Left Hook

Foreword:

I cannot claim an elaborate academic pedigree. For this reason alone, this writing will likely be dismissed by the academic elite, who tend to see themselves as the repository of all human knowledge. Much as the Brahmins of India once did, it is they who now determine the correctness of said knowledge and then disseminate it in measured doses for the benefit of those who can afford it. But unlike the Brahmins, who based the root of what they purported to know on what springs from the well of divine inspiration, its western counterpart has in recent times sought to sever any spiritual ties to the human condition, including to all that pertains to thought. This, in my view, is a dangerous and shortsighted approach in that it leaves what today passes for correct knowledge to stand precariously alone and unsupported, openly inviting the temptation to mold and shape it by political concerns with nothing but self-serving interests at heart.

No doubt, much has been written to augment our innate understanding of the physical world as well as emotional states, economic and social theory, mathematics, etc., much of it clearly at odds with itself. Debates ensue in hidden places, often concluding without clear resolution. Academe has set itself up as the final arbiter of any such dispute. Once a ruling has been rendered, all views not in strict compliance with the ideologies of the highest bidder, are labeled heretical and summarily condemned. A current obvious example is the issue of Global Warming (which also intimates huge policy implications). Opponents of the theory are routinely given short shrift in any public forum even though enough evidence now exists that would point to it as being a hoax. This nevertheless illustrates the unequivocal power modern academe exhibits in determining the templates favored by the moneyed classes.

Any (scientific, social, economic, etc.) theory must by convention rest on specific assumptions. Academe has happily adopted the role of certifying the set of assumptions on which its house of playing cards has come to rest. When Galileo posited that the world is round, he shattered a significant assumption that had been previously certified by the elites of that time. He was roundly condemned for his scholarship. History would then go on to prove him right. Einstein too managed to shatter long-standing assumptions about our world by clever wordage, as did Freud, Marx among any number of men and women whom we currently regard as visionaries. Who is to say that today’s assumptions can not be challenged at some point in the future? It is interesting to note that nothing that is said about anything essentially changes it. Therefore, all our blather is just a way of talking – window dressing, if you wish. We can cheerfully engage in it without risk of substantial consequence to anything not strictly pertaining to the human pecking order.

(It must be remembered that political expediency always trumps performance. If someone were to set out to make a name for himself - as in some area of academic scholarship, for example - it must be done to show some benefit to those currently in power. Independent efforts that stray from this principle are invariably destined to fall by the wayside.)

Anything that we may define - even allocating considerable effort to the production of meaty academic tomes - can hardly be regarded as being more than mere shorthand for what we may choose to be our focus. It can, however, never encompass the entirety of any given subject as this would require an infinite number of printed volumes to accomplish. We do what is reasonable in this regard simply to create an event to act as a bridge between two separate and conscious minds with the hope of striking a sympathetic chord.

My own brush with academe was thankfully brief, consisting of public high school and four years of private college. It began with the notion that I would become a medical doctor, like my grandfather on my mother’s side had been. He survived two world wars (in Europe, that was no easy feat) and in the process also had the opportunity to save many lives. I loved my grandfather and the stories he told and, lacking any greater burning ambition, decided I would follow in his footsteps. Unfortunately, failing to summon sufficient self-discipline, I flunked my first test: Biology 101. My academic advisor told me that I would either have to repeat the course or leave the department. One of my grandfather’s cousins was a bishop of considerable renown. Rationalizing, that saving souls was roughly equivalent to saving lives, I switched over to the Religion Department where I would end up earning my undergraduate degree.

There was never a chance of pursuing higher academic goals. Life would intrude to block any such aspirations I might have had. The demands of raising a family required me to go out and work. Still, I must say, it turned out for the best. It brought me into close contact with what poets and writers refer to as the salt of the earth. These are the people who day after day get up and do an honest day’s work. Mindful of timetables, they keep our nation functioning, keeping us safe (at home and abroad), delivering and collecting our mail, stocking the shelves in our groceries, hauling the freight, guarding our prisons, cutting our hair, etc. At the same time, most are reasonably successful at raising their families and providing for their children better opportunities than they themselves might have had. I’ve had the privilege to work with people of many nations, opinions, religions and races. Some were brighter than others. Some were here legally; some not. The work itself put us all on an equal plane. It allowed me to approach my mates legitimately, not as one sent from on high to snoop into their business in order to justify some social theory or to satisfy some statistic. We were not out to save the world, after all; we simply focused on the work at hand. We improvised; learned new, more efficient ways to get the job done. Most took pride in what they did. Few viewed themselves as victims of the maze of regulations imposed by governmental and corporate bureaucracies – which were deemed appropriate because our business involved the distribution of large amounts of cash currency - not so much out of concern for their safety, but for the sake of (any) authority’s own incessant need to collect its pound of flesh to suit its own endless elitist fetishes. The experience left me largely optimistic about America as I recognized in my co-workers the strength and ingenuity that will ultimately save the country from the corrosive designs of its own ruling class.

Much is being said about ideology these days. It’s a term, largely empty of content, which is being used to separate people into competing political camps. It has had the effect of subjecting broad numbers of our own citizens to hatred and ridicule. Though, not an issue that particularly resonates with the working class, it has clearly produced gridlock in Washington. This, in my view, is an indication of an elite structure that is breaking apart under its own weight. My wife’s son recently brought home a whole stack of books of required reading. I looked through it and, sure enough, one of the volumes was titled, “Ideology”. I picked it up and started to read. In it, the author begins by recounting a story that unfolded in class during one of his lectures at some prestigious university; then, launching straightaway into Marx-Hegelian dialectic. I could not go on. Though I was mildly curious what this thing called “ideology” might actually mean, I knew I wouldn’t find the answer here.

As far as governance goes, there is in essence only left and right. The two will forever be at odds, one side claiming to draw its legitimacy from the State, the other claiming to draw its legitimacy from the people. The two poles are commonly defined as being ideological opposites. One views people as a resource to be managed; the other sees people as managing the government. All would agree that any resource is precious and must be thoughtfully tended. Who would dare claim the responsibility for safeguarding so precious a resource as people? Who would even be qualified to know what a people might require in order to prosper? Who would place him (or her)self in a position to allocate the tools any individual might need to build his or her dream? We haven’t even been able to claim consistent results with the crops we grow! It is no wonder that communism, on the far left of the spectrum, diffuses accountability within the ambiguous notion of party. Committees are always simplest to blame when something goes wrong. (And communism has exhibited so much more than its share of misery.) The extreme right too, courts disaster by openly subscribing to excess which invariably invites anarchy. Neither extreme were possible if people were just left alone to settle their differences in their own way - with only conscience as their guide - and then be allowed to go on to follow their bliss (as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying). The human form has never taken kindly to ideological straightjackets.

Ideology is like an airless tomb. It destroys nations by smothering thought. Discussing ideology is pointless, like discussing the making of roadside bombs with people who will never encounter them. Politics has become a poison. No doubt, it will develop into a full blown infection in due time. The only question to the dying is when.

A nation in which the people are hesitant or fearful is a nation that is gripped by ideology. And yet, any argument can be turned on its head. I have no doubt that I will be accused of being an ideologue by some. It is a predictable tactic (by people who judge their own position as weak) to accuse others of the very same sins of which they themselves are most guilty. Accusing others, itself, runs the risk of exposing one’s flanks. And that is how the tempest of intemperate rhetoric begins. Ignore their remarks. The purpose of this volume is not to accuse anyone of anything. By this exercise I am simply attempting to figure out how things work.