Sunday, January 26, 2014

Fight the good fight

With access to an outlet like this blog, I generally try to keep unsolicited opinions and assertions about 'controversial' topics to a minimum in other venues; at work, on social media sites, on the field, at casual social gatherings, etc. This stuff can consume a person if he's not careful. The cynical, unhappy, misanthropic curmudgeon stereotype exists because, presumably, it to some extent reflects reality.

Sometimes, though (and with increasing frequency--I am getting older after all!) I can't help myself. On facebook I recently passed along Heartiste's characteristically acerbic post on Wendy Davis and the decadence and decay of the Western world she so aptly illustrates. In so doing, I garnered censure from, among others, my own sweet mother, who wrote:
Do you really respect a writer who lowers himself to using that kind of vulgar name-calling to try and make his point? Sounds like a mad junior high kid without much of a vocabulary.
That junior high kids the country over would die to have a tenth of his experience in the field and that his vocabulary is quite expansive aside, this is hardly an uncommon reaction among the (proportionately shrinking) good, polite, instinctively traditionalist middle-American silent majority to the tact Heartiste takes. Yet on no point of substance does she disagree with him.

With that bit of context, my response to her:
Cultural Marxism's march through the institutions has been going on more-or-less unabated for half a century now, to the extent that nearly all of the major institutions of civil life in the West--major media, big business, the political classes, academia, popular culture, mainline religious denominations, etc (conveniently described in short-hand as the Establishment or the Cathedral)--are primarily run by people with self-described progressive views. These views are at odds with the time-tested, traditional social mores of most of the country's long-settled populations. Even with control of all these megaphones, the sort of irreverent vulgarity displayed by Heartiste is still far more characteristic of the Cathedral's votaries than it is of the traditional and mostly polite mainstream traditionalists who they so viscerally despise.

How has that civil approach worked out for us over the last several decades? I'd say not very well. Sometimes it is necessary to fight fire with fire--or, in the case of someone with an adroit command of the written word like that displayed by Heartiste, fire with greek fire. As ribald as his delivery may be, the collateral damage done by a societal acceptance--and, as Davis illustrates, even glorification--of single parenthood is orders of magnitude more destructive to the social fiber (not to mention financial viability) of the country than a colorful rearguard attempt to stigmatize such damaging behavior is.

Those who state the obvious and/or things that would have hardly been controversial--let alone considered beyond the pale--just a generation ago are now at serious risk of having their careers ruined and their lives destroyed. The situation is bad. The middle class is hollowing out at a staggering rate and the incorrigible--if grimly predictable--effects of demographic changes across so much of the Western world are only accentuating that.

Speaking figuratively, I don't think there is anyway we win the cultural war at this point, but I'm confident that our chances are more dismal still if we continue to fight it asymmetrically, absorbing all sorts of insulting hyperbole and slanderous ad hominem attacks while quixotically--if nobly--refusing to repay in kind. They have the more favorable terrain and nearly all of the big guns and yet they're far more willing to employ terrorist tactics than we, the desperately besieged, are.
Extending that martial metaphor a little further, it's a mentality--one of a spy behind enemy lines!--I've increasingly come to adopt. Fight the Cathedral and its forces wherever you are able to and in whatever capacity you're able to do so.

They are increasingly aware of the Dark Enlightenment. A person hardly takes note of an ant, even if the creature has hostile intent, because it's innocuous and thus can be safely ignored. A snake or a scorpion, however, spells trouble and, accordingly, gets harshly dealt with.

5 comments:

Orthodox said...

Heartiste has alluded to the fact that in a healthy society, guys like him would be punished for their behavior. He assumes, I think rightly, that he won't live to see the rise of a moral society, which allows him to selfishly pursue his sexual conquests while defending traditional society and patriarchy.

Aurini said...

I strongly recommend the Shakespearean play "Titus Andronicus" - or the film adaptation "Titus."

Titus fights honourably the whole way through the film... but he stops fighting like a Republican halfway through.

The Honour Red Pill: fighting Honourably means following your own standards, NOT those set by your enemies.

Audacious Epigone said...

Orthodox,

That strikes me as a quite accurate assessment.

Aurini,

I've read that it's one of Shakespeare's worst, which should've piqued my curiosity. I'll check it out.

Jehu said...

Orthodox,
Heartiste would alter his behavior in accord with the new incentive structure presented to him by a functional healthy society.
To borrow from James Q Wilson
Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people. And many people, neither wicked nor innocent, but watchful, dissembling, and calculating of their chances, ponder our reaction to wickedness as a clue to what they might profitably do.
--James Q. Wilson (1975)

Heartiste/Roissy is simply an unusually self-aware and honest example of the 3rd class.

Anonymous said...

Heartiste would alter his behavior in accord with the new incentive structure presented to him by a functional healthy society.

That's the line the more intellectual among crooks normally take, yes. And the kind of societies where they would play by the rules are usually indistinguishable from ones where they can steal anything, except that its legal.

Generally psychometric research comes down on the side of people who display ludus "game playing" promiscuous love styles just being psychopathic, damaged, dysfunctional, surviving usually in a parasitic way while lacking any true expertise or arete to offer. They're marginal and probably born that way. They're not a product of their environment - don't fool yourself that they'd change when the rules change. That's just another way they glorify themselves and use it as a tool for their own advantage.