Mainland person to Interpretation

“We believe that the following truths are self-evident: The creator created equal individuals and granted them certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right to pursue happiness.”

which is called the benchmark and soul of the entire Declaration of Independence.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the “Declaration of Independence”, he had two levels of readers. The first was the people who fled from Britain. They were a group of Puritans, a group of fighters who planned to establish the United States of America; the second was on the British mainland. People, especially those in the British royal family, are actually a group of Christians who believe in the Creator.

This means a major fact. The reason why the “Declaration of Independence of the United States” has great influence is because everyone has a great consensus: Christianity.

However, when we replace the context of discussion with the Chinese context, the problem becomes very complicated. For example, people have been divergent about the key words in this sentence.

People with liberal tendencies value equality and rights. People with conservative tendencies value the Creator. Therefore, to discuss this issue in the circle of Chinese scholars, it is necessary to further refine the phenomenon.

The vast majority of Chinese people value equality and rights from the perspective of national transformation. They believe that the significance of equality and rights is lower than that of national transformation. In their view, the significance of the country is greater than that of the individual. In other words, if the country’s transformation is successful, everyone’s equality and rights become possible.

A small number of Chinese believe that the meaning of the individual is greater than the meaning of the country, and suggests that individualism should be placed before the meaning of the country. In other words, there is only one person who believes a priori that equal rights of individuals exist for granted in the dimension of conceptual order, and there will be no compromise on this important benchmark proposition, and this constitutes a country’s public order, the country people dream of Transformation becomes possible.

The complexity of the phenomenon is far more than these. When Chinese people discuss conservatism, I find that people think that the object of conservatism is human freedom and individual rights, not the preservation of God’s revelation. This means that they have changed the posture of liberalism here, replaced it with a new concept of conservatism, and used the logic of conservatism to continue to develop their liberal value pedigree.

Only a handful of Chinese people try to return to the origin of conservatism to understand conservatism, and directly implement the benchmark and soul of conservatism in the Creator. Therefore, true conservatism must return to the biblical tradition and confidently believe that conservatism is to preserve the revelation of God’s word. The advantage of this is that you really return to the conservative order, but the higher and more specific requirements are that you must be familiar with the biblical tradition and even become a Christian who believes in the only God.

A conservative who doesn’t believe in God is a fake conservatism, a pragmatic conservatism, and once again fell into the Western style to understand conservatism, and even interpret conservatism indiscriminately.

After understanding the above analysis, we will look at the famous socialist core values ​​and find that they must also include such words as equality, freedom, and happiness. This means that their way of thinking is very similar to the way of thinking of Chinese-style liberalism, and even that of Chinese-style conservatism. They are all taking some American values ​​and trying to realize China’s prosperity and civilization. They completely negate the position of the Creator’s soul benchmark and conceptual benchmark in American values.

In other words, on the proposition of not knowing God, on the proposition of the Antichrist, the postures of Chinese-style liberalism, Chinese-style conservatism, and a certain organization are actually exactly the same. They may have huge differences on real issues, but in the sense of the Antichrist, they are firm allies.

I have repeatedly mentioned an interesting dilemma of Chinese scholars, or an absurd reading phenomenon: a strange phenomenon in which mainland intellectuals read Locke’s “On Government”, and people usually only have questions about the second volume of Locke’s “On Government”. Interested, but don’t read the first volume carefully. Interestingly, Locke’s book is not thick. Why does the Commercial Press have to print in two volumes? Perhaps the editor thinks that the first volume is always explaining the Bible. This may not be important to the Chinese who do not believe in Christianity. Looking at the editor’s words, as expected, “It is generally accepted that the next chapter is more theoretically valuable, so we published the second chapter in the 1960s. Now, we will translate and publish the first one in order to achieve the whole book.” Interestingly, I went to a physical bookstore or online bookstore to find the information about this book, and found that the second volume was basically out of stock, while the first volume was basically no one cares about it.

This is a huge problem. Intellectuals have usually stopped at the utility of facts over the years, and are indifferent to the renewal of ideas and the motivation behind them. This means that China’s intellectuals, even in terms of concept construction, have the one-dimensional instrumental rationality that Weber criticized. This is in line with the one-dimensional emphasis on development in China’s economy today and ignores the free construction that is closely related to the economy. In fact, It’s the same kind of error. The short-sightedness of the intellectual class and the short-sightedness of the government’s behavior have reached agreement on the same issue.

What I want to say is that on the Independence Day of the United States, a few Chinese people really understand what American independence means. Everyone is just using a topic, as a conversation piece, pretending to be knowledgeable and knowledgeable. Few people really settle down and think, and few people have the ability to see their own problems.