Posted on 07/09/2006 4:46:50 AM PDT by Leifur
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.
About the accent: I also remember reading that the American accents are more like earlier British forms.
Here is one example. Most Americans say for either "EE-ther." Most Brits say EYE-ther. EEther is the original way. The story is that when the English imported Wm.of Orange-Nassau as King, he (a German-speaker) misprounced either, saying it the way someone would read itb in German, and to make him feel comfortable, his courtiers imitated him. People outside the court imitated what they thought was proper, and the new pronunciation spread. It became established in Boston and other East Coast ports through contact with the latest British influences, and to this day is more common in those areas. The original way is EEther, and that is what Shakespeare (or Oxford) would have said.
I have always thought that the upper-class British accent was very sexy, especially in English women, who are among the best-looking in the world (IMHO). I was surprised to find that many English people are attracted to the American accent, and find it not at all irritating. I guess that it is what you are used to. I like the Irish people, but there are certain Irish accents, like that of the IRA spokesman Adams, which I find intensely irritating. It's the way it ends on an upward lilt for every sentence, as if asking a question, yet there is no question. Fortuntately, not all Irish people do that.
When the church is seen as the brake on power of the state it is much more vibrant.
British language changed and affectations abounded after the 15th century. For example, Americans use the hard r, as the Elizabethans did; today, it has practically disappeared among upper class Brits. Thus you have mothah for mother, fathah for father, rathah for rather, Chahles for Charles, chuch for church, etc. Also the a as in our cat, has been softened.
I didn't realize you are from Iceland, as I began reading this, I thought of the analogy of Old Norse (Old Norwegian) perserved in that western enclave.
The Anglican Church in England has not really played a significant role since the imposition of a stupid line of Germans in the British monarchy. The last British royal to take an interest in the Church was Queen Victoria. The present queen has no interest in Church affairs, nor does her husband, her son, or his mentally-challenged children.
I can't name or specifically locate them, but there are several places on the left coast where the dialect is very close to what came over from England;
and very unlike today's UK.
On a related note, having finally visited the UK, there is as much or more regional dialect variation on that one island as there is in the entire USA.
Today I'm afraid Shakespeare would have had to draw pictures.
Read this if you think the U.S. is NOT about individual rights.
Regional accents in Devonshire and Somerset sound a lot like American English.
GASP! BUMP!
I am optimistic, though, for a couple of reasons. First, I am encouraged by NATO fighters in Afghanistan. After debates in England, Netherlands, and Canada NATO has taken on a new, constructive role. Hopefully, this means that "peacekeeping" goes the way of flower power.
Second, pay attention and you will see Brits and other Europeans showing up here and elsewhere with a healthy curiosity not just kneejerk Antiamericanism. One called Rush Limbaugh last week. Studying our conservatism may enliven their national debates which have been bound tight by PC, EU PR, and government-owned media. I am sure it also helps to have the Irish economy kicking a**.
One thing we should all note is that National Health care is the death of politics. Once a country has it, their politics are those of an old folks home. That's all anyone talks about. We should avoid that.
Some of my abowe posts were directed at what you said.
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).
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?
The gun issue is one of those I have not been able to make my mind on, but I think it will be one of those things not incorporated here in Europe when the National Revival will begin (if we are optimistic it will come). At least not here in small Iceland.
"...That's very interesting indeed. I think I heard that today's Virginia accent is most faithful to the original...."
If you REALLY want to hear the old English, meet some watermen in small towns on coast of North Carolina (e.g., Swan Quarter, Okracoke, Manns Harbor, etc).
Your view of history is refreshing in that it goes outside the box of the revisionist history that is prevalent today.
Having said that, I wonder about this statement:
" 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. "
The medieval serf was, I believe, far from free. In order not to be a victim of the mass chaos that followed the collapse of Rome he took umbrage under a baron or Duke or whoever had an army and a castle. He was then subservient to him and the duke's wish was the serf's command. Free? It doesn't look like it to me.
His relationship to God, meanwhile, had already been replaced by subservience to the Pope, who extirpated all who followed The Word of God instead of his word, which was and is very different.
Iceland had what was, in 900-1000 AD, a very loosely organized parlimentary system. No king, no courts, highly independent people who were not terribly accepting of authority. They acknowledged a germanic legal system that provided some sense of order and provided a way to settle differences, although obtaining a judgement was dicey, and it was up to you to exact judgement since there was no police around to do it for you.
Modern Iceland is highly literate and fiercely independent. Can't see them bowing to the bureaucratic Gods in Brussels regarding the correct shape for strawberries or the correct way to label and package cod fish.
And that's sort of the point. Because the churches are funded by the state they are not going to be inclined to oppose the staus quo the state wishes to maintain.
In this country, independent churches were instrumental, if not responsible, for the elimination of slavery, the ending of Jim Crow, the defeat of communism, and, because the socialists in the Democratic Party managed to tick them off, the resurgence of the free market system.
Note these stances were often taken in direct opposition to government agencies -- even the anti-communism (think Alger Hiss)
Of cours, on the less glorious side, is the 18th Amendment, but they certainly play a significant role here.
Sorry, you already know this! More for the benefit of the others on this thread!
Does the author, Paul Belien, need to go into hiding for trumpeting warnings of Islam?
An interested notion, although as not a native English speaker, I have trouble analysing different dialects, except those that have the most differences. I can different through a few broad though, like a vague English one, a vague celtic (Irish and scottish) one, a general American one, and a southern/Astralian one, and of course the Indian/Pakistani.
Here in Iceland we don´t have any dialects, due to the smallness of the nation, the long time rule that you could not marry anyone more related to you than in the sixth generation, resulting in people having to go far to find a suitable mate (and maybe resulting in our girls beeing viewed as extremely beutiful, yeat another time Miss World is ours) and specially the long litterary tradition here dating from the 12. century.
There was a small variation in different parts of the nation, but those disapeared into a certein neutral speak where the certein variations all but disapeared, because the people in all the other parts of the country spoke the same in these wovels and such.
Actually there was a certein local dialect much frowned upon in the east and it was conciously eradicated, by the government (schools and radio) as it also made it more difficult for those speakers to write proper Icelandic, as they had trouble differenting between e and i. Weather it was a good thing or bad I am not sure, but it at least helped to ensure a national unity when it comes to the language.
And as a side note, Icelanders view their language as the same (or nearly so) as the Vikings spoke and we see all the other nordic languages (even German in some sense) as a corrupted by external influences that we could preserve Icelandic from over the ages. So we see all the nordic languages as a dialect from Icelandic, at least jokingly.
But a language can be an indicator of the history of people´s and places, so it is interesting to note that the US has preserved many thing lost to Europe. Come to think of it, the people that still speak Icelandic in New Iceland (or Gimli) up in Canada (settled by Icelanders in the 19. century) have this very beutiful language, maybe not dialicticly, but the old words and good old ways of how they put together sentences.
And I beliewe the Icelanders there are more rooted in the old Icelandic christian values, free-loving nature of our Originals and even national pride.
God Bless Paul Belien and all of those in Europe that are fighting to save it.
I took the liberty to click the link and read many other great articles he has written over the years. Please consider posting more of his articles here at Free Republic.
His articles would be well received and greatly appreciated. Besides, it is also important to point out that I'm sure among Europeans that he's vilified on a daily basis. He needs as much support as possible.
In other words, he has FRiends here at FRee Republic. I'm going to Amazon to purchase his book. It's the least I can do to support him and his wife Dr. Alexandra Colen.
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.