What makes a nation 'great'?

Was ancient Greece great because of its philosophers?
Was ancient Rome great because of its legions?

And which are the great nations of today, and of our recent past, and why are/were they deemed to be 'great' ?

Modern China is today a nation which it seems, will emerge as a 'great' nation, among the nations of the world.
But why do we deem a nation like China as becoming great?
What 'circumstances' assure the success, and advancement of a particular nation, when viewed among others?

Is it the character of the people of a nation, which makes a nation great?
Is it the just laws of a nation which enables greatness to fall upon a particular nation?
Or is it the material accomplishments of the people of a particular nation, which make a nation great?

What do we, mankind, 'value' as meritorious in a national structure?
Why do people flee from certain nations?
Why do people seek to enter particular other nations?

Is it the wealth of a nation?
Its political stability?
Its military strength [i.e. 'get with the strength' because 'might is right' ]?




+++

Personally, i believe that it is the character of a people, which makes a truly great nation, great.
And, that it is the laws of a [any] nation which [over time] will largely influence the character of a nation of people.

IMO, without good and just laws [and a functioning justice system], a nation will never attain real, or long lived, greatness, no matter the amount of wealth which the people of a nation may fleetingly attain.

Insofar as the world functions at all, it’s due to the Britannic inheritance. Three-sevenths of the G7 economies are nations of British descent. Two-fifths of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are—and, by the way, it should be three-fifths: The rap against the Security Council is that it’s the Second World War victory parade preserved in aspic, but, if it were, Canada would have a greater claim to be there than either France or China. The reason Canada isn’t is because a third Anglosphere nation and a second realm of King George VI would have made too obvious a truth usually left unstated—that the Anglosphere was the all but lone defender of civilization and of liberty. In broader geopolitical terms, the key regional powers in almost every corner of the globe are British-derived—from Australia to South Africa to India—and, even among the lesser players, as a general rule you’re better off for having been exposed to British rule than not: Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados?
And of course the pre-eminent power of the age derives its political character from eighteenth-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go. In his
sequel to Churchill’s great work, The History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Andrew Roberts writes:
Just as we do not today differentiate between the Roman Republic and the imperial period of the Julio-Claudians when we think of the Roman Empire, so in the future no-one will bother to make a distinction between the British Empire–led and the American Republic–led periods of English-speaking dominance between the late-eighteenth and the twenty-first centuries. It will be recognized that in the majestic sweep of history they had so much in common—and enough that separated them from everyone else—that they ought to be regarded as a single historical entity, which only scholars and pedants will try to describe separately.
If you step back for a moment, this seems obvious. There is a distinction between the “English-speaking peoples” and the rest of “the West,” and at key moments in human history that distinction has proved critical.
Continental Europe has given us plenty of nice paintings and agreeable symphonies, French wine and Italian actresses and whatnot, but, for all our fetishization of multiculturalism, you can’t help noticing that when it comes to the notion of a political West—one with a sustained commitment to liberty and democracy—the historical record looks a lot more unicultural and, indeed (given that most of these liberal democracies other than America share the same head of state), uniregal. The entire political class of Portugal, Spain, and Greece spent their childhoods living under dictatorships. So did Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel. We forget how rare on this earth is peaceful constitutional evolution, and rarer still outside the Anglosphere.

Mark Steyn, Dependence Day (there are multiple posts of it on the net)

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2011 at 12:06pm:



Doesn't sound great to me. Sounds like one needs to be intellectually stunted.

Quote:


So how did you come to those conclusions then?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:




Just like you, and everyone else, my 'senses' experience this world.
I look at the 'leaders' of men, in this present world.
I look at our [mankind's] 'typical' behaviour, in this world.
And i come to certain conclusions.

Quote:

Elizabeth Bennet
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE - Jane Austen


From my observation of my own behaviour, and the behaviour of many of my fellow human beings, i have to agree completely with the assessment of mankind, made by the Elizabeth Bennet character in P&P.
And there is no escape, i believe that we are all corrupted [spiritually] by our interaction with this world [and i include myself within that 'consequence' of experience].

We appear to come 'here' without a memory, and with little or no knowledge of what we will experience 'here'.
And as a consequence, imo, it is a given, that in our experience of this physical world, we will all make 'mistakes'.
IMO, that is due, to how we initially [all] come to learn, to react to our 'experiences', of this physical world - before we have full knowledge.
Before we have had the opportunity to meditate upon the deeper consequences of our choices.

And that is why i say that, imo, [in this 'life'] we appear to be playing in a 'fixed' game.
IMO, the 'deck of cards' we are playing with, in this 'life', have been [intentionally] stacked against us.
But for a very specific purpose.

To me, we appear to be spirits [spirit beings, like God, our creator], and to have been locked within this flesh, this physical body, for a 'season'.
Our bodies are made of earth [in Hebrew, the word Adamah = = earth, muck. ...the name of Adam, the first man, is an allegory].
As spirit beings, we have been [i believe], literally 'imprisoned', within this 'earth'.

IMO, their is a knowledge contained within 'the Bible', which reveals to us, both,
#1, our nature [our 'natural' tendencies], and,
#2, our purpose in being 'here'.

In our experience of this world, the world reveals 'something' to us, AND, the Bible can reveal to us, the righteousness of God.
But, will we choose to embrace the righteousness of God, OR, will we choose to join ourselves to the corruption of this world?

+++

To me, it appears that mankind's burden in his/her life, is to suffer the 'demands' made upon him/her, by this world.
And in fulfilling the 'worldly' demands made upon us, we are *forced* to make moral choices.
And, within our 'lifetime', [as children of our spiritual 'father'/creator] we are expected to be wise enough, to learn from our mistakes and from our 'mis-taken' choices.

To me, though i must presently live in this world, my choice is that i reject this world.
I reject its wickedness [the wickedness which many men choose, in their journey 'here'].
And i choose that i do not want to live here.
When we 'believe' in, and seek the righteousness of God, the spirit of God joins itself to us, to comfort us in this world.



John 8:23
And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 6:13pm:



http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Dependence-Day-6753

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:



Yes, morality is such a tricky subject.
Yes, it is so, so, difficult for us to know the difference between, what is right, and, what is wrong.
/sarc off



Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.



IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil.

The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned.

Why is that?

Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and thereby to reject what is evil.
Today, they and we, are taught that essentially, good and evil do not exist.

And we are taught that all people are equally like us.

Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'.

And instead, we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and even 'racist'.

IMO, those who take such a position are a part of the problem, a part of the wickedness.

Wickedness rejects responsibility for the consequences of it choices.
i.e.
Wickedness says;
"I can do, whatever i can do. And nobody has the right to criticise my 'morality'."

i.e.
Such people imagine that 'rules' don't apply to them.
They displace God, they displace his laws, his rules, his morality [Matthew 7:12, above].



Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god.]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences for my actions, what's the prob!!?"

IMO, 'freedom', **to this generation of mankind**, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.

Like our [community] leaders, they want authority and freedom, but then reject responsibility, when things go wrong.

No?


+++

To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will *cause* my bondage [through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free and happy.

'Cause and effect'.

It is not rocket science.

Some time ago, in a shopping centre i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a man's T-shirt;

"Its only illegal if they catch you."

Many people today seem to believe in such a 'moral' position.

And why?

Because today, children are taught essentially, that good, and, evil do not exist, but if anything is evil, it is 'intolerance'.




"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann


Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:


How did you come to that conclusion?