Western Government
Western Governmental Policy
Modern Western society arose as non-landowning industries translated European serfs (whose livelihood depended upon agriculture) into wage earners in an emerging market economy. Political power then transferred from monarchs and the landed nobility to rich merchants and organized labor guilds. Progressivism began as the burgeoning, ever-changing market economy usurped the usefulness of Europe’s static agrarian economy.
The Protestant Reformation undermined Europe’s feudal order, in which monarchs partnered with a politicized Church to rule over a social hierarchy of nobility, knights, and land working serfs. The Protestant Reformation opened the door to religious freedom and the rule of a secular government that stands upon a social contract and scientific investigation.text and edit me.
The Protestant Reformation undermined Europe’s feudal order, in which monarchs partnered with a politicized Church to rule over a social hierarchy of nobility, knights, and land working serfs. The Protestant Reformation opened the door to religious freedom and the rule of a secular government that stands upon a social contract and scientific investigation.text and edit me.
Envisioning how best to respond to the state of nature of the commoner beyond his or her kindred relationships, enlightened philosophers envisioned two models for a social contract based government of the people: the work of the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) embodies the first model of modern social-contract government. Locke envisioned human beings as property acquiring animals whose labor confers values upon lands that God had made to be cultivated. Thus, Locke envisioned that the role of government is to protect the property that our natural propensities, liberties, and volitions engender, as the industrious prove themselves to be natural benefactors of humanity. Furthermore, to protect the property rights of individuals, Locke envisioned a limited government; which entailed the separation and subordination of powers; wherein the executive role is subordinate to the legislative. Locke inspired the framers of the American constitution to the extent that many consider him as an honorary American Founding Father.
The work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) embodies the second model of modern social-contract government. Rousseau envisioned the natural state of humanity as animalistic and charitable, having the peculiar capacity to express empathy. Rousseau held that organized civilization is responsible for inciting the jealousies and self-aspirations of humankind, as individuals enter into contractual relationships to corner markets, lands, and other goods and services for excessive self-indulgence (amour-propre). Being a key inspiration of Revolutionary France, Rousseau inspired principles in the 1789 French charter, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: a social contract that envisions that citizens who enter into a modern state must surrender some personal liberties, in order to enjoy liberty jointly in an organized collective life. Unlike the American model of preserving personal property from a hostile government, the French model inherently inclines government to be suspect of material inequalities. As a consequence, the French Revolution persisted violently in various forms and epics up until the dawn of the 20th century; whereas the American Revolution secured a peace for American citizens, excepting the African American slave population.
Still, what both social contract models lack is the power to compel citizens to look past the prejudices of kindred affiliations that naturally enfranchise people as people find themselves insecure during economic downturns and during times of social and cultural upheavals. Both models lack the power to instill in citizens the sense of justice, trust, and selflessness that empowers the social contract-based government system to uphold a sure market economy, equitable jurisprudence, and impartial law enforcement. In the end, an increasingly autocratic government emerges to reconcile incongruent cultures and belief systems under a centralized government, which the enlightened philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) envisioned:
As a compliment to the Treaty of Westphalia, which terminated a century of religious wars, including the Thirty Years War, Hobbes wrote his famous work entitled Leviathan. In Leviathan, Hobbes disregarded the biblical doctrine of humanity’s fall from grace. Also, Hobbes’ Leviathan disregarded the Aristotelian belief that humanity instinctively seeks the telos of science and philosophy in a perfect city-state. Hobbes rather saw humanity’s state of nature as brutish and self-serving, ultimately requiring a centralized sovereign who possesses all political, military, and religious power; under which the sovereign only defines morality in terms of stability of the state. As we witness the increasing populace power of executive branch in the United States’ Federal Government, we seemingly witness Hobbes’ notions bear themselves out.
Many contemporary socialist thinkers elaborate upon Hobbes desire for a centralized government over the motley crew that is the masses. Many contemporary thinkers disregard John Locke’s notion that individuals inherently possess property rights, according to their gifts and talents. Thinkers such as John Rawles express the belief that cultural backgrounds and kindred backgrounds, under which we acquire our talents, are arbitrary; therefore, these socialist thinkers argue for a centralized government that redistributes wealth to uphold equality.
As a compliment to the Treaty of Westphalia, which terminated a century of religious wars, including the Thirty Years War, Hobbes wrote his famous work entitled Leviathan. In Leviathan, Hobbes disregarded the biblical doctrine of humanity’s fall from grace. Also, Hobbes’ Leviathan disregarded the Aristotelian belief that humanity instinctively seeks the telos of science and philosophy in a perfect city-state. Hobbes rather saw humanity’s state of nature as brutish and self-serving, ultimately requiring a centralized sovereign who possesses all political, military, and religious power; under which the sovereign only defines morality in terms of stability of the state. As we witness the increasing populace power of executive branch in the United States’ Federal Government, we seemingly witness Hobbes’ notions bear themselves out.
Many contemporary socialist thinkers elaborate upon Hobbes desire for a centralized government over the motley crew that is the masses. Many contemporary thinkers disregard John Locke’s notion that individuals inherently possess property rights, according to their gifts and talents. Thinkers such as John Rawles express the belief that cultural backgrounds and kindred backgrounds, under which we acquire our talents, are arbitrary; therefore, these socialist thinkers argue for a centralized government that redistributes wealth to uphold equality.
An enduring champion who recognized the invaluable contribution that Protestant Christianity made to Western democracy is Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859). Predicting the future Americanization of Europe, Tocqueville traveled to study America in the early 1830s: wondering whether Europe’s burgeoning democracies would assume the American style democracy or the French style democracy, Tocqueville sought to determine why American democracy was “gentle and mild,” while the French democracy was “violent and destructive,” even trending toward Hobbesian despotism. Tocqueville ultimately concluded that the spirit of religion [i.e., the grossly Protestant American populace] enabled the American people to put local government and civil associations in close approximation to everyday people who then seized opportunities to participate in their freedoms: Tocqueville dubbed America a puritan democracy. Tocqueville observed that the enlightenment spirit permeating Europe paralyzed faith and conviction, removing the rustic township spirit that pervaded America. Tocqueville concluded that individuals can persist upon reason alone; however, a free society encompassing a whole population requires faith. Tocqueville equally observed that only despotism can survive without faith.
Though he did not fully articulate his discovery, Tocqueville essentially discerned that the source of American exceptionalism resides in the American population’s primarily Protestant faith. Although Tocqueville’s observations are invaluable proofs to the vital role that the Protestant Church plays in the American experience, Tocqueville lacked a doctrinal understanding that would enable him to express how the Church could preserve its vital role, as the progressive market economy present new challenges to the ever changing circumstances of Western peoples. Tocqueville could not discern how the Apostolic Christianity, which Protestants approximated, is the only faith that transcends the kindred prejudices and alienating acts of self-righteousness that other cultures and religions, respectively, create.
Today, the liberal forces of capitalism and socialism compel policy makers to overlook the vital contributions of the Church, as the policy makers seek to transfer Western style governments and political sensibilities to non-Western countries. As policy makers fail to integrate non-Protestant cultures, our democratic liberties increasingly come under threat. Common citizens and people who uphold traditional Christian lifestyles increasingly become disenfranchised, as an increasingly centralized and authoritarian government forces the general populace to accept nihilistic understandings, ideological dogmas, and unconventional lifestyles, regardless of long standing Christian principles that fostered American liberty.
The Landscape of Truth underscores socially liberating Apostolic (Pauline) doctrines that many Protestants have successfully observed. The Landscape of Truth observes how Protestants’ return to the Apostolic doctrines inspired the predominately Christian culture that fostered our modern freedoms. To find out more, read the Landscape of Truth’s 6th and 7th chapters.
Though he did not fully articulate his discovery, Tocqueville essentially discerned that the source of American exceptionalism resides in the American population’s primarily Protestant faith. Although Tocqueville’s observations are invaluable proofs to the vital role that the Protestant Church plays in the American experience, Tocqueville lacked a doctrinal understanding that would enable him to express how the Church could preserve its vital role, as the progressive market economy present new challenges to the ever changing circumstances of Western peoples. Tocqueville could not discern how the Apostolic Christianity, which Protestants approximated, is the only faith that transcends the kindred prejudices and alienating acts of self-righteousness that other cultures and religions, respectively, create.
Today, the liberal forces of capitalism and socialism compel policy makers to overlook the vital contributions of the Church, as the policy makers seek to transfer Western style governments and political sensibilities to non-Western countries. As policy makers fail to integrate non-Protestant cultures, our democratic liberties increasingly come under threat. Common citizens and people who uphold traditional Christian lifestyles increasingly become disenfranchised, as an increasingly centralized and authoritarian government forces the general populace to accept nihilistic understandings, ideological dogmas, and unconventional lifestyles, regardless of long standing Christian principles that fostered American liberty.
The Landscape of Truth underscores socially liberating Apostolic (Pauline) doctrines that many Protestants have successfully observed. The Landscape of Truth observes how Protestants’ return to the Apostolic doctrines inspired the predominately Christian culture that fostered our modern freedoms. To find out more, read the Landscape of Truth’s 6th and 7th chapters.
Alito Sounds the Alarm: the Approaching End of Individual Constitutional Liberties—the End of the American Experiment
Published November 19, 2020 – thelandscapeoftruth.com
Novel is the American experiment. Above 90 percent of the 5000 years of human civilization consisted of authoritarian dynasties, families, and/or clan based traditions that annihilated any notion that an individual could determine his or her own destiny. Yet, in 1787, the American experiment heralded the modern age of democratic-republican government: a government that ensures the constitutional rights and liberties of the individual, regardless of his or her sex, race, class, and religious affiliation.
Seeing how the American experiment is only approaching two and a half centuries old, many question its vitality as each American generation arises to confront new challenges to American ideals. What have come to be known as the American brand of conservatism are the subsequent political and philosophical beliefs: a commitment to individual rights over government authority; a commitment to limited republican government; the championing of religious freedom; the preservation of the right to bear arms; a commitment to free commerce; and an opposition to labor unions, socialism, and communism—all being group-based authorities that overshadow an individual’s capacity for self-determination.
Like many who have feared an ultimate failing of the American experiment, America’s 40th President, Ronald Reagan said the following:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
On November 12th 2020, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) boldly took his turn in fighting for and protecting our constitutional liberties for subsequent generations. Justice Alito, in an uncharacteristic manner, sounded the alarm of the profound threats to liberty in a daring speech that shocked the nation.
From a landscape perspective, let us have a look at perilous dangers that challenge liberty, and let us consider how to overcome them.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
On November 12th 2020, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) boldly took his turn in fighting for and protecting our constitutional liberties for subsequent generations. Justice Alito, in an uncharacteristic manner, sounded the alarm of the profound threats to liberty in a daring speech that shocked the nation.
From a landscape perspective, let us have a look at perilous dangers that challenge liberty, and let us consider how to overcome them.
Like many, Justice Alito observed the century’s old trend from government officials recognizing the value of individual liberties to government officials accepting the ascendency of centralized and group-based authority. What finally led Alito to speak out is the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 compelled the executive branches throughout the nation to exercise enormous discretion in imposing sweeping restrictions on personal liberties, under the guise that science gave the executive authorities the mandate. Justice Alito noted that the trend toward centralized authority began in earnest in the early 20th Century, when liberal progressives sought to shift policy making from “narrow minded” elected legislatures to an elite group of experts: a shift that would render public policy to be more scientific. Alito noted that as a consequence, so-called bureaucratic “experts” now regularly generate broad regulations that dwarf the statutes that actual elected legislatures write. And so, now the executive branches of government exercise enormous power to impose sweeping restrictions based upon the “science” that the bureaucratic experts compile.
Justice Alito brilliantly described the cultural effect of public policy’s shift toward centralized bureaucratic authority. Alito described a burgeoning progressive orthodoxy that alienates law-schools students who lean toward defending America’s original understanding of individual liberty. Alito dramatically described how religious freedom and the freedom of speech are quickly becoming second tier rights that must bend to what an evolving progressive orthodoxy tolerates.
To demonstrate the severity of the nation’s prospective loss of liberty to an unyielding centralized authority, Justice Alito described how certain liberal-progressive senators literally threatened the Supreme Court with restructuring, in order to cure it of its “sick” originalist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Almost in tears, Alito closed his address by stating there was only so much the court could do: he then cited the famous saying of Learned Hand who said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . .”
Justice Alito brilliantly described the cultural effect of public policy’s shift toward centralized bureaucratic authority. Alito described a burgeoning progressive orthodoxy that alienates law-schools students who lean toward defending America’s original understanding of individual liberty. Alito dramatically described how religious freedom and the freedom of speech are quickly becoming second tier rights that must bend to what an evolving progressive orthodoxy tolerates.
To demonstrate the severity of the nation’s prospective loss of liberty to an unyielding centralized authority, Justice Alito described how certain liberal-progressive senators literally threatened the Supreme Court with restructuring, in order to cure it of its “sick” originalist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Almost in tears, Alito closed his address by stating there was only so much the court could do: he then cited the famous saying of Learned Hand who said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . .”
As our Western government overviews describe, two approaches to modern constitutional government arose in the late 18th Century, both seeking to establish liberty for common people: in 1787, the United States of America’s Constitution stood upon the understanding that individuals have an inherent sense of appreciation for liberty—a sense that God endowed. Two years afterward, the French Republic stood upon the understanding that humankind is inherently brutish; therefore, the French Republic holds that the progressively centralized state serves to mitigate inequality, in order to establish equality.
The American model of freedom has realized unparalleled successes in securing individual freedom, technological innovation, military power, and wealth; however, successive generations of governmental policies trend to the French model solely because no one has managed to establish objective proof that individuals actually possess an inherent capacity for liberty as derived from God; whom no one has managed to establish objective proof for, either. The French model rather asserts that one’s socio-economic environment solely influences the decisions that individuals take; therefore, the French Republic’s constitutional model seeks to define an individual’s socio-economic environment, regardless of an individual’s personal merit.
The problem that remains for Western government to face is that the French model of forced equality has contributed to successive social upheavals and even two world wars, as socialist governments never pacify the whims of classism and factionalism.
Thus, there remains one path open if we are to preserve liberty: we must establish a scientific understanding of God and our individual personhood, beyond the forced orthodoxy that confounds science with naturalist approaches.
The American model of freedom has realized unparalleled successes in securing individual freedom, technological innovation, military power, and wealth; however, successive generations of governmental policies trend to the French model solely because no one has managed to establish objective proof that individuals actually possess an inherent capacity for liberty as derived from God; whom no one has managed to establish objective proof for, either. The French model rather asserts that one’s socio-economic environment solely influences the decisions that individuals take; therefore, the French Republic’s constitutional model seeks to define an individual’s socio-economic environment, regardless of an individual’s personal merit.
The problem that remains for Western government to face is that the French model of forced equality has contributed to successive social upheavals and even two world wars, as socialist governments never pacify the whims of classism and factionalism.
Thus, there remains one path open if we are to preserve liberty: we must establish a scientific understanding of God and our individual personhood, beyond the forced orthodoxy that confounds science with naturalist approaches.
One may rightly conclude that contemporary science’s naturalist approach to the universe (that is, the creation) is necessary to advance pragmatic (that is, applied) scientific understanding; however, one must also understand that the naturalist approach cannot grasp a consummate understanding of the creation; in terms of its origin, purpose, and actual cosmological function, in regards to how the creation cultivates human cognitive, philosophical, and spiritual understanding of it and God who created it.
The naturalist approach to understanding the universe is an attempt to reduce all observed phenomenon to a mechanical understanding that consists of our capacity to predict how things operate within observable spacetime. The theory of galactic, planetary, and biological evolution serves as a key model that contemporary scientists use to explain and predict all observable phenomena.
In regards to understanding human intelligence, scientists conclude from their evolutionary model that human and animal brains evolved to produce specialized cells, neurons, which enable animals to respond instantaneously to ever-changing environments. By matching neuronal behavior in the brain with cognitive and awareness states, scientists conclude that our individual personhood is a phantom effect (an epiphenomenon) that is nothing more than the mere appearance of individual freedom.
And so, in the face of contemporary science’s evolutionary model of human individual personhood, the U.S. Constitutional understanding of inherent liberty from God increasingly fails before a public that increasingly accepts contemporary science’s explanation.
The naturalist approach to understanding the universe is an attempt to reduce all observed phenomenon to a mechanical understanding that consists of our capacity to predict how things operate within observable spacetime. The theory of galactic, planetary, and biological evolution serves as a key model that contemporary scientists use to explain and predict all observable phenomena.
In regards to understanding human intelligence, scientists conclude from their evolutionary model that human and animal brains evolved to produce specialized cells, neurons, which enable animals to respond instantaneously to ever-changing environments. By matching neuronal behavior in the brain with cognitive and awareness states, scientists conclude that our individual personhood is a phantom effect (an epiphenomenon) that is nothing more than the mere appearance of individual freedom.
And so, in the face of contemporary science’s evolutionary model of human individual personhood, the U.S. Constitutional understanding of inherent liberty from God increasingly fails before a public that increasingly accepts contemporary science’s explanation.
Our doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of Truth, features a scientifically demonstrable, orthodox understanding of the manner in which God expresses the creation, to complete humankind, in God’s expressed persons of Lord Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit. The treatise calls its orthodox judgment, Immanuel’s Law.
Immanuel’s Law first recognizes that contemporary science is incomplete because contemporary science’s naturalist approach cannot determine the origin of the Big Bang and the cause for energy’s discrete emission. The discrete emission renders the appearing uniform world as deriving from the indeterminate behavior of a microscopic world, which escapes science’s pursuit of defining, mechanically, all behavior within uniform spacetime.
To grasp an orthodox, that is, right understanding, of the creation, Immanuel’s Law understands that the brain likewise must adapt its electromagnetic waves to model the microscopic world’s indeterminate behavior to generate uniform representations of the appearing world. Immanuel’s Law recognizes that these representations constitute conscious perceptions. Moreover, Immanuel’s Law recognizes that science’s naturalist-evolutionary model cannot capture or explain the brain’s true nature, in the same manner. And so, in the end, Immanuel’s Law describes how the human brain grasps its independent capacity (its liberty), while being contingent to the world that influences it in return.
For a fuller understanding of how Immanuel’s Law secures orthodox Christian doctrine and our originalist U.S. constitutional understanding, please refer to Immanuel’s Law’s video presentation. Or refer to our doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of truth.
Immanuel’s Law first recognizes that contemporary science is incomplete because contemporary science’s naturalist approach cannot determine the origin of the Big Bang and the cause for energy’s discrete emission. The discrete emission renders the appearing uniform world as deriving from the indeterminate behavior of a microscopic world, which escapes science’s pursuit of defining, mechanically, all behavior within uniform spacetime.
To grasp an orthodox, that is, right understanding, of the creation, Immanuel’s Law understands that the brain likewise must adapt its electromagnetic waves to model the microscopic world’s indeterminate behavior to generate uniform representations of the appearing world. Immanuel’s Law recognizes that these representations constitute conscious perceptions. Moreover, Immanuel’s Law recognizes that science’s naturalist-evolutionary model cannot capture or explain the brain’s true nature, in the same manner. And so, in the end, Immanuel’s Law describes how the human brain grasps its independent capacity (its liberty), while being contingent to the world that influences it in return.
For a fuller understanding of how Immanuel’s Law secures orthodox Christian doctrine and our originalist U.S. constitutional understanding, please refer to Immanuel’s Law’s video presentation. Or refer to our doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of truth.
Though Western nations increasingly trend toward centralized governmental authorities that haphazardly trounce upon our civil liberties, we must take heart. Though freedom loving people have struggled to prove their faith in God’s existence (especially in Lord Jesus the Christ) and our individual liberty that the Christ alone defines and secures, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were correct in their acknowledgement that we have an inherent sense of liberty. We cannot deny this sense; therefore, we will never rest without our freedoms.
Of course, thelandscapeoftruth.com will be at the forefront championing our liberties. At least we are well armed with an articulate approach, an orthodox judgment and doctrinal treatise, which we will employ in the effort to demonstrate our inherent capacity for freedom.
Of course, thelandscapeoftruth.com will be at the forefront championing our liberties. At least we are well armed with an articulate approach, an orthodox judgment and doctrinal treatise, which we will employ in the effort to demonstrate our inherent capacity for freedom.
The Future Industrial Apocalypse (Part 1): How Democratic Government cannot Manage Severe Economic Cycles without a Strong Christian Cultural Ethos
Published December 14, 2015 – thelandscapeoftruth.com
.jpg)
When Hollywood movie producers seek to gain large profits from big budget films, the producers often turn to apocalyptic movies that portray the end of civilization. The apocalyptic movies always entail cataclysmic destruction to industrial and military infrastructure, as well as destruction to public works and housing. With such a panorama of devastation, apocalyptic movies never fail to draw the largest crowds of movie goers.
More likely than not, the movie producers are not truly aware of the reason that their apocalyptic movies are so enticing to audiences: all the producers care about is the fact that the apocalyptic movies are reliable sources of income. The underlining reason that apocalyptic movies capture the public’s attention is that the movies uncover a deep seated insecurity that modern people have: in earlier agricultural civilizations, people’s religious beliefs reassured the people that a higher power would look after them in times of economic and social calamity. In contrast, modern society does not seek its security in religious sanction. Rather, modern society seeks its security in the belief that human ingenuity can secure constitutional rights for individuals to thrive under, as they secure their healthcare and other needs through a free market economy that supplies endless goods and services. And so, as the apocalyptic movies feature industrial destruction, the movies confirm our deepest fears that modern government and its industrial economy cannot respectively safeguard human liberty and universal prosperity.
No apocalyptic movie portrays modern people’s insecurity with modern civilization better than the 1968 film the Planet of the Apes, starring the acclaimed actor Charlton Heston (1923-2008). The film features Heston as a marooned astronaut named George Taylor, whose spacecraft accidently transported Taylor and his crew to the fourth millennium earth, unbeknownst to Taylor. Taylor then finds himself in a pre-industrial society ruled by evolved apes who then persecute Taylor along with the native humans: the apes believed that humans were inferior self-destructive beings.
The body of the film details how Taylor overcame and escaped his ape oppressors, as Taylor believed in the superiority of humankind. Poignantly, the film ends with the apes allowing Taylor to take a journey of discovery in which Taylor would find out that human civilization had indeed destroyed itself, leaving the apes to evolve and rule the earth. Taylor makes this discovery as he chances upon a half buried and decayed Statue of Liberty. Horrified by the destructive nature of humankind, Taylor finally cries out, “You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! . . . damn you all to hell!”
To avoid Taylor’s fate, we will draw out the source of our insecurity with modern society’s governmental, economic, and social gains. We will be sure to hold the apes off!
No apocalyptic movie portrays modern people’s insecurity with modern civilization better than the 1968 film the Planet of the Apes, starring the acclaimed actor Charlton Heston (1923-2008). The film features Heston as a marooned astronaut named George Taylor, whose spacecraft accidently transported Taylor and his crew to the fourth millennium earth, unbeknownst to Taylor. Taylor then finds himself in a pre-industrial society ruled by evolved apes who then persecute Taylor along with the native humans: the apes believed that humans were inferior self-destructive beings.
The body of the film details how Taylor overcame and escaped his ape oppressors, as Taylor believed in the superiority of humankind. Poignantly, the film ends with the apes allowing Taylor to take a journey of discovery in which Taylor would find out that human civilization had indeed destroyed itself, leaving the apes to evolve and rule the earth. Taylor makes this discovery as he chances upon a half buried and decayed Statue of Liberty. Horrified by the destructive nature of humankind, Taylor finally cries out, “You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! . . . damn you all to hell!”
To avoid Taylor’s fate, we will draw out the source of our insecurity with modern society’s governmental, economic, and social gains. We will be sure to hold the apes off!
.jpg)
Political strife, economic collapse, and social unrest are all elements of what we term an industrial apocalypse: a state in which a society loses the political, industrial, and social organization to ensure its viability. The source of an industrial apocalypse is our political leadership’s inability to enfranchise the whole of society, during strong and weak market cycles. Most modern thinkers believe that modern society stands upon representational democracies that adhere to social contracts, which guarantee the constitutional rights of individual citizens and guarantee free commercial markets in which individual citizens own the means of production; wherein people exercise their natural talents to secure goods and services.
The social contracts and free markets are in fact pillars of modern civilization; however, social contracts and free markets are not enough to inspire people to hold true to the abstract principles of the State and its law over their own personal aims and affinities. To be sure, the cornerstone of modern civilization is the people’s ability to associate themselves with truths that are more valuable than their temporal gains of sustenance, shelter, and kindred affinity. Protestant Christianity, in particular, inaugurated a culture that encouraged individuals to believe in eternal truths that transcend temporal life: truths that individuals can appeal to, without the need for domineering clergy or the lordship of an upper-class. Unlike other religions, Protestant Christianity enunciated redemption by faith and belief in God’s grace and righteousness, regardless of religious service, kindred relationship, social standing, and male or female sex. Even more importantly, Protestant Christianity encouraged the people’s reverence for secular government’s ruling beside a free Church that loves believers and unbelievers alike. Thus, at the dawn of the modern state, Protestant Christianity encouraged the people’s faith in a just and rewarding hereafter. In this way, modern civilization held together politically, economically, and socially because the Church’s cultural synthesis bred a people that could adhere to the rule of law by the people’s being conditioned to accept the people’s respective stations in life. Like so, during times of economic and social unrest, the people for the most part did not fall prey to kindred and political factionalism.
Now, we stand at the dawn of the global era: an era in which science dismisses eternal truths as human conventions. Political, economic, and social unrest presently fill the vacuum of the lost cultural solidarity that the Protestant Church once secured for Western nations. In future articles, thelandscapeoftruth.com will detail how Western peoples’ lost faith in the reality of heavenly truths affect government, economics, and social relationships. At present, we will detail general points in three successive articles that show how the ill-affected government, economy, and society all contribute to the threat of an industrial apocalypse.
In 1776, the framers of the American government knew that the fledgling nation needed to encourage the common people to associate themselves with heavenly principles, in order to buttress the nation against the ongoing challenges to government, economy, and society. While being careful to ensure the separation of Church and state, the founders of the American government thought it necessary to frame the new nation by invoking eternal self-evident truths in their Declaration of Independence. In their Declaration, the founders saw fit to invoke the authority of God, as the founders stated that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The social contracts and free markets are in fact pillars of modern civilization; however, social contracts and free markets are not enough to inspire people to hold true to the abstract principles of the State and its law over their own personal aims and affinities. To be sure, the cornerstone of modern civilization is the people’s ability to associate themselves with truths that are more valuable than their temporal gains of sustenance, shelter, and kindred affinity. Protestant Christianity, in particular, inaugurated a culture that encouraged individuals to believe in eternal truths that transcend temporal life: truths that individuals can appeal to, without the need for domineering clergy or the lordship of an upper-class. Unlike other religions, Protestant Christianity enunciated redemption by faith and belief in God’s grace and righteousness, regardless of religious service, kindred relationship, social standing, and male or female sex. Even more importantly, Protestant Christianity encouraged the people’s reverence for secular government’s ruling beside a free Church that loves believers and unbelievers alike. Thus, at the dawn of the modern state, Protestant Christianity encouraged the people’s faith in a just and rewarding hereafter. In this way, modern civilization held together politically, economically, and socially because the Church’s cultural synthesis bred a people that could adhere to the rule of law by the people’s being conditioned to accept the people’s respective stations in life. Like so, during times of economic and social unrest, the people for the most part did not fall prey to kindred and political factionalism.
Now, we stand at the dawn of the global era: an era in which science dismisses eternal truths as human conventions. Political, economic, and social unrest presently fill the vacuum of the lost cultural solidarity that the Protestant Church once secured for Western nations. In future articles, thelandscapeoftruth.com will detail how Western peoples’ lost faith in the reality of heavenly truths affect government, economics, and social relationships. At present, we will detail general points in three successive articles that show how the ill-affected government, economy, and society all contribute to the threat of an industrial apocalypse.
In 1776, the framers of the American government knew that the fledgling nation needed to encourage the common people to associate themselves with heavenly principles, in order to buttress the nation against the ongoing challenges to government, economy, and society. While being careful to ensure the separation of Church and state, the founders of the American government thought it necessary to frame the new nation by invoking eternal self-evident truths in their Declaration of Independence. In their Declaration, the founders saw fit to invoke the authority of God, as the founders stated that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The framers even observed a slogan that recognized the only recourse that the people had when the government expectedly failed. The framers declared that the people should “An appeal to Heaven.”
It is of significant importance for us to note that the American new style of government of the people arose at the twilight of the West’s agricultural economies; therefore, many of the framers conceptions of property and individual rights did not foresee the ways in which industrial innovation and modern science would stress the framers’ rudimentary conceptions. Challenges to the framers’ undeveloped conceptions of personal property, individual rights, and even personhood did not arise until after the American Civil War, which put an end to the South’s lucrative agricultural cotton industry: an industry that depended upon slave labor. Because of vast tax revenues, the Federal government, itself, benefited from the South’s agricultural produce.
At the end of the Civil War, the Northern American States industrialized and imported cheap labor from European countries. The dramatic consequence of America’s industrialization is that citizens’ personal property went from being tied to land yields and land ownership unto being tied to banking instruments, such as stocks, bonds, and wages earnings.
The political ramifications of America’s economic evolution were that political leaders became more depended upon corporate funding than their being depended upon the patronage of landholding families in their home precincts. As the common people lost political enfranchisement and as the commoners saw an increasing income gap between rich business owners and the workers, commoners organized into labor unions that regained political clout for the common man by threatening to rob companies of their labor forces. Furthermore, the Church led the way for organizing and rehabilitating the common folk at the dawn of the industrial revolution: the Church started charity organizations that housed and fed the downtrodden. Many of the 19th Century Church charities pioneered the 20th Century’s progressive Government programs.
At the end of the Civil War, the Northern American States industrialized and imported cheap labor from European countries. The dramatic consequence of America’s industrialization is that citizens’ personal property went from being tied to land yields and land ownership unto being tied to banking instruments, such as stocks, bonds, and wages earnings.
The political ramifications of America’s economic evolution were that political leaders became more depended upon corporate funding than their being depended upon the patronage of landholding families in their home precincts. As the common people lost political enfranchisement and as the commoners saw an increasing income gap between rich business owners and the workers, commoners organized into labor unions that regained political clout for the common man by threatening to rob companies of their labor forces. Furthermore, the Church led the way for organizing and rehabilitating the common folk at the dawn of the industrial revolution: the Church started charity organizations that housed and fed the downtrodden. Many of the 19th Century Church charities pioneered the 20th Century’s progressive Government programs.
The United States suffered its next challenge to its government, economic, and social integrity during the economic Great Depression of the early 20th Century. Many other Western nations that suffered from the Great Depression succumbed to violent socialist and communist revolutions, featuring mass unrest and violence on the streets.
Some noted that America withstood the enticements of communism because America already had a tradition of grassroots citizen involvement, which guaranteed the common man’s active participation in government. Scholars have noted that the American Protestant Church have long sensed fostered the political empowerment of the common man at the nation’s inception; therefore, the communists could not entice the essentially non-classist Americans with the prospect of class warfare.
After World Wars I and II, which resulted from the political upheaval of the early 20th Century, the current global challenge to the integrity of America’s government, economy, and society arose. First, post War European countries began a process in which they merged their economies in the interest of peace. Second, during the 1960s, the American middle class gained access to higher education: the youth of the sixties learned other cultural perspectives, which undermined the Christian culture that unified the nation. Third, African American Churches led the way for securing African American civil rights alongside their European American countrymen. Fourth, the success of the African American Civil Rights Movement inspired many social progressives to seek other expansive programs that effectively redistributed wealth and increased the Federal government’s debt. And fifth, like many European governments, the American Congress removed restrictions that disallowed non-Western peoples from immigrating to the United States.
The profound effect upon America’s government, economy, and society, which resulted from the post-World War changes, did not appear in any significant way until the 1990s fall of the Soviet Union. After the end of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union, America increased its economic trade agreements, giving rise to a global economy. As a consequence, political leaders are not merely depended upon the patronage of national corporations, but are also depended upon the patronage of international corporations, whose interest may conflict with the people who the political leaders are supposed to represent. A further consequence is that the labor unions and unorganized work forces of Western nations are increasingly competing against cheap labor work forces in countries that do not enjoy Western rights.
The key challenge that the American government, economy, and society confronts in today’s growing global economy is that the increasingly diverse people cannot appeal to the same universal principles and truths that the whole society reverences. Reverence for the nation’s former Christian principles has been replaced by a public reverence for the sciences, which essentially hold the former ethereal principles as psychological fictions. More and more, political animosity, commercial exploitation, and kindred factionalism bring Western civilization to the brink of collapse, that is, in terms of the loss of the personal and commercial liberties that the 18th and 19th Century framers of modern government secured for us.
After World Wars I and II, which resulted from the political upheaval of the early 20th Century, the current global challenge to the integrity of America’s government, economy, and society arose. First, post War European countries began a process in which they merged their economies in the interest of peace. Second, during the 1960s, the American middle class gained access to higher education: the youth of the sixties learned other cultural perspectives, which undermined the Christian culture that unified the nation. Third, African American Churches led the way for securing African American civil rights alongside their European American countrymen. Fourth, the success of the African American Civil Rights Movement inspired many social progressives to seek other expansive programs that effectively redistributed wealth and increased the Federal government’s debt. And fifth, like many European governments, the American Congress removed restrictions that disallowed non-Western peoples from immigrating to the United States.
The profound effect upon America’s government, economy, and society, which resulted from the post-World War changes, did not appear in any significant way until the 1990s fall of the Soviet Union. After the end of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union, America increased its economic trade agreements, giving rise to a global economy. As a consequence, political leaders are not merely depended upon the patronage of national corporations, but are also depended upon the patronage of international corporations, whose interest may conflict with the people who the political leaders are supposed to represent. A further consequence is that the labor unions and unorganized work forces of Western nations are increasingly competing against cheap labor work forces in countries that do not enjoy Western rights.
The key challenge that the American government, economy, and society confronts in today’s growing global economy is that the increasingly diverse people cannot appeal to the same universal principles and truths that the whole society reverences. Reverence for the nation’s former Christian principles has been replaced by a public reverence for the sciences, which essentially hold the former ethereal principles as psychological fictions. More and more, political animosity, commercial exploitation, and kindred factionalism bring Western civilization to the brink of collapse, that is, in terms of the loss of the personal and commercial liberties that the 18th and 19th Century framers of modern government secured for us.
Early American colonialists from England often suffered starvation and other forms of deprivation as they failed to established trade with Native Americans and as supply ships from England faltered. Puritans who sought a pure Church came and suffered the economic challenges as they sought the greater riches of the eternal Kingdom beyond. The puritan Roger Williams (1603-1683) first promoted the separation of Church and State, his longing for a Church composed of moral conviction rather than clerical force. Williams founded the Rhodes Island colony and fought for the abolition of slavery in all British American colonies. The early American puritans are the best example of how belief in heavenly truths empowers individuals to cope with the economic and social stresses of life.
.jpg)
At the writing of this article, presidential candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties appeal to Americans for support. From both parties, candidates without political experience are gaining strength. Businessman and tycoon, Donald Trump has won the hearts of many conservatives who traditionally vote for Republican candidates. Though filled with antics and bombast, Trump’s appeal is that Trump does not need the money of multinational corporations; moreover, conservative voters have turned to Trump because they feel disenfranchised by the Republican establishment who are increasingly seeking support from new immigrants and other non-traditional Republican groups. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump often emphasizes his Protestant Christian background and his wish to increase the immigration of Christians to America, in order to replace the predominately non-Christian legal immigrants that have been immigrating since the American Congress changed the immigration rules in the 1960s.
.jpg)
The doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of Truth, addresses the Church’s weakness in the modern era. The Landscape recognizes that the Church lacks a systematic theology that empowers common worshippers with the knowledge to apply biblical principles to modern life. Plus, the Landscape recognizes that the Church lacks objective and predictive proof for not only the existence of God, but also the existence of God’s three persons as described by the New Testament. Because of the Church’s deficiency, the Landscape recognizes that the Church is unable to compel people today to reverence the principles of the Holy Bible above personal gains.
To address the contemporary Church’s shortfall, the Landscape of Truth provides predictive evidence for the three persons of God, and the Landscape secures a systematic theology that demonstrates how the biblical Testaments address each stage of human civilization from the patriarchic stage unto today’s social contract stage. In this vein, the Landscape details the emergence of modern science, as well as the emergence of modern government. Like so, the Landscape empowers the worshipper with a sound doctrinal understanding, even beyond a common seminary education.
To address the contemporary Church’s shortfall, the Landscape of Truth provides predictive evidence for the three persons of God, and the Landscape secures a systematic theology that demonstrates how the biblical Testaments address each stage of human civilization from the patriarchic stage unto today’s social contract stage. In this vein, the Landscape details the emergence of modern science, as well as the emergence of modern government. Like so, the Landscape empowers the worshipper with a sound doctrinal understanding, even beyond a common seminary education.
.jpg)
The global economy lacks a global government. A global government by the people and for the people is impossible because any just government is an outcome of a peaceful status quo of an enfranchised people who wish to formalize their peaceful existence: as many contemporary legal philosophers have observed, formal laws and constitutions are the outcome of legal fictions that have existed and have been accepted by the people for a generation. Unfortunately, a global class of politicians has been working toward formalizing economic ties and global institutions, despite the fact that public solidarity does not exist on the ground. Thelandscapeoftruth.com will continue to cover the resulting social fallout in the future.
Despite Conventional Wisdom, Europe’s Christian Monarchies Must Not Modernize: They Still Play a Crucial Role in Preserving Western Culture (Part 1 – The Monarchy and Government)
Published August 10, 2015 – thelandscapeoftruth.com
.jpg)
We must not sully his admiration for the young lady as that of a miserly old man fawning over an innocent young debutante: true to his character, this Sir Winston Churchill’s fondness for the new Queen Elizabeth II rather resulted from Churchill’s realizing his belief that he was somehow destined to save the British people. Seven years before, Prime Minister Winston Churchill stood on the balcony at Buckingham Palace with King George VI and then-Princess Elizabeth celebrating the United Kingdom’s hard-fought victory over Nazi Germany. The British Empire and the Royal family, itself, had stood in question. On that day, however, Britain’s future seemed bright. The legitimacy and importance of the Royal Family stood without question. In previous years, Churchill heard the musings of liberal ideas of a more progressive government of the people, without class and the traditional relics from the long distant pass. Meh! Churchill thought. His standing upon the balcony witnessing the triumph of the British people left Churchill to believe that the Britain as he knew it would endure. Seeing the lovely Queen’s ascendance upon the thrown was the crescendo of a symphony that he had long waited to hear.
Thanks to Churchill’s efforts, we may step forward 63 years to witness an 89 year old Queen Elizabeth II briskly striding onto Buckingham Palace’s balcony to celebrate the annual Trooping the Color parade. Seemingly securing the British throne for some time to come, her majesty boasts three heirs to the throne who stand with her: attending her is her 67 year old son, Charles the Prince of Wales; her 33 year old grandson, Prince William the Duke of Cambridge; and her 2 year old great grandson, Prince George of Cambridge.
For her years, the Queen is unquestionably spry. The stress on her brow has less to do with her advancing years. Her weary countenance has more to do with her awareness that she stands before a crowd that increasingly questions the relevance of her house. The dutiful Queen does not dote over her offspring standing before her as Sir Winston Churchill had fawned over her. She rather beholds them with concern, wondering if they are up to the challenges that the Monarchy faces: knowing that her father and she ascended to the thrown because the government would not allow her uncle King Edward VIII to marry a widow, the Queen broke tradition and approved the marriage of her son Prince Charles to a widow, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. Standing upon the balcony also was Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge: the Queen also approved her grandson’s marriage to Princess Catherine, though the Princess came from a common family. To the Queen, Princess Catherine seemed promising: the crowd certainly adored her. Prince William and Princess Catherine’s marriage seemed to be some flicker of hope that the public would continue to accept the monarchy.
Though destined for the throne himself, the concerns of the Queen were a world away from young Prince George, being held by his father William. Excitedly, the child points at the busyness of the crowd and the ceremonial planes flying overhead. Let’s hope his excitement endures when his day comes to lead the family.
For her years, the Queen is unquestionably spry. The stress on her brow has less to do with her advancing years. Her weary countenance has more to do with her awareness that she stands before a crowd that increasingly questions the relevance of her house. The dutiful Queen does not dote over her offspring standing before her as Sir Winston Churchill had fawned over her. She rather beholds them with concern, wondering if they are up to the challenges that the Monarchy faces: knowing that her father and she ascended to the thrown because the government would not allow her uncle King Edward VIII to marry a widow, the Queen broke tradition and approved the marriage of her son Prince Charles to a widow, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. Standing upon the balcony also was Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge: the Queen also approved her grandson’s marriage to Princess Catherine, though the Princess came from a common family. To the Queen, Princess Catherine seemed promising: the crowd certainly adored her. Prince William and Princess Catherine’s marriage seemed to be some flicker of hope that the public would continue to accept the monarchy.
Though destined for the throne himself, the concerns of the Queen were a world away from young Prince George, being held by his father William. Excitedly, the child points at the busyness of the crowd and the ceremonial planes flying overhead. Let’s hope his excitement endures when his day comes to lead the family.
Many contemporary thinkers deem it obvious that the ancient relics of wealth and privilege of a bygone age should yield to modern government’s rational distribution of wealth and aid: a distribution that rational markets confer to merit as well as a distribution that modern medicine measures to advance the well-being of the general public. Nevertheless, when we consider the excesses that liberal markets and progressive governments incur upon the same general public, we see how the ancient principles and traditions that the Christian monarchies tentatively championed prove to be a buttress against the loss of the liberal gains that the monarchies had nursed into being.
King Henry VIII’s 1534 separation from the Catholic Church began England’s march to prominence and modernity. King Henry changed the English Constitution, introducing the theory of the divine right of Kings. As a consequence, presently, the crown assumes its authority from God in the defense of his Church. Parliament, which entails the House of Commons and the House of Lords, holds sovereign authority for the people, as the Parliament serves at the pleasure of the ceremonial monarch.
From the monarch’s court, biblical principles, customs, and other societal sensibilities issued to the extent that the public’s having a moral sense of right and wrong often judged the monarchs for their amoral excesses. The public’s moral censure of the monarch’s excesses led to England’s 1688 Glorious Revolution, in which Parliament usurped power by limiting the arbitrary powers of the monarch, effectively making a constitutional monarch, under which Parliament guaranteed the public the redress of a Bill of Rights.
From the monarch’s court, biblical principles, customs, and other societal sensibilities issued to the extent that the public’s having a moral sense of right and wrong often judged the monarchs for their amoral excesses. The public’s moral censure of the monarch’s excesses led to England’s 1688 Glorious Revolution, in which Parliament usurped power by limiting the arbitrary powers of the monarch, effectively making a constitutional monarch, under which Parliament guaranteed the public the redress of a Bill of Rights.
.jpg)
Under a constitutional monarch, Great Britain advanced from being a mercantile economy (in which economists measured wealth by land and other material holdings) unto being a market economy (in which economists measured wealth by stocks and other banking note holdings that capital ventures issued). Under the mercantile system, the landholding European aristocracies thrived: property holding ideals such as colonial holdings, indentured servitude, and slavery blossomed under the mercantile economy.
Under the liberal ideals of liberating the market by restoring the market to its natural freedom of being an invisible hand, liberal thinkers sought to measure the political and economic worth of peoples by their industriousness instead of social class. Likewise, the liberals sought to grow the civil service branch of government by giving government jobs to people based on their merit instead of their lineage. With the civil and rational government, the liberals categorized peoples under groups within one society that seeks to identify the needs and merits of all. To this end, the liberals sought to reconcile the belief systems of the peoples throughout Britain’s colonial holdings, in the interest of securing stable free trade zones. To wit, in the 19th Century, Great Britain adopted the policy that all religions are equal, despite the fact that the ceremonial monarch presided over a Christian Church.
Great Britain’s social and economic liberals have undeniably advanced British society to heights unparalleled by any other Empire that the world has seen so far; however, their increasing detachment from their heritage proves to be the liberals’ undoing. Britain’s ongoing strife with its former colonies is the greatest effect of the liberals’ temporal power. As to be expected, the colonial powers naturally sought home rule after tasting the liberal effects of democracy. Like the British liberals had held resentful sentiments against Britain’s self-serving aristocracy in the days of mercantilism, colonial rulers held resentments against Britain’s liberal lawmakers who sought to centralize power in Great Britain. As a consequence, more and more often Britain’s former colonies have become autonomous economic competitors, whose belief systems tolerate lesser standards of living and rights and privileges to the effect that British citizens cannot compete against the cheaper labor forces abroad.
Into the gap of the disparity between cultures falls the advantage of the Christian Royal Family: traditionally, the royal house fostered cultural etiquette and suitability. A reattachment of the crown with such Christian principles that do not countenance the deprived conditions that competing cultures tolerate is demonstrably an economic factor, in regards to whom the people will accept as their trading partners. Obviously, liberal public education attempts to empower the culture with the values of human rights; however, the Church and the monarchy that serves her imparts these values on a kindred bases, creating an environment that naturally enfranchises the citizen, as has been done in ages past.
In all societies, classism still exists. Only, in modernity, classism does not necessarily stand upon family lineage: its more often stands upon a person’s industriousness and merit. The success of England and America (England’s most successful colony) results from the Christian values that afforded a culture of upward social mobility, despite family lineage.
Under the liberal ideals of liberating the market by restoring the market to its natural freedom of being an invisible hand, liberal thinkers sought to measure the political and economic worth of peoples by their industriousness instead of social class. Likewise, the liberals sought to grow the civil service branch of government by giving government jobs to people based on their merit instead of their lineage. With the civil and rational government, the liberals categorized peoples under groups within one society that seeks to identify the needs and merits of all. To this end, the liberals sought to reconcile the belief systems of the peoples throughout Britain’s colonial holdings, in the interest of securing stable free trade zones. To wit, in the 19th Century, Great Britain adopted the policy that all religions are equal, despite the fact that the ceremonial monarch presided over a Christian Church.
Great Britain’s social and economic liberals have undeniably advanced British society to heights unparalleled by any other Empire that the world has seen so far; however, their increasing detachment from their heritage proves to be the liberals’ undoing. Britain’s ongoing strife with its former colonies is the greatest effect of the liberals’ temporal power. As to be expected, the colonial powers naturally sought home rule after tasting the liberal effects of democracy. Like the British liberals had held resentful sentiments against Britain’s self-serving aristocracy in the days of mercantilism, colonial rulers held resentments against Britain’s liberal lawmakers who sought to centralize power in Great Britain. As a consequence, more and more often Britain’s former colonies have become autonomous economic competitors, whose belief systems tolerate lesser standards of living and rights and privileges to the effect that British citizens cannot compete against the cheaper labor forces abroad.
Into the gap of the disparity between cultures falls the advantage of the Christian Royal Family: traditionally, the royal house fostered cultural etiquette and suitability. A reattachment of the crown with such Christian principles that do not countenance the deprived conditions that competing cultures tolerate is demonstrably an economic factor, in regards to whom the people will accept as their trading partners. Obviously, liberal public education attempts to empower the culture with the values of human rights; however, the Church and the monarchy that serves her imparts these values on a kindred bases, creating an environment that naturally enfranchises the citizen, as has been done in ages past.
In all societies, classism still exists. Only, in modernity, classism does not necessarily stand upon family lineage: its more often stands upon a person’s industriousness and merit. The success of England and America (England’s most successful colony) results from the Christian values that afforded a culture of upward social mobility, despite family lineage.
.jpg)
Though the American Revolutionaries risks their lives to secure their liberty from the English Crown, they often worked hard to model themselves after the British upper class. The main reason that the Revolutionary War of Independence ensued is because the American Revolutionaries who thought of themselves as the British upper class became offended when the British Parliament levied a tax upon them, without their being represented in Parliament like the British upper class.
.jpg)
General George Washington, for instance, went through great excess to purchase his clothing from England to copy the latest upper class styles. He often read social etiquette material for upper class gentlemen. We may safely conclude that though they bereft themselves of a King, the revolutionaries failed to bereave themselves of the culture of the King’s court.
Marriage and Church attendance rates are measures that gauge the continuity of British culture. As of the year 2010, marriage rates were at their lowest in 100 years. It has been suggested that Great Britain stopped identifying itself as a Christian country in the 1960s. Church baptisms, marriage ceremonies, and funeral services fell from a high of 70 percent in 1962 unto a low of 36 percent in 1997. The percentage of non-Christian immigrants from the British Common Wealth grew from .2 percent in 1966 unto 7.9 percent in 2001.
Marriage and Church attendance rates are measures that gauge the continuity of British culture. As of the year 2010, marriage rates were at their lowest in 100 years. It has been suggested that Great Britain stopped identifying itself as a Christian country in the 1960s. Church baptisms, marriage ceremonies, and funeral services fell from a high of 70 percent in 1962 unto a low of 36 percent in 1997. The percentage of non-Christian immigrants from the British Common Wealth grew from .2 percent in 1966 unto 7.9 percent in 2001.
.jpg)
The doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of Truth, details the vital roles that monarchies play in the formidable days of any civilization. The Landscape’s chapters 6 and 7 details how monarchies evolve from tribal patriarchies unto higher-level civilization monarchies that foster the emergence of upper class nobility, a merchant class, and eventually a middle-class democracy. The Landscape in particular details how Christian monarchies held Church tradition to the effect that Protestant Christianity gave rise to the upward social mobility of the working and middle class people, to a far greater extent than the Enlightenment philosophy of the upper class affected the lower classes.
.jpg)
The European monarchies’ future depends upon the monarchies’ championing of Europe’s Christian past. The monarchies’ embracing the whims of social progressivism leads to the monarchies’ demise. In our next article, we will take a closer look at the economic factors that compel Europeans to turn further away from their Christian Monarchies.