I try to share every one of your commentaries - they are that good. Precise, uncompromising, well reasoned. This one in particular cuts through the fog.
I like to think of the dichotomy this way: There are two kinds of "children of the revolution". The first are children of the American Revolution, who believe all rights are granted by God or Nature's God to us as individuals, that these are unalienable, and that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are there to enumerate the most essential ones and set up a government to protect those rights. Then there are the children of the French Revolution (then the Bolshevik Revolution), who believe Man is God and so can determine for themselves what are or are not rights, The former saw the emergence of the most free, prosperous, dynamic nation ever to grace the earth, the hope and aspiration of the world. The latter established regimes that ultimate wreaked havoc on nations, causing unimaginable misery, destruction and death to afflict their people while they themselves prospered (at least until the inevitable Götterdämmerung crashed down on their heads). We must uphold the former with all of our heart, might and mind, and oppose the latter with equal if not greater effort.
Thank you for the compliment. I agree with your take that most modern problems can be viewed through the lens of the American v. French revolution. It is that recognition of a flawed world, and a desire to work within that towards an as-perfect as is achievable outcome, vs. refusal to accept the world as flawed, and open rebellion against nature. It traces all the way back, in my opinion, to the garden, and the very first "pseudoreality" in which Eve conceived of a "social construct" in which she could eat the fruit without consequence.
I try to share every one of your commentaries - they are that good. Precise, uncompromising, well reasoned. This one in particular cuts through the fog.
I like to think of the dichotomy this way: There are two kinds of "children of the revolution". The first are children of the American Revolution, who believe all rights are granted by God or Nature's God to us as individuals, that these are unalienable, and that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are there to enumerate the most essential ones and set up a government to protect those rights. Then there are the children of the French Revolution (then the Bolshevik Revolution), who believe Man is God and so can determine for themselves what are or are not rights, The former saw the emergence of the most free, prosperous, dynamic nation ever to grace the earth, the hope and aspiration of the world. The latter established regimes that ultimate wreaked havoc on nations, causing unimaginable misery, destruction and death to afflict their people while they themselves prospered (at least until the inevitable Götterdämmerung crashed down on their heads). We must uphold the former with all of our heart, might and mind, and oppose the latter with equal if not greater effort.
Thank you for the compliment. I agree with your take that most modern problems can be viewed through the lens of the American v. French revolution. It is that recognition of a flawed world, and a desire to work within that towards an as-perfect as is achievable outcome, vs. refusal to accept the world as flawed, and open rebellion against nature. It traces all the way back, in my opinion, to the garden, and the very first "pseudoreality" in which Eve conceived of a "social construct" in which she could eat the fruit without consequence.