The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

Yoram Hazony @yhazony Locke never had children. Neither did Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Kant. Rousseau had children but gave them all up for adoption. In other words, Enlightenment rationalism was the construction of men who had no real experience of family life or what it takes to make it work.

Yoram Hazony @yhazony Locke never had children. Neither did Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Kant. Rousseau had children but gave them all up for adoption. In other words, Enlightenment rationalism was the construction of men who had no real experience of family life or what it takes to make it work.

Johannes Althusius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both advanced social contract and popular sovereignty theories, but Althusius championed a bottom-up, federalist mosaic of semi-autonomous social groups, whereas Rousseau argued for a centralized, indivisible collective guided by a unified general will.Core Views on SocietyAlthusius: Society is built from nested, natural lower associations like families, guilds, towns, and provinces. Sovereignty resides collectively in these groups and cannot be alienated away from them.Rousseau: Society transitions from an unorganized state of nature via a single social contract. Individuals surrender all particular partial group attachments to merge into one uniform body politic.Structure of Power and SovereigntyAlthusius: Favors a pluralist federalism. Power flows upward from communities through interlocking pacts, and higher authorities possess limited, delegated power.Rousseau: Favors a monolithic popular sovereignty. Sovereignty is absolute, sacred, indivisible, and resides directly in the collective citizenry without intermediate corporate bodies.View of Rights and GovernanceAlthusius: Rulers are contractual administrators bound by fundamental laws, with lower corporate bodies retaining explicit rights of resistance.Rousseau: Obedience to the general will is supreme; dissenters are forced to be free by the collective community.If you'd like, I can:

Johannes Althusius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both advanced social contract and popular sovereignty theories, but Althusius championed a bottom-up, federalist mosaic of semi-autonomous social groups, whereas Rousseau argued for a centralized, indivisible collective guided by a unified general will . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] Core Views on Society Althusius: Society is built from nested, natural lower associations like families, guilds, towns, and provinces. Sovereignty resides collectively in these groups and cannot be alienated away from them. [ 1 , 2 ] Rousseau: Society transitions from an unorganized state of nature via a single social contract. Individuals surrender all particular partial group attachments to merge into one uniform body politic. [ 1 , 2 ] Structure of Power and Sovereignty Althusius: Favors a pluralist federalism. Power flows upward from communities through interlocking pacts, and higher authorities possess limited, delegated power. [ 1 , 2 ] Rousseau: Favors a...

A consequence of the german ideology is a willed ignorance about the facts of WWII itself. Nearly all mainstream historians for the past thirty years—Broszat, Browning, Gerlach, Kershaw, Longerich, etc— think Hitler decided on the final solution in late 1941. There is dispute as to why—e.g. the failure of deportation efforts, the failure of operation Barbarossa, paranoia about Jews brokering the alliance between the US and Russia, and, perhaps most crucially, the entrance of the US into the war subsequent to Pearl Harbor. Göbbels seemed to concur with this view, writing in his own notebook following a Dec 12, 1941 meeting with Hitler: “He [Hitler] warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence.”4 The minority view that Hitler had planned to commit genocide all along is, for many reasons, difficult to square with the evidence. Yet Germans dont merely hold this minority view, they cling to it and resist discarding it in the face of counterveiling evidence as if doing so would make them evil. The idea of Hitler being motivated by pure irrational hatred seems to grant them ethical status and security. Why? Because reasons would make Hitler, according to the ideology, less evil, and the whole cultural project is to subjectively distance oneself from Adolf Hitler by making him objectively as evil as possible. This project runs on pride, not humility. The reality is that Hitler blamed the Jews for the US entry to both WWI and WWII and that his anti-semitism had this predominant source. This doesnt make punishing all of european Jewry good,

On the (post-war) German Ideology the Neglected (Kriegs-) Generation and the Neglected Origin of Inter-Generational Animus Stephen Weller Jul 21 Father Gereon Goldmann was an SS soldier who was ordained without having finished his seminary education at the expressed wishes of the pope in the middle of WW2. Goldmann discerned his vocation before the start of the war and, rather than fight against the enemy, he began to care for the spiritual well being of his men. He would scavenge for consecrated hosts in chapels, churches and monasteries all throughout northern italy to return to nourish his brothers in arms. He would famously wield his pistol, not against the enemy, but against stingy priests and bishops who wouldnt let him depart with the Blessed Sacrament for his brothers. Learning of his desire to care for the souls of german soldiers, a religious sister organized hundreds of Nuns to pray for his ordination and safety. Their intercession proved remarkably potent. After He won a pe...