous sin, however, in his defense: at times the mind sees with clarity that the best fight is going to kill you. Then it becomes an obligation to take the fight. The confusing thing here is that since we fight in the world of ideas, and in countries paralyzed by the democratic process, that best fight for Venner in his specific personal and spiritual condition (I am not encouraging anything here), -- was a shocking act of self-sacrifice.
But we are different, aren't we? Venner says so: a German in Russia remains German but a German in America becomes American. That is a loss for Germany; but it says something about American identity. We still have a chance.
How would you describe American identity? I will give it a try, maybe later in the day.
We believed families, churches and local communities took care of those who could not take care of themselves by VOLUNTARILY giving aid, with accountability so that aid did not go to those who were morally unfit and therefore had caused their own fall into poverty.
We believed in hard work, the RULE of LAW, and the inviolate belief in personal property rights (which comes straight from commandments 8 & 10 of the Ten Commandments thou shall not steal, thou shall not covet).
Families recognized it was their own responsibility to educate their children in the faith, values, morals and precepts that they believed, and not hand their children over to the state to educate.
People were God fearing and believed the Scriptures were God's Word, therefore they had an internal character restraint against corruption (dishonesty, theft, abuse of power). This meant that local and national government representatives were for the most part closer to the intent of being servant leaders, rather than corrupt oppressors.(Of course there were always exceptions, but in general these were the result of a moral, godly and God fearing nation).
I could go on but that is a few things for starters
http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/principledapproachtolaw.html
INTRODUCTION
The proper purpose of law and government is to protect fundamental rights, maintain man’s agency to choose (when not violating others’ rights) and to resolve conflicts between individuals and groups in a fair and just manner. Unfortunately, the enforcement powers of government have most often been used to restrict fundamental rights and provide special privileges and benefits to groups less than the whole. Legalized government tyranny has taken many forms, including dictators, oligarchies and even democratic majorities (who use the power to vote and tax to extract benefits from the most productive classes of society). Such deviant forms of government have been far more common than the ideal forms precisely because the underlying premises used to establish governmental authority over others have been based upon arbitrary, conflicting or insufficiently precise assumptions (“might makes right,” “Divine right of kings” or even “common law”).
The United States Constitution came the closest to establishing a limited government based upon individual rights, but failed to define those rights, leaving the courts and legislatures free to introduce new privileges and false rights that have given rise to our present benefit-corrupted citizenry, who prosper on government intervention and redistribution of wealth. These and other loopholes in the broad and trusting language of the founders have allowed the enemies of liberty to bring us to the point where almost every true fundamental right is severely curtailed, and the restoration of original intent is nigh unto impossible—whether by the ballot box or an appeal to our representatives.
The purpose of the proposed Principles of Just Law and Government is to set the groundwork for a new and more formidable wall of protection for fundamental rights. It incorporates all the best principles of the US Constitution and declares additional principles as necessary to fill the gaps in law and philosophy which the original founders wrestled with but were not able to resolve under the exigencies of their own crisis period. These proposed principles provide the hope that we might once and for all resolve the core issues of law and government and provide a stable and comprehensive basis for unity—at least among those who view themselves as conservatives of liberty.
If you can’t understand the difference in dedicating your life by choice to God or your fellow man, and being compelled into servitude to “another man,” then you won’t care to listen to me and I don’t care to listen to you.
Since you seem to be convinced that you alone have God on your side, I don’t suppose you will miss the company much.
The subject is a complex one and I get your point, but I hope that you also get mine. America would never have been founded if they had all shot themselves. Somebody has got to stick around and fight even when the odds are against them. The men in the Alamo knew that they were facing certain death and stood their ground anyway. That sacrifice brings tears to my eyes, Venner’s does not. Did he consider all of the people who’d witness his violent act and be scarred by it, especially the children? Did he consider the damage he was doing to his family? Suicide carries a psychological impact that lasts for generations.
Ah, yes. I did misunderstand. Thanks for clearing that up.
Boy, that's a big subject.
The greatest feature of America was (?) its ability to gather diverse peoples together, to live and worship freely.
Unfortunately, the American establishment of civil tolerance, in the First Amendment, eventually led to civil, and then individual, indifference toward religion and morality.
This transformation may not have been necessary, since Europe, with its established churches, experienced a similar, contemporaneous phenomenon.
This habit of intellectual indifference has spilled over into all aspects of life. It's difficult to imagine how the trend can be reversed. My guess is that only widespread suffering will sober up our society.
“first loyalty was to God (no king but King Jesus),”
I’d rather have a king than be ruled by Obama.
I am Catholic but I would agree with this at least in great part. American identity is deeply Christian and in a deeply Protestant way: that is viewing anyone professing Christian faith as another denomination of Christianity, and therefore tolerable. The least tolerable are Catholics (Orthodox were practically unknown at the time) because with them the denominational model breaks; but on the other hand, the model can be extended to them and to the Jews, so long as each gets his operational freedom and afford the same to others.
However, we should not forget the North-European ethnic core: English, German, Scandinavian; other European nations and the African race blended in with significant difficulty.
I would add to your list that America is very rural. In Europe a farmer is someone who did not make it to the city yet; in America the farmer is, perhaps, not versed in languages and the opera, but he has a certain heroic dimension to him, and in fact is a better stock precisely because the city did not corrupt him.
This, too, explains American melting pot: one who farms is by definition connected to the soil not by virtue of ancestry but by virtue of labor.
Anything else?
I understand the difference but discussing compulsory servitude has nothing to do with the situation or the article. It is a random slogan Gorush posted, I think, by accident, and since the manner of his post was irritating it provoked comments it did not deserve. I am sorry for dwelling on it.
Don’t be sorry, I enjoyed our discussion.
True, but America had to face the Indians on one end and the colonizing Britain on the other. It was born in a shooting war. Today we have no shooting war. Venner chose an effective, if questionable way to sacrifice his life for a greater cause: the awakening of the French electorate. What were his other weapons? He wrote books all his life. They had, it seems, no impact outside a small circle of conservative historians who read them.
Did he consider the damage he was doing to his family?
He did, he mentioned it in his note. Again, agree or disagree on the wisdom of it, his was a heroic act, intended as one and executed as one. Anyone who chooses heroism is bringing heartache to his family, in the same way, I think.
Well, that is a given, but it is too broad. This disregards specifically Christian character of worship that marks America, the presence of the Frontier in our mental makeup and I would say the Nordic dominant ethnic character. Today, the "diverse peoples together" has become a liberal mantra and lost its attraction because of that.
I, too, think that American allergy to monarchy is of a fleeting nature and will work itself out.
Me too. I enjoy all discussions. Don’t be a stranger, Galt.
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.