Two Great World Revolutions

[ClayBarham]

I want you to consider and reflect upon two great world revolutions. Two revolutions generated great changes in how people, in this world, live and relate to one another. I am not speaking about the American and French Revolutions, however. The American Revolution was a resistance movement. Americans lived free for almost 150 years before King and Parliament got around to reestablishing their authority and rule. Americans all but forgot rulers from far away and so rejected it. In the French Revolution, people lived under tyranny of the few ruling the many. They just changed the names and people ruling them. That does not count as a revolution, as no real change occurred.

I am talking about true revolution, where big changes became possible for all people in community, nation and world. There were but two of them in the history of the world.

The first and greatest revolution was the teachings of a great philosopher who said all of us are free to make our own choices. Individuals had the responsibility and right to choose how they would live and not have that choice imposed on them by any earthly bully, brute or ruler. We would have to change our thinking and lives to one where we love our neighbors, as they themselves, and treat others, as we want them to treat us. That was revolutionary. Governing ourselves was the fundamental necessity for liberty.

The second revolution was a new society living under those teachings. A small group of immigrants settled in a land far from their place of birth. It was a New World for them. In the Old World, from whence they came, freedom did not exist. The philosopher’s teachings was usurped, contaminated and could not gain traction. In their New World, immigrants followed the philosopher’s teaching and built healthy families, communities and a nation. The society they built was based on all men are created equal and given, by their Creator, not some earthly ruler, their individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness, as Jefferson described it 150 years later.

In that New World, reflecting the two great revolutions, men and women found they and their families were the centers of their own existence. Their happiness and prosperity came from their own ingenuity and efforts. They shared willingly by trading with and helping their neighbors and communities grow. They governed themselves. As they prospered, so to did their nation. The resulting nation, separated from the Old World, began on different principles. Individual freedom, not community defined and ruled by elite, was more important. This was a bottom-up movement by a people to organize their own lives in liberty and self-government. It had never been tried before.

Those in the Old World, who would reestablish a tyranny of the few over the many from outside our nation, are beating back the defenders of American values from the inside. Today, they are changing untutored American minds and getting closer to their objective.

How do they beat us from within? First, they dilute and destroy the message of that philosopher who gave us our unique meaning. Second, they rewrite history and alter the experiences given us from those early settlers who founded our nation. They are successful at it. They write history books to tell the story in distorted ways, and use those distortions in our schools. American youngsters, deprived of America’s unique history, cannot cite or defend the teachings and the experiences that made us what we are.

We, as a nation, celebrate the philosopher’s birth on Christmas day and the settler’s success on Thanksgiving. In each celebration, however, mocking the philosopher and the settlers is common, and few are old enough to rise in their defense. America’s founding ideals are disappearing. The elections of the 21st century deal mostly with acceptance or rejection of American core values. Those opposing American culture, traditions and values are rising more to power today. Might be nice to draw a line in the sand and declare your position before it is too late.

[BillyPilgrim]

"Americans lived free for almost 150 years before King and Parliament got around to reestablishing their authority and rule. Americans all but forgot rulers from far away and so rejected it."

On the contrary, previous to the Rev War Americans were English. They lived under English rule and by English law.

[HumanBeast]

England would have been tyrannical if it were not for the GREAT DISTANCE across the ocean.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Clay Barham said:
In their New World, immigrants followed the philosopher’s teaching and built healthy families, communities and a nation. The society they built was based on all men are created equal and given, by their Creator, not some earthly ruler, their individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness, as Jefferson described it 150 years later.

I ask for some clarification here, when you say "Creator" with a capital C, and then give context with the phrase "not some earthly ruler".

I am assuming you are hinting at "a" "God", from this context?

I don't personally think that was the case, nor do I agree with this concept of rights, as coming from a/the/some God. People can believe what they wish, as religion is an individual issue, which we all have the power to adopt or reject, or not decide at all. I think the reason "Creator" was used, and not "God" is fairly well documented, but I don't think "God" was implied in any sense, as much as NATURE was intended.

I feel rights eminate from nature, and our natural ability, and the men of reason are the ones who finally realized this perspective after years of religious "mind skewing" (from my perspective, which is that religion is man-made tool to control men) to realize their full potential.

Nature is universal, and we all share the same species, human, and are all limited by nature equally, as all natural laws apply to us all. (gravity, etc, all effect us equally based on our makeup) How we "perceive" our place in nature is where the critical turn takes place, as humans have reason(objective, logical thought), and unreason(unchecked emotional or instinctual), logic, and illogic.

I respect a persons right to believe as they see fit, regarding religion. I do however think it is required for any society that wishes to be successful, to draw the line of religion at individuals of volitional choice, and forbid it from entering law in any sense, under any claim. Religion is a subjective perspective, reliant on individual values, and individuals are all unique, therefore religion can't be universal, as nature most certainly is.

If an individual wishes to stake their own destiny on the fortune of their perceived religion, I have no problem with this, unless that directly affects other people with force. (violating their natural rights) I do have a huge problem with a nation staking their citizens destiny on the basis of religion, or any subjective equivalent, as this is a denial of individual values and use of force of the majority to cause "conformation" as opposed to use of force only in defense of individual sovereignty.

I think the forefathers drew upon this universal common thread of nature, but lacked the intellectual and philsophical ability to express it in a way that would appease the global perspective in the nature of the times, regarding majority perspective on religion, individual liberty and sovereignty as a whole.

I side with the "men of reason", as the fictional character of Ayn Rands book "Atlas Shrugged", John Galt describes.

you tube (video) audio version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNiJc7yxKHg

Printed, and audio "mp-3" version:
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm


I personally see Rands philosophy of Objectivism, as giving voice to the philosophy the forefathers envisioned, but couldn't enumerate and put into context. I think Rand and the overwhelming bulk of the forefathers would not only get along, but see eye-to-eye on most if not all political issues. Why? Because Rands Objectivism, is the perfect philosophical backer to what was intended (by the forefathers, the designers) to be the most moral and reasonable form of governance, the Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

The forefathers valued individual sovereignty, but lacked the philosophy to support the argument... never the less, they provided one of the clearest paths to individual liberty in their final addition to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

So, in summation...

I respect the work of the forefathers, as well as their goal, but I feel religion plays little to no role in the goal they had envisioned. I feel Rand gave voice to the reason the forefathers knew existed, as they all felt it, but lacked the ability or means to express or enumerate it.
I feel rights are granted by the nature of men of reason, as without reason, successful societies could not exist with longevity, and would be dependent on the use of abject force at the will of a tumultuous and everchanging majority.

Thats my two cents. ;)

[ClayBarham]

Well, let's see. Billy Pilgrim, devoted to his history writers of the 20th century, whose agenda demands a rewrite and revision of history to eliminate God from our beginnings, (as you do not even recognize the earlier writers), and you who see Creator as nature, though that is not what was meant, again when you look all the way back to our founding in New England, you both are in agreement. You say God and Christ and the Bible and all those who are pointed out as Bible-thumpers had next to no influence on how America got its start. So, you men of reason" are the elite who will guide the rest of us in how we should live? Now, one of you is a Libertarian, which presumes liberty, freedom, but for who? Should every individual have freedom, the right to their own values, interests, skills, talents and aspirations as they see fit, as long as they harm no on else, or is that simply reserved for men of reason, the elite? And what about all those great Americans who stated their beliefs in God and America being a nation sourced to Judeo-Christian concepts? Are they all beneath you elites? You are taking the aristocratic position of a royalist who cares for his people and needs to manage their lives, certainly not something based on liberty and justie for all.

[Red Dragon]

I want you to consider and reflect upon two great world revolutions. Two revolutions generated great changes in how people, in this world, live and relate to one another. I am not speaking about the American and French Revolutions, however. The American Revolution was a resistance movement. Americans lived free for almost 150 years before King and Parliament got around to reestablishing their authority and rule. Americans all but forgot rulers from far away and so rejected it. Yeah Clay are you trying to tell me that, the colonies had no formal goverment? Are you trying to tell me that if any local goveremnts exsisted for the colonies that they didn't oprress individuals as all goverments do? Also it does not matter whether rulers live right on your block or on a different planet. If they still force you to obey their decrees then they are nothing but criminals and have absolutely nothing to do with liberty what so ever. Of course this is just my opinion as a individual, and I formed despite what I've been told at school.

In the French Revolution, people lived under tyranny of the few ruling the many. They just changed the names and people ruling them. That does not count as a revolution, as no real change occurred. I object the French revolution was a succesful radical change to forms of governance based on Enlightenment principles of republic, citizenship, and inalienable rights. Not that goverement has much to do with liberty anyway. Although these changes were accompanied by violent turmoil, including executions and repression during the Reign of Terror, and warfare involving every other major European power. Modern historians acknowledge that by the time Napolean had become rulerof France the revolution had ended.


I am talking about true revolution, where big changes became possible for all people in community, nation and world. There were but two of them in the history of the world. Really so there have been no major changes in culture, economy, or sociopolitical institutions. That's a pretty big claim right there.


The first and greatest revolution was the teachings of a great philosopher who said all of us are free to make our own choices. Individuals had the responsibility and right to choose how they would live and not have that choice imposed on them by any earthly bully, brute or ruler. We would have to change our thinking and lives to one where we love our neighbors, as they themselves, and treat others, as we want them to treat us. That was revolutionary. Governing ourselves was the fundamental necessity for liberty. So if this philosphers teachings were so succesfull can you please explain to me why those who live under the thumb of this republic are still oppressed?

The second revolution was a new society living under those teachings. A small group of immigrants settled in a land far from their place of birth. It was a New World for them. In the Old World, from whence they came, freedom did not exist. So where did this freedom go again?

The philosopher’s teachings was usurped, contaminated and could not gain traction. In their New World, immigrants followed the philosopher’s teaching and built healthy families, communities and a nation. Why would they beleive in the false claims of the nationalism when it is nothing but collectivist propaganda? The society they built was based on all men are created equal and given, by their Creator, not some earthly ruler, their individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness, as Jefferson described it 150 years later. while society does not exsist I'll play along who were these immigrats who have some resemblance to religious anarchists? Also Jefferson stole that quote from John Locke, it should be properly said "right to life, liberty, and property".

In that New World, reflecting the two great revolutions, men and women found they and their families were the centers of their own existence. Their happiness and prosperity came from their own ingenuity and efforts. They shared willingly by trading with and helping their neighbors and communities grow. They governed themselves. As they prospered, so to did their nation. The resulting nation, separated from the Old World, began on different principles. Individual freedom, not community defined and ruled by elite, was more important. This was a bottom-up movement by a people to organize their own lives in liberty and self-government. It had never been tried before. When was this "nation" formed again?

Those in the Old World, who would reestablish a tyranny of the few over the many from outside our nation, are beating back the defenders of American values from the inside. Today, they are changing untutored American minds and getting closer to their objective. For some strange reason I had hoped you had found something new to anayalize. But please explain to me how can Americans be free when they live under a coercisive orginazation that has commited genocide, slavery, war, and other forms of oppresion?

How do they beat us from within? First, they dilute and destroy the message of that philosopher who gave us our unique meaning. Again who is this philosopher? Second, they rewrite history and alter the experiences given us from those early settlers who founded our nation. They are successful at it. They write history books to tell the story in distorted ways, and use those distortions in our schools. American youngsters, deprived of America’s unique history, cannot cite or defend the teachings and the experiences that made us what we are. Wow a goveremnt using propaganda, who would have thought! :rolleyes: Also some proof would be nice.

We, as a nation, celebrate the philosopher’s birth on Christmas day and the settler’s success on Thanksgiving. You lost me again. In each celebration, however, mocking the philosopher and the settlers is common, and few are old enough to rise in their defense. I know I do it all the time, it's very fun. America’s founding ideals are disappearing. The elections of the 21st century deal mostly with acceptance or rejection of American core values. Collectives do not have values only individuals have values. Those opposing American culture, traditions and values are rising more to power today. One none of those things exsist, two what are they? Might be nice to draw a line in the sand and declare your position before it is too late.
You'll need more then one to show the difference between poltical values.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Clay said:
So, you men of reason" are the elite who will guide the rest of us in how we should live?

Not elites, reasonable people.

Clay said:
Now, one of you is a Libertarian, which presumes liberty, freedom, but for who?

Any and all individuals.

Clay said:
Should every individual have freedom, the right to their own values, interests, skills, talents and aspirations as they see fit, as long as they harm no on else, or is that simply reserved for men of reason, the elite?

All humans.

Clay said:
And what about all those great Americans who stated their beliefs in God and America being a nation sourced to Judeo-Christian concepts?

Assuming you mean the forefathers, many of them were Deists, and some radical Deists such as Tom Paine.

Clay said:
Are they all beneath you elites?

I never said "benathe", or "elite", so I am forced to ask where this perception eminated from?

Clay said:
You are taking the aristocratic position of a royalist who cares for his people and needs to manage their lives, certainly not something based on liberty and justie for all.

Who is talking about managing peoples lives?

[December]

Hello, ClayBarham.
Your thinking is very interesting, but not original though.

Also it seems to me that you don't really understand the meaning of the word REVOLUTION because your post is about EVOLUTION actually, and these words prove my point - I am not speaking about the American and French Revolutions, however.

:)

You can add the Russian (aka Bolshevik) revolution of 1917 to that list as well to make a stronger point, but it will not help because you are not speaking about REvolution at all.

I'd like to comment about other points too but will do it later.....

[BillyPilgrim]

"Well, let's see. Billy Pilgrim, devoted to his history writers of the 20th century, whose agenda demands a rewrite and revision of history to eliminate God from our beginnings, (as you do not even recognize the earlier writers)..."

Well let's Clay,
Quote where I eliminate God. You cannot. Earlier writers? I go back farther than you. To those who were there to write the history.

"and you who see Creator as nature, though that is not what was meant, again when you look all the way back to our founding in New England, you both are in agreement."

Both? Who is both? And quote where I said anything about a creator as nature. You cannot.

"You say God and Christ and the Bible and all those who are pointed out as Bible-thumpers had next to no influence on how America got its start."

Quote where I said anything of the sort. America (assuming you mean as a sovereign nation) had nothing to do with 1620. Sorry, you're wrong.

"Now, one of you is a Libertarian, which presumes liberty, freedom, but for who? Should every individual have freedom, the right to their own values, interests, skills, talents and aspirations as they see fit, as long as they harm no on else..."

Uh... there's only me here Clay, no doppleganger. But yes. EVERY individual should have the rights you describe. I thought that much was obvious.

"And what about all those great Americans who stated their beliefs in God and America being a nation sourced to Judeo-Christian concepts?"

I'm fine with them. I don't always subscribe to their concepts but that's not the point. It doesn't have any bearing with historical facts.

"You are taking the aristocratic position of a royalist who cares for his people and needs to manage their lives, certainly not something based on liberty and justie for all."


Oh. come on. That's just bullshit of the highest order. You know nothing about me. Nor, apparently do you bother to read past what disagrees with you. So far, you strike me as a one way street. I'm a libertarian Constitutionalist. But I've already said that and still you want to paint with with the wrong brush. Read what I write or suffer my ire.

[ClayBarham]

What I read goes back to the Separatists when they left for Holland, the years spent there, and their trip to New England aboard the Mayflower, but you are reading into what happened on board and thereafter something I have not found, nor would your assumptions even concur with the nature of their group and its objectives. It is interesting just to compare the sociological differences between Jamestown and Plymouth, and later the Puritans. Yes, there were the "strangers" accompanying the separatists on board, but they strangely did not oppose what the latter intended or put together once on shore, a shore not related to their patent.

[BillyPilgrim]

"...but you are reading into what happened on board and thereafter something I have not found, nor would your assumptions even concur with the nature of their group and its objectives..."

It's difficult to follow your non-sequiter here, but the Leyden congregation came here for economic benefit. I am assuming nothing. Just read Bradford.

"Yes, there were the "strangers" accompanying the separatists on board, but they strangely did not oppose what the latter intended or put together once on shore, a shore not related to their patent."

What they founded was a company town. That was always intended. They did not colonize the west bank of Hudson's River (the original patent) because Mayflower was in danger of foundering on the southern part of Cape Cod. They then received a new patent for Plimoth, which was for about 30,000 acres. All of which you could know if you merely took the time to read primary sources.

[Shintao]

The resulting nation, separated from the Old World, began on different principles. Individual freedom, not community defined and ruled by elite, was more important.


You see Clay, you get fouled up at this point in your thinking. You cannot get past the fact that it was socialists who started America as pilgrims. I bet you wish they had shot this preacher, because he blabbed the truth out of what actually happened and it defeats your rewriting of history - everytime. :madlaugh:

Pastor of Pilgrims, John Robinson
p. 226
http://tinyurl.com/2g8gmt[hr]
This was a bottom-up movement by a people to organize their own lives in liberty and self-government. It had never been tried before.


The decision made three winters later to give individuals their own plots of land was not made by the people, it was made by a few businessmen - Top Down. The people had been content with socialism up to that point. The store houses were stocked in common goods, the fort was built, and all the other necessary items completed in a socialists atmosphere before this individual BS ever got started.

The pilgrims could have never got started on their own individual selfs. Two of the fools got themselves lost trying to hunt for a turkey.

[BillyPilgrim]

"The decision made three winters later to give individuals their own plots of land was not made by the people, it was made by a few businessmen - Top Down. The people had been content with socialism up to that point. The store houses were stocked in common goods, the fort was built, and all the other necessary items completed in a socialists atmosphere before this individual BS ever got started.

The pilgrims could have never got started on their own individual selfs. Two of the fools got themselves lost trying to hunt for a turkey."

Once again you choose to completely ignore the actual facts of the story. Those few businessmen were the one's that financed the venture. It was their money at stake. Socialism was briefly tried (the first year, and only because so many people had died), found unproductive, and dismissed. This was ALWAYS a capitalist colony and you're pale attempts at historical revisionism are laughable.
You can't even get the Peter Brown/John Goodman story right. They weren't hunting turkeys, and it's certainly not unreasonable to think men might get lost in an unfamiliar jungle. But facts have never been your forte.

[ClayBarham]

Now, BP, you are falling into Shintao's sights. I respect your offerings on what happened, and what you have said so far I agree, but my readings are more focused on the reasons they came to America other than economic. Their motivations were to establish a new Jerusalem in the New World, where they could practice their faith. Yes, there were business interests involved in the financing and the patent, as there were for the Puritans. My whole contention is to compare Jamestown with both the Separatist and Puritan communities, to show the more cohesive effects of the faithful as against the more Old World actions of those in Jamestown, who failed early on.

[BillyPilgrim]

"I respect your offerings on what happened, and what you have said so far I agree, but my readings are more focused on the reasons they came to America other than economic. Their motivations were to establish a new Jerusalem in the New World, where they could practice their faith."

Clay,
I get that you believe this but the facts as spelled out in the primary sources simply do not agree with you. The Separatists were in Leyden so they could have their own church. Merchant Adventurers in London financed the venture to the New World for the same sort of profits that were realized in Jamestown.
John Rawlf (who married Powhatan's daughter, Pocahontas) became incredibly wealthy on the tobacco trade (before he was killed in the massacre) in Jamestown.

"My whole contention is to compare Jamestown with both the Separatist and Puritan communities, to show the more cohesive effects of the faithful as against the more Old World actions of those in Jamestown, who failed early on."

Jamestown's initial failure was not because of any lack of religious conviction, it was because they didn't grow enough food, forsaking it for the profit of tobacco (which they had a monopoly for). I'm sorry but the "Pilgrim's" success had nothing to do with being faithful. In fact, if you are a modern Christian (believing that you can simply accept Jesus as your saviour for salvation), your ideas would considered anathema to Pastor Robinson and his flock.

[ClayBarham]

Well, you may have trouble accepting this, but there are views that say you are wrong, from writings before the 20th century rewrites. As a psychologist, I know something about human motivations and the power of their faith had a great deal to do with how they weathered numerous set backs, compared to Jamestown.

[BillyPilgrim]

"Well, you may have trouble accepting this, but there are views that say you are wrong, from writings before the 20th century rewrites. As a psychologist, I know something about human motivations and the power of their faith had a great deal to do with how they weathered numerous set backs, compared to Jamestown."

Then quote me primary sources to back up your opinions. This isn't Moby Dick where we can "interpret" the authors underlying ideas. It was real people living real lives and recording them...at the time in the case of Winslow, Altham, De Rasierre, etc., or later in the case of Bradford.

[Fishingriver]

ClayBarham- What history sources did you use to arrive at these conclusions?

[Pookie]

OK. I am not in charge here, but get it all straight, okay?
This is a total bore. Move On.

[ClayBarham]

Try Peter Marshall's book THE LIGHT AND THE GLORY, or Vernon Parrington's accounts, perhaps Perry Miller, I recall a Henry Knight back in the late 1800's writing on the subject, as well as George Bancroft. Now, I grant that maybe these authors are not currently recognized by those who take a different view, particularly of the influence of religious faith on the whole process, but I have found what people think and believe has a profound effect on their behavior, in spite of how you want to restructure historical events to reflect current thinking. And yes, Pookie, it is getting boring.

[BillyPilgrim]

"...in spite of how you want to restructure historical events to reflect current thinking."

You and your sources are the one's restructuring, Clay. I asked for quotes from primary sources and you simply cannot give me any because there is nothing in Bradford, Winslow, Pory, Altham, etc. that back up your views. All you have are interpretations. Perry, Marshall, Knight...none of them were contemporaries to the Plimoth Adventure. Quote me first hand accounts that back up your views. You cannot.