Here is
the video,
short link =
http://o-x.fr/k9sn.
Here is one reaction and part of another of a Joe Hargrave, known from blogosphere and from my other blog HGL's FB Writings. With my answers to it. He is of course welcome to continue the debate in comments section over here too.
Joe Hargrave:Does everyone need to use that same piece of music for their videos?
It ought to be considered that it was the weakness and ineptitude of these monarchies that proved so tempting and easy a target for the Jacobins and Bolsheviks and the others. The American experience shows that the end of monarchy isn't necessarily a terrible thing.
... You still have the freedom to worship in this country, to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire, where their Christian ancestors had been oppressed for over a thousand years. ...
"The American experience shows that the end of monarchy isn't necessarily a terrible thing."But the beginning of American Monarchy was George Washington. To lots of people George III had been King in name only (kino, reminding us of that recent political animal rino), whereas George Washington was a real monarch. As Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan: men who have shaped history by personal determination, on the leading one-man office of the state.
The "end of monarchy" in US as in end of colonial dependence on British monarchy proves as much and as little as the "end of republic" in Morocco as in end of colonial dependence on III or IV or V French Republic. The "British"
1 monarchy was ended once in "Britain"
1, by a man named Oliver Cromwell.
"Does everyone need to use that same piece of music for their videos?"It is the politically correct piece of music for death camp pictures. I heard it I think (though that might be a false memory) in school way before the youtube era. Thus it is a reference.
It is however also a bad block on the upload, the "slow" upload on this computer - it is a public library! - stops the video time after time. Probably due to this piece of music.
"You still have the freedom to worship in this country, to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire, where their Christian ancestors had been oppressed for over a thousand years."I sympathise with your hope of giving Muslims the freedom a Muslim régime would not give your forefathers. Without loosing our freedom as Christians. But I do not quite count on it. Switzerland has banned new minarets. France has banned the complete veil known as burqah. For my part I think Switzerland - at least if it had gone one step further and banned new mosques - had been both strategically more correct and also less intrusive into private life. Either way, France has ten times more Muslims per capita than US, Moslems are more omnipresent here, and people are getting a feeling that if not checked it is them that will check us.
If you like the religious freedom of US, remember it began in Pennsylvania, and that at first it was in practise only about Christian diverse sects, Jews and Freethinkers (whether you class Quakers as Christians or as Freethinkers). Remember also that it started by Royal Privilege from King Charles II. Only way this secret Catholic could get Catholics some religious freedom was by handing it to very left wing protestant sects at same time. Quakers (actually pretty close to nearly Catholic Spanish Alumbrados in a way) were less agressively anti-Catholic than Puritans or even Baptists, which is why religious freedom stems from Philadelphia rather than Plymouth Rock.
"freedom ... to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire"Might explain your foible for laissez-faire capitalism. In Ottoman Empire the freedom to own a business equalled the freedom to run it any way you like. As it was in England from Reformation and in English colonies from start.
In France before Revolution it implied usually but far from always a contract with a corporation called jurande, according to which you were sworn to keep certain prices, certain wages for the journeymen ("journey"=French "journée"=here="day's work" rather than "day's march"), certain quality, a certain number of apprentices (who were children between 7 and 14, thus schoolboy age, and can be seen as having thus compulsorily lowered productivity), and of course no use of labour-saving machines the other master craftsmen(=employers,businessmen) did not use. It also implied Christian religion, caring for the dead both by burial and by prayers, caring for the old and diseased. Which implied usually that the state did not have to care for them.
Far from always means, that like in France before the Jews were expelled, some lines of business (for Jews never legally limited to only usurious money-lending) could locally be in other hands than that of the jurande. Even afterwards, a free-master not belonging to a jurande might get an exception if he were better serving the public and la jurande not as good as it should. As about France, so the Germanies, especially Catholic parts (Bavarian beer regulation is famous) or Spain./HGL
1"British"=English AND Scottish AND Irish, before United Kingdoms were united in any other union than having same monarch. Dito for "Britain".
