Western Civilization in a single chart

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Western Civilization in a single chart

  1. John Constantine

    Which is why we must do degrowth and rewilding and topple the heteropatriachy so we can descale the colonialist toxic Nazism out of humanity and return to organic veganist gaia happy feelings.

    Like Davos is revealing for us.

    Comrades.

  2. Iampeter

    The Real Hockey Stick Graph 🙂

    That graphic really tells you all you need to know.

    It starts to spike up the year The Wealth of Nations is published and the world’s first, secular rights protecting republic, declares independence.

  3. mem

    If this is Per Ca pita GDP growth for the world doesn’t this mean that that the poor starving and warring nations have also benefited? Perhaps the development of the western world has benefited the poor underdeveloped nations after all? CO 2 Climate Change mantra is bunkum and everyone knows this if they think hard enough. Challenge an alarmist with the facts and they explode because they are going through a psychological battle between what they know is real and what they want/need to believe because it makes them part of the “in group”.

  4. Chris M

    See when they cut loose from Gold and started printing promises on paper aka fiat.

  5. Tel

    It starts to spike up the year The Wealth of Nations is published and the world’s first, secular rights protecting republic, declares independence.

    By your standards Adam Smith is a leftist … must be because everyone is leftist to you.

    The founding fathers of the USA must surely be leftists, I mean, they were Christian just for starters, and they founded a nation, all nations are leftist according to you. Then they went and kicked out the British. Can’t be a rights protecting government if you kick someone out for no other reason than being British. Sheesh.

  6. Percy Popinjay

    And broken windows and empty holes across the planet did rejoice.

  7. Percy Popinjay

    tel, stop being such a staggeringly ignorant collectivist contrarian, like all the other appalling ignoramuses on this blog (“Perfesser” Kates, especially).

    It is clearly obvious you know nothing about politics or religion, much less mythical “rights protectin’ gubments”.

    Sheesh.

  8. Shy Ted

    Turn it 90deg clockwise and we have Australia under Labor 2019-2025.

  9. faceache

    What I really love is the way the trickle down effect has worked since 1900. As a poor old pensioner I am sure JD Rockfeller’s library was better than mine but that would be about it.

  10. Iampeter

    By your standards Adam Smith is a leftist … must be because everyone is leftist to you.

    No, because I don’t have a superficial understanding of this and don’t drop context.
    I wouldn’t hold Smith to the standards I’d expect from someone talking economics in 2019.

    The founding fathers of the USA must surely be leftists, I mean, they were Christian just for starters, and they founded a nation, all nations are leftist according to you.

    The founding fathers were mostly deists, which is atheists prior to the theory of evolution. What little they had to say about Christianity was pretty negative.
    They established a rights protecting republic, where the rights of individuals are protected (duh), which is a repudiation of Christianity, in which the individual is sacrificed for a greater good. You know, a type of government totally opposite to all the Christian countries at the time.
    What little they said about “religion” in general was positive, but that’s because they were using the word to mean “morality” not the belief in the supernatural.
    Overall, the founding fathers didn’t really talk about religion very much. I was actually surprised when I read their work, as to how secular it was. I was expecting way more bible thumping, because I used to believe all the nonsense you believe, but there’s none.
    This is because they knew what they were talking about, so unlike today’s conservatives, didn’t need to make everything about religion, to cover for political illiteracy.

    Can’t be a rights protecting government if you kick someone out for no other reason than being British. Sheesh.

    Yea…because the American revolution was about illegal British immigrants. Right.
    I mean,I know you’re not THIS stupid, but you still tried this line anyway?

    You are really invested in being able to regulate immigration, huh.

  11. Tel

    The founding fathers were mostly deists, which is atheists prior to the theory of evolution. What little they had to say about Christianity was pretty negative.

    https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/george-washington-on-the-importance-of-religion-to-political-prosperity-in-his-farewell-speech

    George Washington gave his farewell speech on the importance of religion.

  12. Tel

    Yea…because the American revolution was about illegal British immigrants. Right.
    I mean,I know you’re not THIS stupid, but you still tried this line anyway?

    Don’t twist and turn, the question was perfectly clear.

    Does a nation state have the right to remove people they device are not citizens nor guests and therefore don’t belong there? The Founding Fathers of the USA said yes, and they did the deed to prove it.

  13. Tel

    I wouldn’t hold Smith to the standards I’d expect from someone talking economics in 2019.

    So you admit there’s a double standard in operation… happens to pop up when it suits you. Fair enough, noted.

  14. Iampeter

    https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/george-washington-on-the-importance-of-religion-to-political-prosperity-in-his-farewell-speech

    George Washington gave his farewell speech on the importance of religion.

    *sigh*
    No he didn’t. Did you even follow your own link to the speech itself? You’ve clearly never read it.
    He has one paragraph in there mentioning religion (and morality), not Christianity btw, out of around fifty paragraphs. This speech was in no shape or form “on the importance of religion.”
    It is an incongrous paragraph given the entirely secular and political speech he was giving, which I explained to you in advance, because I knew you would link this, when I said “what little they said about “religion” in general was positive, but that’s because they were using the word to mean “morality” not the belief in the supernatural.“.

    This is why it’s frustrating for me to talk with you and Dover and Tim, et al. You guys clearly have very little knowledge and understanding of these topics, but the take the tone of experts.
    In reality every post by me, requires further posts, to explain things already explained in the original post, because you haven’t understood anything.

    You link things you don’t even bother reading, which you get away with in conversations with dummies, but that won’t work with me, because I’ve actually READ what you’ve linked.

    You make no effort to understand anything that I’ve said and come back to me with questions that have already been answered and you should be too embarrassed to be asking.

    Does a nation state have the right to remove people they device are not citizens nor guests and therefore don’t belong there? The Founding Fathers of the USA said yes, and they did the deed to prove it.

    Holy shit.

  15. Tim Neilson

    This is why it’s frustrating for me to talk with you and Dover and Tim, et al. You guys clearly have very little knowledge and understanding of these topics, but the take the tone of experts.

    But that’s why I want to LEARN from you Iampeter!

    I really want to know whether a sovereign state has the right to refuse admission to its territory to someone who arrives at the border intending to enter and who is suffering an incurable fatal and highly contagious disease.

    Also, dover has clearly shown he knows vastly more than you about the classics (in particular Aristotle) Christianity and western civilisation. He’s demonstrably right and you’re demonstrably wrong.

  16. Tel

    He has one paragraph in there mentioning religion (and morality), not Christianity btw, out of around fifty paragraphs. This speech was in no shape or form “on the importance of religion.”

    Bollocks, there’s several paragraphs. This one contains all the things you have already disavowed:

    10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

    You have already on multiple occasions decried all those things. There’s other stuff about religion, if you think there’s only one paragraph then you should read it. You are demonstrably wrong.

    This is why it’s frustrating for me to talk with you and Dover and Tim, et al. You guys clearly have very little knowledge and understanding of these topics, but the take the tone of experts.

    That’s because you are full of shit all the time and contradict yourself constantly. For example:

    Iampeter #2882924, posted on December 11, 2018 at 7:10 am

    But the fundamentals are this:
    Western Civilization is about reason and individualism.
    Religioun is about mysticism and collectivism. Especially Christianity.

    You go trashing ALL religion, especially Christianity. Now you want to back around that and make a distinction between saying positive things about religion broadly and negative things about Christianity (without ever explaining what in particular makes Christianity worse than some other religion such as Islam). You are literally contradicting yourself.

    If you are trying to argue against this stuff then it’s brave but hopeless, because it’s been done to death. John Adams was certainly Christian, and devout (but wanted to keep religion separate from government).

    Here is a good (and pretty fair) discussion of why they were concerned about freedom of religion, because they knew that the Christian sects would attempt to take over government if they could, so they pushed for limited government… for the exact reason that they knew so many of the early American groups were very devout. They wanted to avoid a repeat of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (and other similar wars).

    https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/james-madison-and-religious-liberty

    The point is that, thanks largely to Madison, free exercise replaced toleration as the national standard for protecting religious liberty, a standard he first raised in Virginia and sustained throughout his political career.

    Liberals make Madison into an anti-religious rationalist, determined to quarantine the republic from the disruptive influence of faith. Conservatives, when not trying to Christianize him, invoke Madison’s faith-friendly rhetoric to justify the latest attempt to reinsert religion in the public square. The truth is more complicated. What is nearly indisputable is that his religious instincts fueled much of his political activity.

  17. Tel

    He has one paragraph in there mentioning religion (and morality), not Christianity btw, out of around fifty paragraphs. This speech was in no shape or form “on the importance of religion.”

    Bollocks, there’s several paragraphs. This one contains all the things you have already disavowed:

    10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any app*llation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

    You have already on multiple occasions decried all those things. There’s other stuff about religion, if you think there’s only one paragraph then you should read it. You are demonstrably wrong.

    This is why it’s frustrating for me to talk with you and Dover and Tim, et al. You guys clearly have very little knowledge and understanding of these topics, but the take the tone of experts.

    That’s because you are full of shit all the time and contradict yourself constantly. For example:

    Iampeter #2882924, posted on December 11, 2018 at 7:10 am

    But the fundamentals are this:
    Western Civilization is about reason and individualism.
    Religioun is about mysticism and collectivism. Especially Christianity.

    You go trashing ALL religion, especially Christianity. Now you want to back around that and make a distinction between saying positive things about religion broadly and negative things about Christianity (without ever explaining what in particular makes Christianity worse than some other religion such as Islam). You are literally contradicting yourself.

    If you are trying to argue against this stuff then it’s brave but hopeless, because it’s been done to death. John Adams was certainly Christian, and devout (but wanted to keep religion separate from government).

    Here is a good (and pretty fair) discussion of why they were concerned about freedom of religion, because they knew that the Christian sects would attempt to take over government if they could, so they pushed for limited government… for the exact reason that they knew so many of the early American groups were very devout. They wanted to avoid a repeat of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (and other similar wars).

    https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/james-madison-and-religious-liberty

    The point is that, thanks largely to Madison, free exercise replaced toleration as the national standard for protecting religious liberty, a standard he first raised in Virginia and sustained throughout his political career.

    Liberals make Madison into an anti-religious rationalist, determined to quarantine the republic from the disruptive influence of faith. Conservatives, when not trying to Christianize him, invoke Madison’s faith-friendly rhetoric to justify the latest attempt to reinsert religion in the public square. The truth is more complicated. What is nearly indisputable is that his religious instincts fueled much of his political activity.

  18. Tel

    He has one paragraph in there mentioning religion (and morality), not Christianity btw, out of around fifty paragraphs. This speech was in no shape or form “on the importance of religion.”

    Bollocks, there’s several paragraphs. This one contains all the things you have already disavowed:

    10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any app*llation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

    You have already on multiple occasions decried all those things. There’s other stuff about religion, if you think there’s only one paragraph then you should read it. You are demonstrably wrong.

  19. Tim Neilson

    PS,

    Your previous response to this question, which you disingenuously alluded to in another post as an “answer” , was:

    No I’m not answering anymore weird, totally confused and inane questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and are just derailing. You need to stop posting and start reading. I strongly recommend the link I posted earlier in this thread as a good starting point.

    C’mon.
    Just a “yes” or a “no”.
    Or as much elaboration as you want to give.

  20. Tel

    He has one paragraph in there mentioning religion (and morality), not Christianity btw, out of around fifty paragraphs. This speech was in no shape or form “on the importance of religion.”

    There’s several paragraphs, more than one. This one contains all the things you have already disavowed:

    10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any a p p e l l a t i o n derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

  21. Tel

    Here is Iampeter trashing ALL religion, not just Christianity:

    Iampeter #2882924, posted on December 11, 2018 at 7:10 am

    But the fundamentals are this:
    Western Civilization is about reason and individualism.
    Religioun is about mysticism and collectivism. Especially Christianity.

    And yet now the contradiction, the story changes above so that only the Christians are supposedly the bad ones (but no details as to what makes Christianity worse than Islam for example). That’s one of these arguments of convenience that keeps coming up because even if you want to downplay Christianity as part of the early American nation, you can’t doubt they were all religious in some way or other.

    This is a constant stream of contradictions.

  22. Iampeter

    There’s several paragraphs, more than one. This one contains all the things you have already disavowed:

    The word “religion” is mentioned four times, in that entire massive speech. There is only one paragraph which you can argue he is actually talking about religion being important, but he really means morality, NOT the supernatural.
    You said this was a speech “on the importance of religion” but it’s not about religion at all. You are categorically wrong, but are not going to concede and in typical cat fashion, will continue trying to argue when you’ve already lost. This is pointless.

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

    Which has nothing to do with regulating immigration, which is why they had literal open borders back then.

    You are wrong on every point, have a completely shallow knowledge of this stuff, have ignored the most important parts of my post because they went over you head and are in no position to argue anything, but will keep doing so pointlessly.

  23. Tel

    There is only one paragraph which you can argue he is actually talking about religion being important, but he really means morality, NOT the supernatural.

    Rubbish, the paragraph I quoted lists religion as part and parcel with the common culture that binds people together. If you don’t understand that aspect of religion then you aren’t even out of the starting gates.

    Besides in the past (Iampeter #2882924, posted on December 11, 2018 at 7:10 am) you say ALL religion is bad, while up above you are starting to change your position and say, well it’s OK if the founding fathers had positive things to say about some religion, so long as they are negative about Christianity (without finding any example where they were negative about Christianity).

  24. Tel

    Here’s another one that’s wrong in every way:

    Iampeter #2851508, posted on October 29, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    Christianity isn’t a cure to Marxism (that’s a laughable suggestion) it IS Marxism.
    It was Christianity that first mainstreamed altruism in the West, which would find its logical conclusion in the death camps and gulags of the 20th century.
    It was Christianity that taught the purpose of your life is to sacrifice for others, to give everything away, to never turn away the needy, that an ideal society is one where all things are in common and you take as needed (sound familiar?), etc.

    Marx himself was not a religious man, and he rejected religion insisting that it was merely an invention to keep powerful people powerful and keep everyone else down:

    Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

    … also his famous “religion is the opiate of the masses”.

    Marx was a strong believer in rationality and absolutist materialism. Most of his followers were too.

    What’s more Iampeter, you don’t even understand “altruism”. The concept of altruism is not even from Christianity, it is a recent idea from the 19th century French philosopher Auguste Comte who was a secular humanist. Christians never went around talking about altruism, it’s been retrofitted as a modern synthesis.

    Christians talked about “charity” and being a good person, which doesn’t mean altruism.

  25. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter,
    Actually you’re right – you did give an answer.
    So apologies for accusing you of being dishonest.
    But you’ve still been evading the issue because you know that your answer blows your loony open borders ideology clean out of the water.
    Once it is accepted that a state does have the right in some circumstances to deny entry to foreigners, it’s clear that someone’s “right” to cross into a foreign country is not unqualified.
    Therefore if you’re claiming to have a coherent theory about “rights” you have to be able to explain the principle by which one determines when a sovereign state is entitled to refuse entry or not.
    Saying that there may be “special circumstances” justifying “temporary” refusal of entry is just dodging the question.
    People who say that a sovereign state has an unqualified right to determine who does or doesn’t enter its territory do have a coherent theory about the relations between a sovereign state and non-citizens, whether you agree with it or not.
    You don’t.
    You’ve just got a “yes but no” absolutist dogma which you admit is bogus in some instances, but no idea how to try to articulate a principle which justifies that.
    You’re the confused participant in the immigration debate.

  26. Tel

    I give you a list of points:

    * Citizenship
    * Love of your country
    * Patriotism
    * Common culture
    * Common cause of national defense

    You ignore all the points and pretend this discussion is about something else:

    Which has nothing to do with regulating immigration, which is why they had literal open borders back then.

    Then you accuse me of doing exactly the thing that you just did.

    You are wrong on every point, have a completely shallow knowledge of this stuff, have ignored the most important parts of my post because they went over you head and are in no position to argue anything, but will keep doing so pointlessly.

    That’s good work, even for a sock. I think that pretty much sums it up.

  27. Tel

    Man makes religion, religion does not make man. In other words, religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, a reversed world-consciousness, because they are a reversed world.

    That’s Karl Marx explaining his secular view of religion and why it is nothing more than a consequence of social power and desperation amongst the underclasses. Indeed the Karl Marx view of religion is exactly what Iampeter has been pushing here.

    http://www.christianitydisproved.com/brain/karl-marx-on-religion.html

  28. Tel

    The word “religion” is mentioned four times, in that entire massive speech. There is only one paragraph which you can argue he is actually talking about religion being important, but he really means morality, NOT the supernatural.

    That’s completely wrong as well, here’s the other paragraph that talks about religion AND morality (two separate things).

    27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    Washington claimed that you cannot have morality without religion. You can’t say that he really means it’s about morality, because he very clearly says that those two separate entities support one another, and in turn create the trust that someone swearing an oath would not lie (hence why we swear people into court, traditionally on a Bible). Then in the third case he once again brings up religion in the context of charity and virtue.

    31 Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

    So putting it together he covers religion in three separate paragraphs with three distinct aspects:
    * Cultural ties between people from religious ceremony and tradition.
    * Morality, swearing oaths and the power of religious conviction.
    * Charity, virtue and benevolence based on religious teaching.

    All aspects are important to maintaining good governance.

  29. A Lurker

    My conclusion – Iampeter is a Globalist Marxist troll or a sock-puppet whose only function is to wind people up.

  30. Iampeter

    You ignore all the points and pretend this discussion is about something else:

    No Tel, this is exactly what you have done.
    Listing random points and jumping to random conclusions is frankly embarrassing.
    You’re entire level of discussing politics seems to be, the word “religion” appeared therefore everyone is Christian!
    Or, the word “citizenship” appeared, therefore regulate immigration!

    This isn’t politic and you have no idea what you’re talking about, or how to even approach the subject.
    You’re motivation is to evade the fact that you’ve spent years on political blogs and fancy yourself informed, but in reality are posting some of the most nonsensical and ignorant stuff one can find on the internet.
    If it make you feel any better, this is sadly on par with so many other posters here, but I’m not going to be helping you delude yourself.

  31. old bloke

    What a great graph; if you meet a Boomer today, give him or her a pat on the back.

  32. max

    Iampeter say:

    “It starts to spike up the year The Wealth of Nations is published and the world’s first, secular rights protecting republic, declares independence.”


    The Declaration of Independence, which underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God, and that the powers of the government come from the people.
    the Causes and Character of America’s Present Predicament start with dogma : “We the People”

    “Under the leadership of Madison, the … convention of 1787 … produced (behind locked doors) the Constitution. Both in the mind of Madison and in its nature, the Constitution was an instrument of imperial government at home and abroad.”

    American Imperialism: Born Hand-in-Hand with the Constitution

    you can google “EMPIRE OF LIBERTY”; “The March of the Flag” ; “Manifest Destiny”

    “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI

    “if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.

    Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required–whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto.”

    “Let’s face it, the American experiment has been a failure. Why did we revolt, anyway?”

    The British Agricultural Revolution started in 17th Century

    The industrial revolution began in Great Britain sometime after 1750 but before 1800. Historians disagree about how this happened, just as they disagree about how everything else has happened. But the fact that it did happen, and happened first in Great Britain, is undisputed.

    The demography of England:

    1600 4,110,000
    1650 5,310,000
    1700 5,200,000
    1801 7,754,875
    1851 15,288,885
    1901 30,072,180

  33. Iampeter

    The Declaration of Independence, which underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God, and that the powers of the government come from the people.

    No it doesn’t. The Declaration talks about the fact of rights and the governments sole function being to protect them. It is not talking about supernatural nonsense.
    The mention of “creator” and “natures god” are deist terms meaning “reality” not the supernatural.
    Not being able to get past the superficial religious words, is why so many conservatives have never understood the fundamentals.

    American Imperialism: Born Hand-in-Hand with the Constitution

    Not sure what you’re saying here. America is the worlds only non-imperial super power. If they WERE imperial, while not a good thing, it would be a step up from today’s altruistic appeasement.

    “if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here either. There is no religious test for office in America. I can’t imagine why you would suggest otherwise. Random out of context quotes, that have nothing to do with any fundamental are not arguments of any kind.

    “Let’s face it, the American experiment has been a failure. Why did we revolt, anyway?”

    I’m glad that you are conceding that you are anti-West and anti-American.
    Some libertarians are even worse than conservatives it seems.

  34. max

    Who Is Lord Over The United States?
    A Christian citizen knows the answer: Jesus Christ. But if this really is the true answer, grounded firmly on the Bible, then why is it that so few Christians are willing to proclaim this fact publicly, and why is it that no Christian political candidate dare mention it?
    There is a reason: the theology of political pluralism, the dominant public theology in our day.
    Political pluralism is not simply a political philosophy: it is a theology. it is American’s civil religion. This theology teaches that there must never be a nation that identifies itself with any religion. Well, not quite. The nation of Israel is grudgingly allowed to do so, as are the Islamic nations. But no nation is ever supposed to identify itself as Christian. “A Christian nation is self-contradictory!”
    So we are told. But who tells us? Secular humanists who are dedicated to wiping out all political opposition. Also, Christian teachers who teach in tax-supported schools. Also, professors in Christian colleges who attended either state universities or secular humanist private universities, which are the only accredited universities in the United States that grant the Ph.D. degree.
    Also, the U.S. Constitution.
    https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/21f2_47e.htm

  35. max

    Iampeter
    there is big difference between freedom and slavery

    Americans were free people once long time ago — decline started with war of independence and constitution.

  36. max

    Many of these early Enlightenment figures were not atheists; they were deists. Deists believe in God, but they do not believe in divine revelation or that God interacts with His creation. God can only be understood through the right use of reason and the study of nature. “A deist is described by the poet Alexander Pope (1688–1744) as a ‘Slave to no sect, who takes no private road, but looks through nature up to God.’”They could do this because they believed that God was the Creator. The “Laws of Nature” were the creation of “Nature’s God.”

  37. max

    The American Empire began early, no later than the Louisiana Purchase.
    The annexation of Mexican territory in the war with Mexico, 1846-48, was surely an expansion of empire. But the process made a quantum leap in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War in 1898.
    America took over the remnants of Spain’s faltering empire: Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
    The American suppression of the Philippine insurgents, 1898-1902, gets little or no space in the history textbooks. About 4,000 American troops died, maybe 20,000 Filipino troops, and 500,000 civilians.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/12/gary-north/america-lost-the-pacific-war/

  38. max

    Iampeter say
    “I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here either. There is no religious test for office in America.”

    one day when American president is socialist you are going to understand.

  39. Iampeter

    Iampeter
    there is big difference between freedom and slavery

    Americans were free people once long time ago — decline started with war of independence and constitution.

    So America is founded on Christianity AND this founding marked the beginning of its descent?

  40. max

    “So America is founded on Christianity AND this founding marked the beginning of its descent?”

    Yes America is founded on Christianity:

    The New England Puritans set forth Old Testament law as the ideal for the civil government, the family, and the church. They wrote the very first written constitutions in Connecticut (The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut 1639) and Massachusetts (Massachusetts Body of Liberties 1641).

    Therefore, the early New England Puritans were careful to establish biblical law as the foundation of their legal codes, most notably the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641).

    descent started by abandoning completely Christianity with constitution.

    Are deists Christians?
    The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

  41. Iampeter

    No Max, America was not founded by starving theocrats, but by men of the enlightenment. It’s ideas are captured in the declaration of independence and the constitution and reject Christian teaching. You acknowledge that much at least.
    These are the events that caused that graph to start curving up sharply. Something that would never have happened if we hadn’t cast of Christianity.

    Trying to tie everything to religion because of historical and political illiteracy, along with disintegrated thinking, is typical here it seems.

  42. max

    Gary North:

    “The Declaration had two primary goals: to serve as a unifying statement of principle for the diversified thirteen colonies, and to serve as a propaganda tract for foreign policy.
    Thus, Jefferson chose language that could be interpreted in both traditional and liberal ways, satisfying conservative Americans and foreign monarchs, as well as the liberal European literati, whose influence was growing in European political affairs.
    The terms were universally acceptable and recognized by all intelligent readers: nature, reason, natural law, human rights, injustice, and equality. These were slogans to catch the support of Christians at home and Deists abroad.
    These slogans were the universal language of the eighteenth century.”

    The famous French Protestant defense of revolution against tyrants, the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579), written a century before Locke wrote his defense of revolution, was widely read in the colonies. John Adams later said that this was one of the most influential books in America on the eve of the Revolution.

  43. max

    History: European — The Two Wings of the Enlightenment
    Gary North – July 18, 2007
    Printer-Friendly Format

    The two wings of the Enlightenment can best be summarized in terms of European geography: France and Scotland.

    The French version offered a theory of top-down, centralized society. I call it the left-wing Enlightenment. The Scottish version offered a theory of bottom-up, decentralized society. I call it the right-wing Enlightenment.

    If you want to identify the systems by their intellectual spokesmen, choose Jean Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith. Politically, they were Robespierre and George Washington.

    WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

    Both systems proclaimed faith in human reason, but they had different theories regarding how reason should extend into society. The French version regarded elite central planners as reliable designers of a good society, and also reliable implementers — by force. The Scottish version regarded reason as possessed by individuals, and therefore inherently decentralized, with ideas and plans proving their value in free-market competition without private force and with very little governmental force.

    Both versions appealed to supposedly rational men. But when rational men refused to listen, left-wing Enlightenment thinkers went looking for politicians to impose force. Right-wing Enlightenment thinkers waited for self-interested, profit-seeking people to implement their ideas in the marketplace.

    The French Revolution was the implementation of left-wing Enlightenment thought. The American Revolution was the implementation of right-wing Enlightenment thought. Both versions led to a violent revolution. This was a major problem with both versions.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/2282.cfm

  44. max

    The American Revolution led to a conspiratorial coup in Philadelphia in 1787, which centralized the government, followed by the Civil War, the New Deal, and two world wars. After 1913, it led to massive bureaucracy and taxes at levels only marginally less than Europe’s taxation: over 40% of production. It also produced an American military empire.

    Both systems are financed by a monopolistic central bank, but the right-wing Enlightenment invented the original model: the Bank of England (1694).

    Both systems invoked the sovereignty of autonomous man as a species. Neither turned to biblical religion as the definitive standard.

    Ever since 1700, Christian social thought has relied on one of the two Enlightenment versions for support. Christianity has been subsumed under the Enlightenment. This carried down to the 1980’s, when Roman Catholic radicals proclaimed Marxist revolution: “liberation theology.” In response, Christian conservatives proclaimed democratic capitalism. In both cases, Christians have been riding in the back of the Enlightenment’s bus. They prefer one driver to the other, but they have paid for the bus and the gasoline. They do not get to select the map or take the steering wheel.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/2282.cfm

  45. Iampeter

    Max, that’s more of the usual disintegrated nonsense and contradictions.
    For example, reason is the alternative to faith, so there’s no such thing as having, “faith in reason.” That’s a contradiction.
    The enlightenment is the intellectual movement of advocates of reason and individualism, which makes it right wing.
    Left wing is collectivism, so there’s no such thing as “left-wing Enlightenment thought.” That’s a contradiction.
    Etc.

    We’ve been over this. You need to learn what the fundamentals are and how to integrate them together.
    Until then, all you can say is contradictory nonsense.

  46. max

    neither wing of the Enlightenment could persuade the other about the logically and morally mandatory implications of Enlightenment faith even though both appealed to the autonomous reason of man. Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France) did not persuade Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man).

    Neither wing could resolve the ancient political problem of the one and the many, unity and diversity, holism and individualism. The Enlightenment state, based on autonomous reason, was supposed to extend liberty. Instead, it has suppressed liberty.

    The French Revolution produced Napoleon and massive French bureaucracy. It led to a series of bloody revolutions in Europe, including the Russian Revolution. It led to two world wars in the 20th century, high taxes, greater bureaucracy, and the European Union.

    The American Revolution led to a conspiratorial coup in Philadelphia in 1787, which centralized the government, followed by the Civil War, the New Deal, and two world wars. After 1913, it led to massive bureaucracy and taxes at levels only marginally less than Europe’s taxation: over 40% of production. It also produced an American military empire.

    Both systems are financed by a monopolistic central bank, but the right-wing Enlightenment invented the original model: the Bank of England (1694).

    Both systems invoked the sovereignty of autonomous man as a species. Neither turned to biblical religion as the definitive standard.

    Ever since 1700, Christian social thought has relied on one of the two Enlightenment versions for support. Christianity has been subsumed under the Enlightenment. This carried down to the 1980’s, when Roman Catholic radicals proclaimed Marxist revolution: “liberation theology.” In response, Christian conservatives proclaimed democratic capitalism. In both cases, Christians have been riding in the back of the Enlightenment’s bus. They prefer one driver to the other, but they have paid for the bus and the gasoline. They do not get to select the map or take the steering wheel.

    The Scottish Enlightenment was pioneered by liberal and apostate (e.g., Hume) Presbyterians. The French Enlightenment was pioneered by apostates who were reacting against their Catholic educations. The Enlightenment was a secularized version of a pair of rival Western Christian movements.

    It should trace the Enlightenment through the two branches of Freemasonry: British freemasonry and Grant Orient freemasonry. The English branch was preceded by the “invisible college” prior to the restoration of Charles II. After Charles was restored to the throne in 1660, he chartered the Philosophical Society, which has pre-Enlightenment and pre-Freemasonry figures in it. The key figure was Isaac Newton. His disciple James Anderson was instrumental of launching the new “speculative” masonry in 1717. Anderson’s Constitutions (1723) was a key document in this revival.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/2282.cfm

  47. max

    “I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.”

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/07/gary-north/the-american-revolution-was-a-mistake/

  48. max

    Step by step, American voters had adopted the politics of plunder. Read then concluded: “They don’t know the difference between freedom and slavery.”

    He was right. Most people don’t know the difference. The number of free societies is declining today. Communism was a terrible evil, but the governments that replaced Communist rule are not free societies by 1913 standards.

    or by 1775 standard

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.