In part one, we revealed there are only two kinds of government when you strip away all the smoke and mirrors. Big Government (BG) or Limited Government (LG). Or as we will see in this chapter, “top down” or “bottom up.” The choice you make determines if you support freedom or slavery. Today we’re going to talk about why in more detail.
To start, I need to say that this chapter explores the role of religion as a tool of statecraft. It’s going to discuss how rulers use religion to get what they want. It is not a comment on the merits of any religion, just on how it’s been used.
The earliest form of government is the tribe. The tribe had a chief of some kind who made all the big decisions. The tribe went out and gathered resources and the chief got the pick of the spoils. This system was expanded as civilization grew into villages, towns and cities. There was one person at the top, a ruler. Below them was his support group, a court. And they were the major beneficiaries of whatever wealth the society created. Everyone below them got diminishing returns. This system is still in use today in varying forms. It’s called a top down system. BG systems are all top down no matter how they try to spin it.

In order to motivate the people to agree to this arrangement, the rulers used soldiers to impose their will. But even an army isn’t enough to keep people in line. These rulers needed them to perform well, to be focused on producing goods to benefit the state. So they used the earliest form of ideology: religion.
The first cities were ruled by priest-kings who claimed to have a direct line of communication with the gods. Using religion as a tool, rulers were able to get their citizens in line and get them to do whatever they wanted. The system worked fairly well for thousands of years. Religion worked because it served a dual purpose. It created the first set of laws which governed behavior. And it gave people people a reason to follow orders besides the threat of the sword. Most people wanted to go along with the program because they believed in their faith.

But the problem with this system is the same reason Big Government systems always fail over time. Human nature. Human beings are flawed. Many of them are corrupt. In most top-down societies, you are stuck with whatever position you were born into. But religion offered a single path to power an ordinary citizen could aspire to. Those who craved power entered the temple for that purpose and corrupted it from within. The temple became a force unto itself and the rulers eventually had struggles with it.
Another problem with early religion is they had a god for every thing under the sun. This is because these religions were invented to explain things that people needed an answer for. Why where there storms? What caused illness? Why were there crop failures? If people didn’t like the explanation their religion gave them, they would move to another faith or invent their own. This made it harder for the temple and the state to keep people in line.
Then Christianity came along. It had one god, one unifying powerful message. It had a strong moral code. Roman Emperor Constantine saw the value in it. At that time Rome had an untold number of gods and religions. New ones were being created almost every day. It was out of control. So Constantine converted the Romans over to Christianity by law. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years until the Muslims invaded it.

During the Dark Ages Viking King Harald converted the Vikings to Christianity to unify them more effectively. Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe and helped lead to a stabilization that brought about the Renaissance and the Age of Reason. But the power clashes between the church and rulers continued. Christianity started splitting off into different sects. Clashes between faiths caused divisions and wars.
When the industrial age came around, the old Agrarian model began to crumble. Since the dawn of civilization most people worked on farms with the rest living in cities. Now, people started moving to cities for factory jobs and the dynamic changed. Factory jobs gave people marginally more freedom than farm life. A more secure income.
Society was changing and two men named Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, perhaps thinking of the Platonic Utopia, saw a way for humanity to get out of the trap they’ve been in for thousands of years. Up till then, humans all worked for the benefit of a few elite. Marx and Engels developed Communism and refined Socialism (as a step toward communism) so that everyone could “benefit” from the wealth a society produced. It envisioned some kind of perfect society where kings and popes no longer ruled the masses. The people did. And everyone would get a “fair share” when the “wealth was spread around.”
To this end, Communist governments rejected religion and tried to replace it with their political ideology. But the problem with Marxism is it fails to understand that human nature would undermine any such society. It sounds good on paper, which is why it seduces so many academics and alleged intellectuals. But it lacks the moral core that religion provides. It tries to supplant them with laws. As a result, where Socialism and Communism have been attempted, more people died due to the vagrancies of its leaders and their policies than all the wars of the 20th century combined. The end result for the Soviet Union was economic collapse. For China, it had to move toward Capitalism to survive.
Despite the failings of these systems and the others, Marxism was seductive to many elites. Socialism provided a way for the state to control all the resources and production while appearing benign. By providing “benefits” to the people, they were tricked into thinking they were “sharing the wealth.” In truth, the leaders lived in wealth and excess while the rest were forced into a narrow kind of poverty of which there was no escape unless you “joined the party” and became part of the corrupt political class.
While communism has been largely discredited, the lovers of socialism keep trying to sell it under different guises, claiming it’s never worked because “it hasn’t been done right yet.” But they refuse to deal with the reality that it can’t work because it depends on bureaucracy which is ruled by an elite group, which creates a top down society. And bureaucracies are always corrupted by human nature.
Almost 100 years before Marx, another political revolution happened in America resulting in the formation of the Constitution and the United States. The people who formed this country wanted to escape the tyranny and oppression of the British monarchy. They also wanted free speech, religious freedom and the right to bear arms. This is why these three issues form the first two amendments to the Constitution’s “bill of rights”. Other rights were given as an answer to legal abuses the British had used against the people.
America based its government in part on the Roman Republic. But it was unique in the history of the world. The founders understood the problems of previous governments throughout human history. They knew that human nature, being what it is, leads people to try to corrupt the state to suit their own personal gain. The Roman Republic suffered that fate. So they created one of the greatest documents in human history: The U.S. Constitution. It creates the government and assigns power equally to three branches, Administration, Legislative and Judicial. It created the federal government and only have it a ten square mile plot of swamp land in Maryland to rule over. The rest was given to the states to rule themselves, as long as they guaranteed the rights and laws the U.S Constitution provides. Their own constitutions are subservient in that respect, but the states were semi-autonomous. This was an LG, bottom up form of government. So named because the people decided who their leaders would be and those leaders only had a limited run in office to prevent them from establishing a dynasty.
The United States operated under this LG model for 100 years, with no income tax and a limited Federal government. But when Marxism came along many elites found some appeal in the ideas. They did not want to make the mistakes the Soviets made by forcing it on the people through civil war and severe hardship. So they decided to apply some of the principles slowly through a “progressive” system that the people would gradually succumb to. One of the first Progressive presidents was Woodrow Wilson who gave us income tax, the Federal Reserve and the early form of the United Nations.
In Part three we’ll discuss how the Progressives undermined our Limited Government, how they were friends of the Fascists in Europe until they weren’t and how, in many respects, they are the New Fascists.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
An brilliant piece of scholarship. I'm impressed. Good job, James.
The article imparts a lot of information, and is very readable.
One quibble: "due to the vagrancies" – do you mean 'vagaries'?
Great work, Mr. Hudnall. Woodrow Wilson, unfortunately, started the snowball effect (with much help along the way) which has grown into our current state of affairs- huge government that only wants to rule and control our lives from the top, down.
Fairly succinctly outlines the main history of government. I might add (and you probably will in part 3) how those elites use the notions of equality and "fairness" to flatten the field under them, and hide the fact that they are not on that flat field. Communist = fascist = mafia = medieval nobility, today including educratic elites whose collections of degrees and awards hearken back to those images of Russian generals with their chests covered in medals doubletalking about flight 007 thirty years ago…
Wonderful. Can I read part 1?
I once saw a man explain the difference between conservatives and progressives as: A conservative sees a problem and uses past experiences to deal with problems. A progressive looks to see how he wants the world to be and then works toward this goal. The progressive does not look at the past for experience, he instead just makes up new rules as he goes along for problems that arise. This is why the perfect utopia never arrives and is filled with woulda, couldas, and shouldas.
There's a link at the beginning of the article. The second and third words are the link.
There is a cadre of fascists in our government and they call themselves "progressives" but the American people are finally learning the truth!
It's time to purge the fascist progressives out of both political parties and Washington DC once and for all!
Enough of them!!
Oh by the way…
Get the hell off of my TV screen Obama!
You FASCIST scumbag!
You got this historian's thumbs up. A great and cogently stated article that sums up the political realities of the world. Keep it up, I look forward to Pt. 3. I would just like to add that the idea of Commutarian (a voluntarily and religious form of Progressive/Socialism) has been tried throughout history, and the ideas of the radical French Revolutionaries is very Progressive/Socialist. (and explains all that cutting of heads) ;0)
A "Progressive" is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
Throw the bums out ! ; )
Meh, I've heard it both ways.
So, Mr. Hudnall.
What say you about religion in general?
I know in this article you seem to imply that religion is just another way to control the masses.
You'll forgive me if there was a more nuanced point and I missed it…12 years of Dade County public school education.
Many scholars call back to the Greeks and Romans. I don't see it that way. Our political cultural tradition is Anglo-Saxon. Our common law is Anglo-Saxon. The Anglos and Jutes were Scandinavians and the Saxons were German mercenaries who took over Briton in the 4th Century. These people did not support the divine right of Kings, you had to be a Good King to be worthy to rule. Plus these people had a strong sense of personal property.
In 1066 the Normans conquered England and brought continental feudalism to England. It never took hold of England as it did France. As events of 1215 and 1688 contest.
As Greek and Roman writings and history reenter western thought many scholars gravitate to these lessons. But It is not our direct political history. American founding generation were culturally Englishmen and it was to preserve our rights we broke with England. The Greeks and Romans give us examples of how democracies and Republics work, but the average American does not call on these sources when his rights are being trampled.
You're right in the sense that we are influenced heavily by Anglo-Saxon traditions. But you're missing the fact that the Anglo-Saxons themselves were heavily influenced by Roman and Greek thought. The language of law for much of English history was Latin, and Roman institutions found their way into the culture even after the fall of the Roman Empire via the Roman Catholic Church.
Whats with the thumbs-down hate? Rue is just giving a different perspective, and doing it with respect.
Simply put this rebuplic has been ariubd for m
I agree.
My take on this point (and I've been pointing out to people for years) is this:
The Society of man was created by religion. It was the glue that held people together, and made society work. That's why there were very few jails back then. People weren't afraid of what mortals would do to them, they were afraid of eternal consequence. We would have NO organized society, had it not been for organized religion.
That being said, any sort of power can and will be corrupted, even religion. Even one of the most benevolent ideals (christianity) was corrupted in Feudal Europe. Believing in the ideas that make religion(s) great (i.e. the 10 commandments) yet not subscribing to the societal aspect of that faith, makes one spiritual, yet not religious.
I for one, have a relatively strong moral compass, am spiritual, yet do not subscribe to the faith itself.
In reference to the article, it is EXTREMELY well written, hitting every point I have felt in my heart for years regarding the socio-political and religious aspects of our history. Well done. Best piece I've read on the site, BY FAR.
Believing in the ideas that make religion(s) great (i.e. the 10 commandments) yet not subscribing to the societal aspect of that faith, makes one spiritual, yet not religious.
I for one, have a relatively strong moral compass, am spiritual, yet do not subscribe to the faith itself.
You'll have to excuse me if I am being obtuse here but I don't understand.
Are you saying that you think the 10 Commandments (for example) are a good idea but do not subscribe to the rest of Christianity?
That is to say, you have a moral compass and consider yourself spiritual but not (per your example) a Christian.
Great article, Mr. Hudnall. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for connecting the dots.
The ideas put forth in regards to dealings with your fellow man, i.e. the commandments, the golden rule, etc are great rules to live by. One does not have to be religious, nor attend mass to believe and live by those rules. That's all I'm sayin'.
I do not subscribe to one religion or the other. I have found, through studying religions of the world, that one can take the goodness of many religions, and form their own values, without having to be devout to one or the other.
One of the best explanations of political power I have ever read. Although I do happen to belive that God is real and not just a social construct. Ultimate meaning of life and all that.
Also, the ideals put forth by Buddhism, regarding continuous self-improvement and introspection, are also positive ideas that can be incorporated into daily life. People in AA do the same thing. They constantly work on self-improvement, follow a higher power, yet do not subscribe to one religion or the other.
Also, the reason why I put "religion(s)" in there, is that the 10 commandments were in the OLD book. Both Judaism and Christianity follow those same edicts. Please keep that in mind.
Why do I bother posting, when I've got you for a Pitbull? DITTO!
Ok, so why should I choose the goodness from the world religions? Also why should I want to or care to live by those great rules in my dealings with my fellow man?
I'm just trying to flesh out what you are saying about the "utility" of religion and how far it is to be taken.
If I were choosing religions (or aspects of religions) I would choose the aspects that pretty much let me do whatever the heck I want to do. I mean, why not?
It sounds like choosing flavors of ice cream.
Again, feel free to clarify if I am not getting it.
Good point,
I agree, whole-heartedly. Our political "experiment" has been a shining city on the hill (thank you, R. Reagan, Sr.) for a great many people from all over the world, including my Italian mother and grandmother, who came here 40 years ago. Never has one political ideology gathered under it's folds, so many willing participants, looking for a chance to better themselves. "Living the American Dream" is not only a phrase, but a truth. Historians will tell you that the avg lifespan of a political society is around 200 years, yet the eastern roman empire lasted for 1000. Our Founding Fathers took that idea and IMPROVED it. Once we can get this country back on the course intended for it, 1000 years will be surpassed.
Holy shit James you are on a roll.
More like an attack Manx!
LOL
It's a gift…
Again…very nice.
As a Scientist, I can't help but to be logical and conclude that there is a Creator. One can't be knowledgeable of the intricacies (and frailty) of our physiological processes and at the same time say that these are the result of chance.
I recognize that Religion (particularly Christianity) has been abused by those who ‘claim’ to practice it. But I would not compare that to Marx and Engels’s babies:
While the abuses of Christianity are JUST THAT (abuses), Marx’s ‘Dialectical materialism’, or Engels’s emphatic ‘Historical Materialism’ were (and are in the minds of people such as the current Occupant of the White house) planned cold-blooded means for the enslavement of the individual.
One evil (the abuse of Christianity) was accidental, the other was (and is) planned.
I can’t wait to read part III!
I used to have one of those. Left it with my second marrige. Miss the little fella.
Use it wisely.
If that you, Mr. O'Reilly?
Ooopsss…s/b "IS that you"
I never use my "bitch powers" unwisely, I only use them when I feel like it's necessary!
As it turns out I have had that urge quite a bit since January 20, 2009!
Religion created the first laws, the first moral code. It is a glue that holds societies together.
People need hope and they need some kind of answer for life's unanswerable questions. Most of the major religions seek to deal with that. So I feel if it brings people peace and doesn't encourage them to do violence against others, it's not a bad thing.
I'm agnostic, myself, Which means I don't know if there's is or isn't a god. And I don't presume to say that someone is wrong to believe in one. Because they might be right, unless there is evidence to the contrary. But I don't personally subscribe to any faith. I try to educate myself about each of them so I know where they are coming from.
I'll try to stay on your good side.
Yes, except those societies were touched on and at some point ruled by Romans. At the very l;east they traded with them. Everything you describe is post Roman, but who's to say they weren't influenced by Romans before that. I was covering major points in Western civilization and the fact is, our society is based on Greco-Roman foundations.
AreaMan, I think I see what you're getting at here–one can oppose Big Government and still be religious–but I don't think that's what Hudnall's addressing here. The point, as I see it, is the way in which rulers have been able to manipulate sincere religious belief on the part of the ruled and make it into an excuse for their domination of society. Now, as a believing Christian and a small-government conservative, I consider the two to be inherently linked, at least for this modern age of ours–but that hasn't kept people in the past from hijacking the faith and mutating it into a justification of their holding ultimate power. One can see this at work with Robespierre, Hitler, and Lenin as much as with some of the medieval and Renaissance kings. This is the real point of Hudnall's argument, I think–it isn't faith, but rather the manipulation of faith, which opens the door to Big Government.
I largely agree, except for one huge point…Communism/Socialism/Progressivism/etc DO have a moral code. It is called by many names but can be distilled into the modern American term: 'Social Justice'. The Marxist-derivative beliefs also share an interpretation of Genesis that is also fairly universal across most of the Earth's major religions: "That humankind has a responsibility to take care of the Earth"…to not misuse its resources…to tend the Earth for the greater good. Marxism is a secular religion that uses society itself, or the environment, as its secular God.
The dumb-asses who think that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is actually determined by the individual inevitably become severely disappointed when they discover that Marxist dictatorships tend to think each peon has tremendous abilities and minimal needs.
Very enlightening, Mr. Hudnall. I might point out, though, that Communism didn't so much toss out religion as it did replace Christianity with a new creed of its own. For example, Marx's dialectical materialism, with its advancement of history from primitive communism, followed by the introduction of private property, through stages of rich vs. poor–feudal lords vs. serfs, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, etc.–to the future communist utopia, closely mirrored the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden, followed by man's Fall, God's subsequent interactions with mankind, and in the future, the Second Coming of Christ. Moreover, many early socialists who had more of a Christian heritage than Marx himself openly spoke of socialism as "the Kingdom of God upon earth." This pattern, which many have described as a "political religion," also applies to the French revolutionaries, the National Socialists, and others. I don't think any of these modern-day ideologies can be understood without this religious connection.
Also, James, after being influenced by the ideas of Greco-Roman society, they were influenced by Judeo-Christian principles, one being (based on Talmudic law) a jury of your peers. Another being Public schooling, again, pioneered by judaism. Thank you religion, for giving us many of the Ideas that we hold so close to our hearts now as rights. Those rights were fought for over thousands of years.
[...] [...]
I say unleash the beast girl! Just be sure to direct them at the nearest liberal!
Thank you James, again, you make your point with clarity. You hit a nerve with me that I can relate to on SO many aspects in your article. You are a true positive addition to the "BIG" Family. Keep it up.
Part 1- BG vs. LG…Excellent.
Part 2- Top Down vs. Bottom Up…Brilliant!
Your thinking is creative. Your writing is clean. Your journalism is refreshing.
Approximately 110+M of the 300+M Adult U.S. Citizens cast a 2009 POTUS vote. Your succinct approach to this subject is timely and appealing, partially because you do not display needy egocentric or verbose self-promotion ramblings that is the "norm" that is continuously presented as "reporting" by the majority of media personalities employed by the media-conglomerate controlled "U.S. News". Fascist Systems evolve from the same type of "TOP-DOWN" corporate structures which happen to be prevalent in the media monopolies in the U.S. today. In fact, you can align the dramatic growth of the federal government over the most recent three decades, with the increased concentration of U.S. media ownership and control over the exact same period. 95% of U.S. media in active distribution is owned or controlled by just five conglomerates, and these conglomerates have foreign (majority) ownership and control, several being persons or entities in/from active fascist systems. Most, if not all, of the grand schemes from the power hungry left-middle-right "political and media elitist" would prove meaningless and ineffective if only the majority of U.S. citizens understood these realities of conflicts of interest, and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. I encourage you to continue, we desperately need more talent like you, doing more of the work you are doing with this series. I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks!
Great layout, exposing the movement, not as happenstance, but as long time planning!!! It seems the goal is, to over through the Constitution of the Citizens of the United States!!! To sum it up in one word TREASON!!!
Look at every pl;ace it has been tried, there is no "social justice" only oppression, enslavement and corruption worse than any in the west
That's what I was saying, in simplified terms.
Yes, you have that right. The first agenda of all revolutions (I consider the American experience a war for independence rather then a revolution) is to consolidate and gather power for the new oligarchy. Which usually means whittling away at ones one-time allies. And part of that process is by classifying the opposition in groups, which is a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That point was excellently made in G. Orwell's "Animal Farm". As you say, the French Revolution was based on the the concept of the General Will, as worked out by Rousseau in "The Social Contract" In his work, Rousseau borrowed from the ancient Athenian city-state, a dynamic political community in which the citizenry were accorded duties as opposed to rights. It was the duty of every citizen to take part in the political affairs of the city-state: to neglect those duties meant public humiliation and ultimately exile. It might be appropriate to mention that the Athenian citizenry numbered about 15,000 individuals out of a possible 200,000 inhabitants of the polis. What this demonstrates is that the Athenians had created a democracy for the minority of citizens and not for the majority of the people. In other words, the Athenians would have had some difficulty understanding the argument which begins, "We the People." This would have had to be modified to read, "We the Citizens." Which the Founders recognized when they set the American Government as a Montesqueiuian Democratic Republic, which just means that pure democracy works at the local and state levels, but weak representative government works over a larger polity. But of course, you knew that. ;0)
[...] [...]
Just by the way it's "attest", not "contest" (2nd paragraph.)
[...] [...]
Great Article can't wait for part 3!
Bravo, Bravo..
[...] [...]
I think we are seeing the New National Socialists – the progressives .
Fascism is just another name for those who use the persuasion of power when the power of persuasion fails.
The word Fascist comes from the word, "stick" or "club" which they use to beat up their adversaries.
Whatever the name, they hate and despise freedom, especially personal freedom, and they are, for the most part, staunch Christrophobes.
James,
One thing you didn't mention is that for limited government to work, people need to govern themselves. An "internal government" so to speak. Our Founders said it best:
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." – John Adams
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." – James Madison
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." – Patrick Henry
There's more to come. Part one set the stage, part two lit the stage, part three is act one.
Well put. If the Anglo-Saxons were never influenced by Rome, how could the majority of our language have words of a Latin derivative?
"fuggedaboutit" in Italian is "Non te preoccupare", meaning "don't pre-occupy".
Nice work, Hud.
I DO believe, however, as an ardent Southerner (me, I mean) that you do not go back far enough in US Presidents to see where the messed up Progressives started. It could be argued–and do so vehemently–that Lincoln was the first President to press forward the idea of the State reigns supreme. He did so with an army and forcefully caused the Independent Southern States to remain under US rule. Too many abuses by Lincoln to overlook him. That, and he was Hitler's favorite US President, mentioned specifically in Mein Kampf (but be sure to check the original and not the US's CUT version!)
[...] [...]
It is human nature to seek God. Populist liberals have allowed progressives* to push God out of their lives and that in turn has left an empty spot. Attempting to fill that emptiness is what leads people to follow what seem to be well meaning causes such as "Global Warming" or "Hope and Change."
When these causes are exposed as frauds, it leaves the populist liberals in despair and disarray as day after day they witness their progressive* heroes twist and turn as their lies become more and more bizarre. We have all been duped at one time or another and we need to improve our defences.
The answer is simple, continue your search for God, he has not abandoned you, he is waiting for you. Even more important, save your children. Don't let those impressionable young minds follow the progressive* frauds down that same path.
*progressive: I am elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master
Obama Mocks Christian Faith
http://usataxpayer.org/?0033881580
Progressive Assault on Children
http://usataxpayer.org/?0040951310
There are way, way too many problems with this inept plemic. First off, calling the first form of government the tribe seems very simplistic though I know what he means. The correct word is feudalism. Obviously this individual has not spent much time in the 3rd world, I have for 25 years. Feudlsm is based on blood and family. Isn't that obvious? Well I have some news,, Feudalism is alive and well outside of the USA, Canada and western Europe. Eliminating it is very, very hard.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Yes, I had to keep it around 1500 words. But the difference between the French Revolution and ours is individual rights. Theirs was group based. And they quickly made Napoleon an Emperor not long afterward.
When people sell rights based on groups you know right away they are trying to segregate classes for division. That is why identity politics is so vile.
"Ok, so why should I choose the goodness from the world religions? Also why should I want to or care to live by those great rules in my dealings with my fellow man? "
I never said anything about how YOU should live YOUR life. I was talking bout how I VIEW religion, and how, as an Atheist, I can utilize good ideas to better myself. Do not shove words in my mouth, or think that I am trying to tell you how to live.
In regards to you "not wanting to care about great rules in dealing with your fellow man", I ask you this:
Would you treat people poorly for your own self interest? Would you treat others in a way that, if recieved by you, would be hurtful?
Please explain. Your continuous requests for clarity prove you have no desire to see things clearly, and are just trying to elicit more talking points. I feel as though I have explained my beliefs and my views in a clear and concise manner, yet you want more clarification. Try picking up a book. Maybe something on Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism (Max I. Dimont's "The Indestructable Jews" is a good one) and maybe your lack of clarity will be resolved. Have a nice day.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Amazingly, the origins and purpose of all this chaos are predicted and accounted for in the prophetic, conspiracy, political Thriller book, BLACK ROAD 2012, which I bought on amazon, and was a real goose-bumpy, totally absorbing ride: http://tinyurl.com/amazon-BLACK-ROAD-2012
You are being hard on this guy. He has a column to write and just so many words to do it in. I have been involved in cross cultural anthropologic studies for 40 years and I get what he is saying. I appreciate the hierarchal buildup that James offers in this article and for a public discourse he does a good job of laying out the foundations of social order in such a short summation. I also appreciate your studies on the subject. It is obvious to all awake Americans at this time that feudalism is alive and well. We have a bunch of cave men attempting to bomb us back into the twelfth century at the present time so what you say chords with many. Thank you for your input. I have bookmarked the White Sun and will read it. All the best.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Great explanation of the last 100 years. I can hardly wait for Part 3. What this article doesn't really delve into is the spiritual awakenings that humanity experiences, every 80-100 years, perhaps since the Axial Age (read Edith Hamilton THE GREEK WAY or Karen Armstrong.)
Since the Reformation, you can see each political revolution has been fueled by a 'spiritual awakening' period, about 40-50 years preceeding. In American history we have the Great Awakening, leading to the American Revolution; the Second Great Awakening, leading to the Abolition Movement; the Missionary Awakening, leading to the Progressive Movement and the Hippie or Boomer awakening in our present age.
We are ripe for another 'spiritual awakening', perhaps best signified by the bumper sticker to COEXIST or just simply by living the final commandment from Jesus: to love thy neighbor as thyself.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Although I do appreciate the insightful analysis of the function of religion in controlling people in a society, I continue to be disappointed that you do not argue against communism/socialism on moral and ethical terms. To continue to reinforce the errant belief that "the problem with Marxism is it fails to understand that human nature would undermine any such society. It sounds good on paper, which is why it seduces so many academics and alleged intellectuals," gives the Left the moral high ground and perpetuates the idea that communism is an ideal system that only fails because humans are flawed and need the constraints of religion and limited government to prevent corruption. Communism is immoral like all collectivist systems because its core tenet is that the individual can and should be sacrificed for the good of the collective.
The lack of religion is not what makes communism immoral, either, as you believe. Atheists can be just as capable of morality as religionists when they have a philosophy derived from reason and respect for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Many religions, as you rightfully point out in the opening of this essay, are guilty of the same corrupt, collectivist philosophy as communism. Communism is really only religion secularized – another philosophy to control the masses for the benefit of a ruling elite in the guise of benevolently benefiting the populous, whether on earth or in an afterlife. Is it not Christianity that asks us to be our brothers' keepers? And would not the Communists agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly? How are these reconciled? They are both Collectivism, one spiritual, one secular, but with the same motivation and the same result — to enslave the individual.
The author doesn't mean "vagrancies."
"Vagaries" is the word he meant, or should've meant. "Vagrancies" doesn't apply.
This is really a great read. Thank you, James, for the excellent article.
I didn't say feudalism was over. I was merely showing how government systems have evolved over time. I had to cover a lot of ground in 1500 words. You try it sometime.
Roland,
The article you reference does correctly point out the pagan roots of the Christian high holy days. These were introduced during Constantine's reign and founding of the Roman Catholic Church. This new state religion incorporated the festivals and symbols in order to attract all of Rome. Constantine himself was a Sun worshipper and was not baptised until on his death bed. There were many Christians during this time who rebelled against the new state-run church and were persecuted. Many paid with their lives. The sun god and the other pagan gods mentioned in the article have their roots further back than Egypt – they were worshipped in Babylon itself. Satan is the great deceiver and has worked hard even from the beginning to corrupt the church with idols and worship of false gods. The Reformation helped many leave the RCC and its blatant Sun worship, but was not enough. Pagan symbols and holy days have made it back into reformed Christian practices – namely Christmas and Easter.
You're very brave to admit to agnosticism here.
Many of my Christian brothers and sisters think conservatism is inextricably linked to Christianity. It isn't, and it never was. Conservatism and limited government are big concepts, and unlike most big concepts, they take fully into account the nature of humanity, which is sometimes noble, sometimes perverse, but is nearly always geared toward seeking an advantage. In business, which I consider the "cleanest" of all human endeavor, an informed buyer prevents advantage being taken by the seller. This natural check-and-balance system can't work under crony capitalism, as practiced by Obamao.
Conservatism and limited government are about political principles, not about religion. I'm an atheist, and as good and true a conservative as anyone else reading these words. My political principles are not inspired by a belief (or lack of a belief) in an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural Entity.
Keep reading. I think you will like part 3. I am laying things out so people can fully get the context when it gets more specific.
But as for the morality of it, I would think the fact I mention of more people dying from communist rule than all the wars of the 20th century combined would be a clue.
Maybe you won't be too violently attacked, James. This schism, between Christian conservatives and atheist/agnostic conservatives, could be the unfortunate detail that derails our ability to take back our country. What a damnable shame that would be!
All conservatives want pretty much the same things, believers and non-believers alike.
Lincoln was trying to hold the union together. His actions were related to fighting a civil war. But you'll see why I start with Wilson next.
The abuses and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity have nothing to do with the central point. Certainly, anyone might wish to abolish all religion, simply because so much violence has been visited on others by religion's adherents.
To me, the central point is this: Is it true?
If it's true, the rest doesn't matter. In my view, it's not true. Religion, including Christianity, is entirely false (although many of its tenets are helpful).
This makes the horrific violence perpetrated by religionists a doubly sad statistic. They killed millions in the pursuit of a false concept, much like the stupid, evil Communists of the Soviet Union and China.
Thank you.
This is good.
I am glad that, at least sometimes, Big J moves above and beyond the fascists
who wish to control women’s reproductive rights…. just as the fascists
on the other side of the aisle wish to bury women up to their waists and
stone them to death — for the encouragement of the others.
Good job. ….Lady in Red
This is a brisk, through secular assesment of man's invention of religion. It may surprise you some day to encounter the Truth. Just sayin'.
[...] [...]
An ambitious thesis, James, and overall fairly balanced.
At the risk of kicking open a can of worms, I suggest making an important distinction in the discussion of religion, particularly in regards to Western Civilization.
The essential element of our Judaeo-Christian culture is that rights and moral authority originate from beyond the temporal rulers. Laws do not draw their authority from the government, although the government is of neccessity the agency which has the power to enforce them. This is at the root of the English Parlimentarian and American Constitutional frameworks.
cont
That's really another discussion because the point of this series is to define what the two sides are, what they really stand for and where they are trying to lead us.
I'm sure I will get into that discussion in another article, though.
Latin borrows heavily from the Greek, but nobody calls Latin a Greek language. I doubt the common Englishmen or the average English settler in America spoke very much Latin "legalese."
The Roman Catholic church rode on the coattails of the Frankish (Germanic) Kingdom, and together they created another empire. The English Settlers in the new world relied on their own ancient customs and the Protestant ethic (self-reliance, self-responsibility) to build their colonies, not republicanism or democracy-ism…or the Roman Catholic church for that matter. In fact, who did the Protestants protest? Rome!
Leaning toward BG is indeed heavily influenced by Rome. If we're going to have LG, then it's time we de-latinized ourselves.
I have tried it myself and understand the constraints. Thank you for an excellent article James.
Rome was a towering example of a small-government empire over 800 years before Charlemagne was born. In fact, for much of Rome's history its bureaucracy was tiny because Romans themselves loathed bureaucrats. Much of the move toward big government statism was the work of Diocletian, an Illyrian peasant and general who became Emperor, and created a vast government apparatus, tried price controls, started the forerunners of medieval trade guilds.
All of Western Civilization owes an enormous debt to Rome, for its military concepts, its contributions to practical science and its effect of spreading Christianity throughout the Empire.
The Roman Emperors after Tiberius, like Asiatic potentates before them, attempted to invest themselves with divine authority. This is why Christians and Jews were both persecuted. The flaw of the Eastern Roman culture, as with the Russian Tsardom it spawned. was in granting similar authority to the emperor/czar as head of the Church. The Western society largely, though imperfectly, resisted this temptation.
This tradition is the bedrock of our free society.
Statism in all of its forms derives from the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man, which claims to grant "human rights" on its own authority. This "living, breathing" interpretation of rights thus grants authority to whoever has the power to enforce them. Our historical experience infoms us that these will usually be the most ruthless practitioners of power. In this context, "rights" become merely a rhetorical device with no substance.
I think J.H. and I have read a lot from the same lists. Very succinct. A few nits to pick here and there. i.e. Christianity was not the first monotheistic religion, Judaism was…
No matter, this is great, can't wait for the next installment.
The belief in the perfectability of man and the idea that we are evolvolving into a perfect being either through Progressivism or through any of the New Age idea goes back to the beginning when Lucifer said that we would become as GOD.
As a former New Ager I fall on my face before God and say forgive my stupidity.
see the video Constance Cumby has on Google.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was not trying to put words into your mouth, so sorry if I came across that way. This medium (and my punctuation abilities) don't allow for conveying the right tone.
Again, sorry if I came across as a d-bag. No offense intended.
Thanks for the response. Again, a well written piece. I look forward to all of your posts.
Your synopsis speaks of a truth in Judeo Christian ethic the secular world does not understand. That is the belief of good and evil. Marxism/Communism is diametrically opposed to the belief that there is evil in the world. It is thought that it can be purged with the proper government. To quote David Horowitz, "After the Russain Revolution of 1905, the philospher Nicholas Berdyaev analyzed Communism as a form of idolatry in a way that proved to be prophetic. Berdyaev traced the origins of what he called the Marxist "heresy" back to the tower of Babel. In that story, people had tried to achieve their own redemption–without a transcendent God–by bulding a ladder to heaven. Communists had a similar ambition. They had projected onto falliable beings godlike powers that would enable them to overcome their human fate. In doings so, Berdyaev warned, the Communists had created demons they would not be able to control." *
Thus the struggle and purpose of man on this earth, either with God or opposed to Him….
*Radical Son by David Horowitz pg.55
James, Thank you for this well done series. I am looking forward to part 3.
Hey, thanks for assuming Christians would violently attack Mr. Hudnall, very classy.
Or, Klassy
One sentence and a statement: Jesus and constantine were geniuses! "Control the masses"
Thanks for nothing at all, AreaMan66. Or should I say… (drum roll, please…) knothing. Ah, the dramarama, it's the only thing keeping me going.
[...] [...]
Japan has lasted. Great Britain has lasted. If you mean by lasting, conquering neighboring countries then the US has lasted. However, the US borders are only 50 years old. If you go back 50 years, many, many other countries have lasted longer…even France.
I'm gonna give give you the benifit of the doubt here and suggest you 'carefully' reread the post, so you know exactly what you are disagreeing with me about…
LOL
Was this a high school term paper? Were is the supporting evidence for all of your claims? Did Socrates really believe that a god crawled under every rock or events occurred because a god had initiated that event? Constantine did not establish Christianity as the sole religion in the empire…he stopped the persecution of the Christians. Contrary to Hollywood portrayal, the Romans were not a hedonistic people.
The Eastern Roman empire was slowly whittled down and it lasted 1000 years after Constantine. But, what about the western portion of the empire? Why didn't it last 200 years? If Christianity failed the Western Roman Empire then why did Harald feel the need to compel his subjects to convert to Christianity more than 500 years after the West's failure? And, there is also a great deal of debate among historians about the role that Harald played in the spread of Christianity to his territories.
What moral code and separate God separated the Christians from the Jews? If the Romans wanted one God then why didn't they adopt the Jewish religion? What was the single unifying powerful message of Christianity? Or, does each reader get to assume what that message is and fall right into line?
And, precisely, what was wrong with having a god for everything under the sun? It worked well for "thousands of years". What all of suddenly precipitated the need for change? Oh, human nature. Again the reader is left to nod his head in sympathy. If having a single God is so important, then what is wrong with Islam?
Strange how wars seemed to occur even before Christianity was "invented". When did the priest-kings lose their power? Why did clashes suddenly happen between religion and the rulers when the first rulers were the priests? Wasn't religion invented to control people? All of a sudden, the People divided into factions because of religion? Why did the USSR and Germany go to war?
How do factory jobs offer more freedom? In fact, many slave holding American Southerners insisted that the life of a black slave on a plantation was actually better than that of a white man (or woman or child) in a Northern factory. Or, is that claim a simple rationalization on the part of the slave holder? But, is it freedom to have to wait for your street to be plowed out during a snow storm so that you can get to work in the middle of the winter? George Washington certainly never panicked when a snow storm hit Mount Vernon in February.
Still, religion supposedly was useful in controlling people. How, we don't know, but that one powerful message seems to have been forgotten and the elite suddenly need a new method for controlling the masses. How do they do that? Simply by replacing one religion, Christianity, with another, Socialism. Stupid people. They fall for it all the time.
The American people did not want to escape the tyranny of the monarchy. They wanted to escape the tyranny of Parliament. They appealed to King George for relief from parliament's acts. When, the king turned a deaf ear to them then they revolted. They weren't attempting to form a new government. They were trying to restore the existing government.
The Roman Republic had laws and an unwritten Constitution similar to Americas. Rome had a Senate, the US has a Senate. Rome had two consuls. The US has a president and vice-president. The Romans had term limits for consuls. The Americans belatedly added term limits to the president. The fact the US has two houses of Congress is because it was a compromise between the populous and less populous states. The US Supreme Court usurped power for itself and became an equal branch of government as a result.
Funny how when "society was changing" it was OK for society to throw off the oppressive priests but now when society is changing it is no longer OK to overthrow the oppressive Constitution. Conservatives have turned the Constitution into their Bible…and quite deliberately on the part of the Founders. And, they'll accept no dissent or apostasy. Heretics will be burned at the stake. Talk about the Dark Ages.
If the Constitution was so great then it should stand on its own merits. It wouldn't have to be shoved down the people's throats.
[...] part one we discussed how there are only two forms of government. In part two we discussed the history of those two forms. Now we’re going to discuss how the BG (Big [...]
[...] 1: A Primer, Part 2: Foundation, Part 3: [...]
[...] 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part [...]
People never under stand dictators have no friends; only sacrifices and that means all of them below the dictator which include his own chosed are victims.
I hope this series of articles will be a permanent fixture on Big Journalism. It needs to be read by everyone.
One correction:
"Then Christianity came along. It had one god, one unifying powerful message. It had a strong moral code."
Actually, Judaism had one god for thousands of years before Christianity came along.
You’re a great writer. That was an interesting post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.