The Culture War: Two Fronts

First of all, it’s not a "War on Terror." Terror is simply a tactic in the overall culture war that might be described in the whole as primitivity vs. modernity. But that’s not all there is to it. There’s a concurrent culture war that I might loosely characterize as post-modernity vs. Americanism. This one isn’t being fought on the physical battlefield, yet, but it’s being fought nonetheless.

Those of us on the right, rational, and honest side of history are really in a two-front war.

To sum up the idea, Wal-Mart and the essential Americanism it so righteously symbolizes in so many important ways is so evil as to make Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, and al-Zarqawi palatable by comparison. Thoughts of suburban and rural inhabitants lined up in hoards to load up on all the latest bargains at rock-bottom prices, all without any regard or need whatever for their urban "superiors," makes visions of Middle-Eastern women as chattel more than tolerable.

This, folks, is the depth of the depravity we’re dealing with: at the intellectual level. It’s a hatred of what America truly symbolizes so profound that it will even be complicit in mass murder, should mass murderers stand against or in contrast to its number one nemesis: America. Had it not been for the many decades of the evil embodied by the USSR, I would not have even imagined the levels of internal and external dishonesty to which human beings can ascend. It is tantamount to a reversion to the most primitive human social order: tribalism. Allegiance to the tribe is paramount and absolute. Honesty, reality? Not primal. Not ultimately necessary. Intelligence is the value, not honest integration with the truth that human beings exist as beings of a certain immutable nature that supersedes all contrived social designs. Intelligence is amoral, which is to say that it is merely a tool: a tool for evil, or a tool for good. Very intelligent, can indeed mean: utmost evil.

But far more important is to understand why, this depth of hatred. The left, represented by the political culture that has dominated Europe for decades, and academia and the activist class in the U.S., should know one thing for certain: The America they despise and fight tirelessly and dishonestly against does not need them. Quite the contrary. In fact, for a half-century, the security of Europe relied almost exclusively upon the American soldier. The America symbolized by a culture that sees more value in Wal-Mart than, say, a gay-pride parade, relies upon the men of science and business who create and distribute the wealth in myriad ways that people desire.

Do note that every cause taken up by the left, at root, attacks the American ideal of productivity, self-reliance, self-direction, and self-made prosperity. So, at base, this "post-modernism vs. Americanism," as I’ve called it, could more fundamentally be thought of as parasites vs. producers. The left finds an ally in the primitives, who wish to essentially destroy American productivity, because productivity needs neither the primitive nor the parasites. The contrary is the truth. The left can never admit that their very survival depends upon the producers they so revile.

And here is where is all comes together, so pay attention: The natural result is that they, the left, must eternally attack the producers in order to appear superior; in order to foist unearned guilt, the road to control and influence. It’s a tenuous position, for, all the producers need do is lethally ostracize the parasitic left, by which I mean that they perish or become that which they despise: net producers.

Well, I’d intended to write something about this latest VDH paper.

An Intelligent Ruling on Design

Of course, within the narrow context of the US Constitution, Judge John Jones’ ruling is correct. There can be no rational dispute about that. The US Constitution prohibits State advocacy of any religion, and "Intelligent Design" is repackaged religion.

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and
accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive,
which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence"
establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere
re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a
Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years
ago.

I applaud Judge Jones on his objectivity.

In a wider context, children ought to be taught and instilled the values their parents would impart to them, at their own expense, of course, living with the full consequences of what they do (or don’t) teach them. But in our greater "wisdom," we have instead devised a system where everyone pays the cost of education for everyone but themselves; thus, no one owns it, no one has an absolute say in what’s taught, and no one is happy with the product or the result.

Rather than focusing on what we will learn, we focus instead on what we will "teach" to others. Our "wisdom" knows no bounds.

Pride and Prejudice

Beatrice & I walked down to Caper’s Loft Bar and Bistro last evening for a drink in the upstairs bar, then over to catch the 9:30 showing of Pride and Prejudice. Truth is, I’ve never paid much attention to Jane Austen, or her works, but I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed each of the 128 minutes of this film. Keira Knightly’s performance was just perfect as Elizabeth Bennett. Of Miss Bennett, Jane Austen once wrote:

"I must confess that I think her as delightful a
character as ever appeared in print, and how I shall be able to tolerate those
who do not like her at least, I do not know."

It would be hard for me to grasp how that could not have been their guiding light in making this film. Go see it.