This was a good summary, but I feel there's an important element often missing from accounts such as these: the distinction between limitations on individual freedom and self-expression imposed by a COMMUNITY, and identical limits imposed by the STATE. The success of the British ('that free island') and American experiments in liberty was conditional on civic virtue imposed and maintained by a Christian, conservative and communitarian ethos ('Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom'; 'To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea') -- but this relationship is bidirectional (such an ethos requires noninterference and freedom from a centralised and bureaucratic State): the distinction between Western and Eastern (or Southern European) collectivism is, therefore, that the former is predicated on freedom from government, while the latter supports and depends upon a heavy-handed State.
The waters are muddied by the Left's using the power of the State (with its growing support for subversive cultural institutions (the media, the university)) to destroy said virtues. The question for the Right now is: do you use the power of the State to destroy the Left and remove its stranglehold on culture, and support virtue and order (as Britain did via the Church of England and its control over education), or maintain an anti-Statist position? It seems to me that things are too late for the latter. But I don't trust most people on the Right to reinstate freedoms and strip back the State once they have taken control and performed the necessary house-cleaning.
I would only disagree on your position that "All men are created equal" is an absurd idea. We all come into the world naked and more or less start out from the same position of helplessness. I'm not sure of a better starting point to base the value of a human life on. All human lives have value that can be built on or destroyed based largely on the choices we make and to a far lesser degree the choices others make that directly affect us.
I think freedoms should be based on the amount of responsibility an individual wants to assume. Voting should be limited to those who could show a certain amount of responsibility in their lives. Perhaps property ownership or monogamous marriage could be indicators of your right to participate in elections. Receiving welfare of any kind should exclude a person from having any say in the process of governance. There will always be those who are content to live on the free grain Caesar provides but they should not have any part in any rule making process but all should be allowed a path to get off of the public dole and earn the right to vote.
A responsible homeowner should maintain the right against unreasonable search and seizure, an irresponsible tent dweller living on the public sidewalk should not.
All people, regardless of station in life should maintain the right to self defense unless they act irresponsibly with that right.
Those who seek to be leaders should be willing to forego the right to privacy, especially in regards to their finances.
Some people like to imagine that "a culture is like a living organism" because they want the current state to end. And that provides the promise that it's going to end. Easy!
They'll say "all empires have fallen, that means they're like organisms that live and die". That's like saying a building is like an organism that lives and dies because eventually it breaks down. Except that's due to erosion and other things that happen to it. The building itself could stand virtually forever.
No, no history magic is going to solve things.
"The earlier, cyclical view which was traditionally held by the medieval Western man" "had understood time holistically"
Sorry, I can't keep reading when I see "cyclical" and "holistical". You know that time moves forward, don't lie to yourself. Or are you saying this moment is repeated endlessly, that maybe we're on the 1 millionth repetition right now? In that case you are crazy. I hope you are not crazy, in which case you know this is the first time you are reading this.
Saying "Western man" in the Middle Ages were a bunch of nuts who thought every moment they experienced repeated endlessly, is false. Especially since you're talking about the Middle Ages - they were hardcore Christian, and Christianity does NOT say the days are repeated over and over. It very clearly lays out a theory about a beginning and an end, with everything moving forward. And we all know that time moves forward. But explaining how it's not REALLY moving forward, that it's REALLY a circle somehow because look-at-the-seasons-they-repeat-like-a-wheel, has been a favorite pastime of hippies and likeminded ever since.
I think you assume too much idealism for no good reason. It just sounds implausible that all of this happened because people for no good reason at all started view "time" as a "line" instead of a "circle", whatever that means. Why did they adopt that vibe? How did changes in the gene pool and the environment impact culture? Any serious history needs to take these questions seriously. A history of just ideas is hardly a history at all.
Vaccinating against whatever kind of viruses—mind or otherwise—is never an answer, rather ‘it bodes poorly for the long-term survival of the organism’ 😝 Time is long overripe to also start ‘questioning the assumptions and prevailing [...] orthodoxies’ of the whole vaxx paradigm ‘which we were taught and continue to accept.’
This was a good summary, but I feel there's an important element often missing from accounts such as these: the distinction between limitations on individual freedom and self-expression imposed by a COMMUNITY, and identical limits imposed by the STATE. The success of the British ('that free island') and American experiments in liberty was conditional on civic virtue imposed and maintained by a Christian, conservative and communitarian ethos ('Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom'; 'To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea') -- but this relationship is bidirectional (such an ethos requires noninterference and freedom from a centralised and bureaucratic State): the distinction between Western and Eastern (or Southern European) collectivism is, therefore, that the former is predicated on freedom from government, while the latter supports and depends upon a heavy-handed State.
The waters are muddied by the Left's using the power of the State (with its growing support for subversive cultural institutions (the media, the university)) to destroy said virtues. The question for the Right now is: do you use the power of the State to destroy the Left and remove its stranglehold on culture, and support virtue and order (as Britain did via the Church of England and its control over education), or maintain an anti-Statist position? It seems to me that things are too late for the latter. But I don't trust most people on the Right to reinstate freedoms and strip back the State once they have taken control and performed the necessary house-cleaning.
I would only disagree on your position that "All men are created equal" is an absurd idea. We all come into the world naked and more or less start out from the same position of helplessness. I'm not sure of a better starting point to base the value of a human life on. All human lives have value that can be built on or destroyed based largely on the choices we make and to a far lesser degree the choices others make that directly affect us.
I think freedoms should be based on the amount of responsibility an individual wants to assume. Voting should be limited to those who could show a certain amount of responsibility in their lives. Perhaps property ownership or monogamous marriage could be indicators of your right to participate in elections. Receiving welfare of any kind should exclude a person from having any say in the process of governance. There will always be those who are content to live on the free grain Caesar provides but they should not have any part in any rule making process but all should be allowed a path to get off of the public dole and earn the right to vote.
A responsible homeowner should maintain the right against unreasonable search and seizure, an irresponsible tent dweller living on the public sidewalk should not.
All people, regardless of station in life should maintain the right to self defense unless they act irresponsibly with that right.
Those who seek to be leaders should be willing to forego the right to privacy, especially in regards to their finances.
Some people like to imagine that "a culture is like a living organism" because they want the current state to end. And that provides the promise that it's going to end. Easy!
They'll say "all empires have fallen, that means they're like organisms that live and die". That's like saying a building is like an organism that lives and dies because eventually it breaks down. Except that's due to erosion and other things that happen to it. The building itself could stand virtually forever.
No, no history magic is going to solve things.
"The earlier, cyclical view which was traditionally held by the medieval Western man" "had understood time holistically"
Sorry, I can't keep reading when I see "cyclical" and "holistical". You know that time moves forward, don't lie to yourself. Or are you saying this moment is repeated endlessly, that maybe we're on the 1 millionth repetition right now? In that case you are crazy. I hope you are not crazy, in which case you know this is the first time you are reading this.
Saying "Western man" in the Middle Ages were a bunch of nuts who thought every moment they experienced repeated endlessly, is false. Especially since you're talking about the Middle Ages - they were hardcore Christian, and Christianity does NOT say the days are repeated over and over. It very clearly lays out a theory about a beginning and an end, with everything moving forward. And we all know that time moves forward. But explaining how it's not REALLY moving forward, that it's REALLY a circle somehow because look-at-the-seasons-they-repeat-like-a-wheel, has been a favorite pastime of hippies and likeminded ever since.
I think you assume too much idealism for no good reason. It just sounds implausible that all of this happened because people for no good reason at all started view "time" as a "line" instead of a "circle", whatever that means. Why did they adopt that vibe? How did changes in the gene pool and the environment impact culture? Any serious history needs to take these questions seriously. A history of just ideas is hardly a history at all.
Vaccinating against whatever kind of viruses—mind or otherwise—is never an answer, rather ‘it bodes poorly for the long-term survival of the organism’ 😝 Time is long overripe to also start ‘questioning the assumptions and prevailing [...] orthodoxies’ of the whole vaxx paradigm ‘which we were taught and continue to accept.’