Note: I wrote the following during the Bush years. We already knew that communists were active in our government. What we didn’t know was that our next president would be one as well.
--------------------------------------
We are doing our best to export our religion to other lands. As one mall after another erupts on distant shores, some are enthralled while others accuse us of exerting undue influence and undermining tradition. We, who blithely return time and time again to tithe at the altar of Macy’s or Saks 5th Avenue (I could name others), without ever having taken the trouble to understand other cultures, are simply astounded when they then turn their guns against us.--------------------------------------
Here in India, ordinary commerce is almost entirely need-based. People go to the shops only if they should actually need something. As such, Indian shops tend to give the appearance of being rather disorganized with stuff all over the place. More often than not, a shop will have no parking facilities; neither will there be sidewalks suitable for what we in the West would call
window shopping. Merchants don’t try to entice you into buying something you may never have thought of getting by displaying it prominently or even attractively. In fact, with all space so severely limited as it is in much of Asia, the customer must generally ask for what he wants. Someone at the shop will then be sent to get it. He or she will make sure to first wipe off the dust before handing it over to the cashier for packaging.
This is, of course, quite different from the West where shopping is indulgence-based. It is common for people to view shopping as a social outing. Often, people will venture out to malls simply for something to do, having virtually no idea what, if anything, to buy. It is only after having arrived - where a variety of attractively lit stores beckon customers with seductive displays - that they will allow themselves to be tempted to spend their money.
Such desultory behavior may be regarded as the height of obscenity by some. With so many deprived and starving all around the world, they say, such frivolous self-indulgence is an insult to common decency. They may have a point. I recently heard of one of India’s super-rich buying a Rolls-Royce which he would park just across from a slum (next to which his business was located). I personally would regard this as a somewhat vulgar display of a serious psychological condition. On the other hand, I cannot in good conscience fault the people who have built their livelihood on the production of a car that is truly exquisite; one, that may even be considered as an example of high contemporary art.
-------------------------------------
Some time back, an old friend invited me to meet her in New York. She and her husband had flown in from California to attend a conference relating to his field of work. I had not seen the woman in some thirty years. In fact, the last time was during my first trip to India in 1974. We had been corresponding only sporadically by mail since then.
After some initial pleasantries in which we exchanged compliments on each other’s appearance (which held true in her case; not in mine), we struck out in order to find something to do. Barely a block away from the hotel, we chanced upon a gallery. All three of us had an interest in art (especially photography), so we decided to spring for the tickets.
Inside were large and small photo collages, strikingly presented, depicting scenes from the Leninist/Stalinist eras of the former Soviet Union. At some point, while going from frame to frame, carefully considering these now slightly yellowed images, I asked my hosts,
“I wonder whether the organizers of this event envisioned it as critique or celebration?” Frankly, I was confused as to why anyone would sponsor such an exhibit in the first place. [I would have felt a similar reticence to embrace the concept had I been attending an exposition of Castro’s (happy) Cuba.] As far as I could tell, this had very little to do with art. Neither could it have been construed as an a balanced historical account in that the photos and clippings displayed here were taken solely from state controlled news organs, which tended to ignore some of the more dubious consequences of communist rule. The only other option remaining was to view this exhibit for what it clearly was:
propaganda. I was wondering what my friends might be thinking about all this.
The answer came without hesitation,
“Celebration, of course!”“I wonder if they (the organizers and sponsors of the exhibition) had given any thought at all to the 20 million murdered as a consequence of the Communists capturing power and then maintaining it,” I ventured at the risk of alienating myself totally.
I received no reply. I recognized the tactic. My own view had been effectively cut down; marginalized.
After this, we went downstairs where 4’ X 6’ glossy photographs and video clips depicting military action in Iraq were on parade. These showed U.S. soldiers shooting guns while ordinary citizens cowered nearby. The point was well made: Bush is the worst President ever for having caused this horror. The balance of the equation, however, was curiously absent, leaving the entire (war) display without proper context. Perhaps, the answer to my wonderment in this regard lay upstairs where - seemingly unrelated to present nightmares - nevertheless, no deaths were alleged.
Perhaps, all things being equal, it is quite appropriate that the leader of a nation be judged by the numbers killed during his (or her) watch. Perhaps, all the peoples of the world can agree on just this much; exempting, of course, the added diversion of massaged numbers and outright lies. Reading the headlines day to day, however, does not indicate that the murder of 20 million (or any number) - resultant of ethnic cleansing, plain hatred, or just for the mere convenience of it - is still considered grounds for condemnation, much less intervention. As a substitute, we have perfected the art of applause and (the closely-related gesture of) hand-wringing.
I could tell that my host’s mindset had not changed in thirty years. Like so many of our
“educated” elite, she still clung to the utopian notions of her youth. When did reading and evaluating history go out of fashion? Have there not been books written that clearly chronicle the ultimate, often spectacular failures of communism everywhere it’s been tried? Add to this the tremendous toll in lives lost that frequently accompany the much-vaunted revolutions that invariably kick it off; plus the additional cost to human dignity at the expense of repression, which is commonly required just to maintain such a faithless system. Since when did the nuance in explaining the purpose of a fence (or wall) - to keep people in, as opposed to keeping people out - become irrelevant? What has communism ever been able to offer its devotees except high-sounding prose proclaiming utopian social theory, which in real life quite possibly applies only in a very limited sense to the nuclear human family?
The poor will always find communism attractive not realizing that, if they had their wish, they would never be able to rise above what an (essentially anonymous) State prescribes for them, limiting both, freedom of expression as well as ownership of the goods they might desire, even while being abundantly endowed with of the God-given talents to realize such wants. In addition, they do not understand that under such constraints, as are entirely predictable under communist rule, the shelves are likely to be empty in any case. They will initially applaud the toppling of the
high and mighty - giving way to a baser instinct - even as their own opportunity to similarly blossom is cut off at the root.
The young too, will find the opportunity to upset the applecart forever engaging. Just starting out, they have as of yet no significant stake in the future. Indeed, lacking the concept of time, they view themselves as immortal. Therefore, they see themselves as having little or nothing to lose. Perhaps there could even be a chance to pick up something for nothing in the scramble that is bound to follow any upheaval. They seldom recognize that their own impulse to steal stems from the same root that motivates the man who has painstakingly built up his (apple) business over time into an entity that now affords him a legitimate living. Quite dismissive of his sweat and tears, they take his personal effort lightly, equating it glibly with the luck of the draw. What they fail to consider is that the apple seller (short of being shot), will right his cart and continue the business as before; while the apple thief is doomed to continue stealing until someone takes the initiative to break his fingers.
(Similar thinking applies to those seeking the thrill of enlightenment by chemical means, rather than by submitting to years of study, discipline, and concentration.) Without a foundation in ethics, the young are unable to discern the difference between the right way of doing things and the wrong way, seeing only the immediate gratification which, taken by itself, tends to be rather insignificant in comparison to the path (to reach anywhere) which commonly amounts to 99% of any worthwhile effort.
But, what is in it for the rich? It is not the young or the poor, who run the communist propaganda mills, worldwide. It is not the young or poor, who demonize capitalism in our classrooms. It is not the young or the poor, who badmouth our government’s best efforts at every turn from the safety of their Hollywood mansions - or, worse yet, from the dance halls on foreign shores – all, for the sake of cheap applause. It is not the young or the poor who deride elected officials at every opportunity from opposition platforms and on TV talk shows. It is not the young and the poor who proclaim their solidarity with America’s self-proclaimed enemies. It is not the young or the poor who consistently lobby for tax increases while their own fortunes are locked away offshore or in tax-exempt foundations.
Even as salaries remain commensurate with what an individual can be expected to contribute to the bottom line, there comes a point at which money becomes meaningless to the wealthy. Often, commendably, guilt creeps in as the perceived suffering of the less talented takes its toll on the enjoyment of one’s money. At the same time, the arrogance of elitism is also likely to take hold. This is by no means a proper response to guilt; it is not even consistent with the tenets of compassion. It is merely a diversionary tactic designed to massage one’s ego even further. Elitism stems from the notion that any one individual, by virtue of his (self-proclaimed) superior intellect, can dictate what others should or should not do. It culminates in hundreds of crusades for ever-increasing regulations involving everything from cell phones, to tobacco, to guns.
One of the most intrusive tools ever devised to compel a citizenry to tow the line is taxation. Ostensibly, to raise money for public projects, it almost always ends up bleeding over into social engineering. This particular area of governance has become a virtual Disneyland for elitists of all stripes. Forget about streamlining the tax code, which at last count was at least a zillion pages long. Politicians will never consent to giving up the masturbatory thrill of engaging these levers of illusion, thereby continuing to draw division where none exists. Dismissed is the notion of the general populace as a vital, intelligent organism, perfectly capable of managing its own affairs in full accord with intrinsic economic and social laws, forever driving ahead and ultimately raising all boats.
A frequent complaint about capitalism by the Left is that, by its inherent competitive nature, it creates both winners and losers. The fact that, under capitalism, even losers are never denied the opportunity to raise themselves up by their bootstraps is conveniently overlooked. The bibliography section at the local library contains hundreds of examples of losers who have gone on to become winners. The tactic works, however, in that it manages to recruit thousands who find a home in victimhood. These are people who, crippled by their rage or crushed by disappointment, are either unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to improve their lot. They find it infinitely more convenient to rail against straw dogs from the comfort of utter anonymity. Normally ignored, even shunned for exhibiting chronic ill humor, they nevertheless are courted at measured intervals because they too have a vote which they are presumed to exercise.
Most successful societies have always been ones that make room for both, winners as well as losers. The winners are always prepared to think outside the box. They envision the things that will eventually become useful to all. When flat screen TV’s first came to the stores, they cost $10,000 a pop. It was a product produced solely for the rich. The rich bought it and the prices came down. (Had nobody been able to afford it initially, the whole idea would have been still-born.) Prices continued to come down as more and more people are came aboard. Homebuilders are thinking ahead, now designing many new houses with indentations in living room walls for the express purpose of creating a specific space for the installation of home theater systems.
This story repeats itself again and again with each new invention or gadget that enters the market. Take cell phones, for example. At first, these too cost more than what most of us could readily afford. Now, nearly everybody uses them. Sometimes I think I’m the only hold-out left. Just the other day I saw a common laborer, dressed in nothing more than a loincloth, talking on his cell phone while walking barefoot on his way to work. With everything we use to make our lives more productive or enjoyable, it took the rich to prime the pump initially. These are the very same people who, the Left now insists, must either be shot or taxed to death.
Elitism always runs contrary to faith. Market forces, though marginally predictable, are largely beyond the control of any one individual or ideology. The credit for any good that may come of a healthy economy must rightly go to all those participating in it. Politicians tend to shun the idea of having no effective role to play in something so vital - apart from a willingness to leave it alone.
The most effective lure of communism, however, is that it does away with God which is mistakenly believed to free man from his conscience. The more fervently sinners proclaim their sin as acceptable - even sacred - the greater is the discord that builds both internally and externally. The chasms thus created are epic – a politician’s dream!
Religion is the single most formidable roadblock to the spread of communism worldwide. People, happily confident in their spiritual core, are not so easily swayed by empty rhetoric. They recognize the greater hand behind appearances and tend not to look to other men to solve their own problems. As such, they are apt to behave in accordance to the strictures set forth by their faith. These generally claim a moral basis that goes well beyond two-dimensional judicial fiat in that they, in addition to prosecuting actual offences, also give due weight to (right) intent(ion), in the Buddhist sense.
One of the very first acts any communist government executes is to ban religion. It has been demonstrated that once a people’s spiritual moorings have eroded, they are more easily manipulated. A worldwide communist resurgence has been underway for some time now. With the fall of the Soviet Union, communism did not go away. Its followers simply regrouped and went about organizing their movement from within the institutions that have traditionally defined Western democratic values. As such, they have succeeded in recruiting the intellectual class to attack the religious at every turn, accusing them of extremism, intolerance, and outright stupidity. Men and women of faith are routinely ridiculed in the press as well as in the arts. A crucifix immersed in urine, once prominently displayed at a major New York museum, has become the symbol for the drive to strip religion of its gravitas. It is now no longer fashionable to believe in God; the sacred and the profane have been deliberately fused into one amalgam that can be regarded as neither profane nor sacred. In a competitive world, where the edge is sometimes difficult to pin down, it is often easiest to gloss over one’s own deficiencies by identifying oneself with the labels that define the
Zeitgeist.
Today, the only religion that is immune from criticism is Islam. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. Therefore, one never hears Western intellectuals uttering a single harsh word even against Islam’s worst excesses. And God help those who do!
For those desperate enough to cast off the chains of conscience, communism claims to provide the solution:
Do away with religion, and you will be able to continue living the immoral lifestyle that has become a painful habit to so many. There is no need to be reborn, no cause to worry about punishment in the afterlife. God is dead; you can relax. There is no one here to judge you. In return, of course, you must give up your soul. It is a small price to pay (nothing at all, really) for cradle-to-grave healthcare; incessant propaganda (excuse me, what I meant to say was “entertainment”); guaranteed employment during your productive years (only, we decide where you work); guaranteed housing (only, we decide where you will live), etc. We will even provide you with uniforms once you have rendered yourself worthy by ratting out enough of your friends. We will, of course, make sure that nobody has any more (or less) than you do. We will all be equal, so that nobody will have anything to bitch about.Assuming that anyone would be so gullible as to actually welcome such governance, he would soon find that, although the church has been bombed and the priest shot, his conscience has still not been quieted. A sin is still a sin, and all the sedatives in the world can do nothing to change that. He will soon enough begin to feel duped, much like the suicide bomber who fully expected the favors of seventy-two virgins after blowing himself to smithereens in some pizza parlor in downtown Jerusalem.
I now live in a place (Tamil Nadu, India) that boasts of being one of the oldest continuous cultures in existence. I have seen its dances, its temples; I have heard its music. To my comparatively uninitiated eyes and ears, it all looks and sounds so benignly chaotic. Only, it’s not! In dance, every flutter of the eyelids signifies something, to say nothing of the hands and feet; every shade of color used to paint the icons that grace the (temple) gopuram has meaning; in song, every note is carefully choreographed to cleave to a precise protocol that has existed for centuries.
This leads me to conclude that nothing is random, though we often would prefer to think otherwise. Every religion has its protocol. Communism, for those who believe in it, is nothing less than a religion. Its protocol is well developed. The fervor with which it is promoted rivals Islam’s. It behooves every American to recognize the protocol of communism; to understand what is happening and why. The trashing of (other) religion(s), for example, is essential to the protocol of communism; as is the trashing of the traditional family; as is the idea of income redistribution through taxation; as is the casual dismissal of law and borders; as is the trivializing of education, particularly as relates to the study of history. I could go on, but the intent of this writing is not curatorial. Others have done so far more effectively without having felt compelled to take a stand.
First, a people must decide what kind of world they want their children to inherit. If they happen to be advocates for change, they have to be prepared to fight, realizing that there are many more who are perfectly content with the status quo. Those, who believe in upholding their traditions, too have to become engaged, knowing there are those who would want them crushed. Once a decision has been taken, one must commit oneself. No movement, even one that seeks to preserve what presently exists, has room for armchair cynics.
I realize that my views here run contrary to those commonly held within the halls of modern academia where logic - for some time now - has been stood on its head in an effort to support the insupportable. Were I asked to speak on just about any campus in America today, any number of rabble would immediately mobilize to disrupt my presentation. The nation’s centers of higher learning no longer tolerate divergent views. They have become insular and, in many ways, out of touch with the general public, which is admittedly divided on issues but still quite capable of conducting a reasonable debate.
When I attended college in the early 70’s, my school and most others like it prided itself in its effort to impart the discipline of critical thinking.
“Consider everything” ran the mantra,
“and then draw your own conclusion.” Today, everything academic is spoon-fed with a hard left slant. Even scientific research is has been politically poisoned.
Global warming, for example, is routinely used to bash the U.S., accusing it of being the primary cause of imminent world-wide ecological collapse. The thrust of this attack is two-fold: First, to turn public opinion against government policies designed to protect the country’s economic base; and, second, to exact reparations on behalf of nations deemed victims of such policies. It is always an effective propaganda tool to broadcast the anguished faces of flood or draught survivors and then claim that your neighbor’s SUV has caused this and every other horror.
Contrary (scientific) views on global warming, specifically as relates to the nature of its cause, never see the light of day as such research never receives funding or media attention. How many are aware, for instance, that the ice caps on Mars are melting (as well)? (See National Geographic News: “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says”, by Kate Ravilious, February, 28th 2007) (The) last I heard, America has not yet been there to sell even a single automobile. Would this not indicate that something far greater than mankind’s mere exhalations is in play here? Perhaps, as Habibullo Abdussamantov - head of Space Research at St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory - suggests, it’s all simply a matter of the sun getting hotter!
Logic be damned! Balance? Reason? Who needs it? It is precisely because of such blatant disregard of politically incorrect fact in our schools that many of our children are no longer motivated to invest in America by making the effort to learn the three R’s; much less, study the sciences, history and civic responsibility. Indeed, many urban schools no longer offer such disciplines. If kids come away with anything at all after graduation, it is likely to be with the moronic conviction that their country sucks because it single-mindedly sets out to destroy the planet with its wars and toxic emissions. In addition, they are likely to believe that their duly elected leader is a crook for stealing the election from another, simply for the opportunity to attack a peaceful nation for dark and sinister motives involving either oil or Israel or both. 9/11/02, on which date almost three thousand Americans were murdered in cold blood, is never discussed or shown on TV (except in the context of the President himself having had a hand in it), lest it arouse suspicions of America’s legitimate obligation to defend herself.
Leftists love controversies. Most are fabricated out of whole cloth: feigned outrage over innocuous comments; unsubstantiated leaks; forged documents; etc. They effectively use the
useful idiots in the press to stoke the fires of every arson attack (often attributable to their own) that serves to weaken trust in American institutions. Good economic news during Republican administrations is never reported without caveat. Seven unruly recruits putting women’s panties on imprisoned terrorists’ heads occupy the headlines for months. Incidents, involving the beheading of American soldiers on video tape and later found lying disemboweled in some Baghdad gutter, receive barely a mention. A (former) left-leaning President, having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, gets a pass while those questioning his character are tagged with the p(olitically) c(orrect) sin of intolerance.
By this kind of coverage, the Left hopes to destroy the nation’s will to survive and collapse in on itself. Not a day goes by without some politician seeking favorable press coverage by vocally lobbying for America’s defeat in its war on terror. At the same time, not a word of published criticism is ever directed at America’s enemies for fear of offending like-minded allies. The stoning of women, for example, is perfectly alright with the feminists, all of whom hate Bush (or any man). And PETA, with well-established leftist credentials, doesn’t raise an eyebrow, even when confronted with the Muslim practice of cutting off an animal’s leg for food and then keeping it alive so that the rest of its meat will be kept fresh for subsequent meals.
Coming from another planet and consulting the newspapers for clues as to what goes on here, one is sure to get the impression that America is indeed the center of all that is hateful; that all the other nations exhibit nothing short of harmonious perfection, and that everyone would live happily ever after if only America would just go away.
The end game is to turn public opinion against an America that many see as having become too successful. It is an attempt to plant the seeds of doubt in the electorate, so that they might be coerced into changing direction. In the rest of the world, this has already happened. I talk to my father (who has settled in Brazil) several times a year. His anti-Americanism is always just barely contained and bordering on the pathological. On the other hand, I constantly meet Brazilians who have emigrated to the U.S., hoping to escape the political and social chaos there, where armored cars are now required to ferry one’s kids to and from school. In my father’s eyes, the reasons for Brazil’s shortcomings can always be traced back to America’s doorstep.
In India, the welcome I experienced here 30 years ago is no longer quite as enthusiastic. This is no big mystery. Several mornings a week, I too read Paul Krugman’s New York Times column in
The Hindu, our local paper. Unlike in America, where the majority of people have very little interest in news, every political development at home and abroad is closely watched. Indian’s think that President Bush is either dumb or evil. America’s own news outlets trumpet both positions daily. We literally export our own bad press. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quotes Noam Chomsky from the floor of the United Nations, for God’s sake!) Indians (as well as Brazilians) do not have access to conservative commentaries as Americans do on their radio dials. I recently spoke to a senior news assessor for Reuters here in India. He is a thoughtful, gentle man in his seventies with several lifetimes of experience under his belt. He was unaware of something that every American news junky knows: (that)
The New York Times slants left.
At this moment, America finds herself engaged on two separate fronts. One is the much-maligned war on terror. Precisely because the country has been unprepared to conduct a campaign of this type, it has taken it a long time to own up to the threat. 9/11 forced America’s hand. It served to provoke 60% of Americans into supporting some sort of response. Even so, the tools at America’s disposal have shown themselves to be woefully inadequate to the task. Geared to fighting conventionally backed armies, U.S. forces are finding themselves at loggerheads when pitted against determined ideologies that know no borders.
If asked, Americans would agree overwhelmingly that they would not wish to face the option of either, submitting to shariah law or die. Yet, roughly, a vocal quarter of our population sees the Islamic threat also as an opportunity to advance their own lifestyle agendas. As such, they are quite willing to gamble away their nation’s advantage on the global stage in a dangerous, time-sensitive farce.
This brings us to the second front, where the left wing has made its home. It consists of a broad variety of single-issue groups who have banded together, united only by their hatred of America as it is presently configured. The most prominent (largely anonymous) presence among these are the communists. Lacking overt support in a country where the poorest of the poor tend to be overweight, they have had to form alliances with people they would ordinarily despise. Among these are blacks, gays, what is left of the women’s lib crowd, environmentalists, one-world advocates, and anyone else who might be dissatisfied in some way and can get ten people and a fax machine together under one roof. Marching in lock-step, they have effectively taken over the weaker of the two political parties to drive agendas that are aimed at disfiguring the nation. Now even within the normally dynamic chambers of Washington governance, America finds herself hopelessly divided, allowing a whole host of desperately pressing issues to fester and become cancerous. Everything from foreign policy to healthcare, to immigration (among many other concerns) is currently spiraling out of control with no one prepared to take the reigns. This may be indicative of the failure of the executive branch to articulate a clear and compelling vision, as some analysts suggest. Others see it more accurately, perhaps, attributing the current legislative gridlock to a President who has been under siege from his first day in office by an opposition party that has never acknowledged his legitimacy and, as such, refuses compromise on any issue for the sole purpose of denying him a legacy. It is the same tactic used by separatists and insurgents the world over who seek to win wars of attrition by keeping their targets destabilized. They are likely at some point to gain the sympathetic nod of so-called moderates who wish to appear heroic without risk or sacrifice. After it has become abundantly clear that compromise is never a viable option, a significant number of these (moderate) appeasers can be counted on to switch sides and betray their own cause. This is the chink, once it has been pried from the levy, that will open the floodgates, yielding ever greater concessions (including legitimacy) to the undeserving, certainly enough to continue the revolt (until, as has happened recently in Nepal, where the Maoists are now in a position to demand the crown).
As much as the ultimate outcome of the war on terror is critical to America’s future, so too is her ability to recognize the communist threat from within. Both are ideologically driven, and require an effective response. Guns and bombs no longer work. Insofar as we give lip service to the need for changing the hearts and minds of our enemies, we are on the verge of admitting failure in this objective as well. Even as our intellectual class tie themselves into knots, attempting to tutor the world in our failings, the lesson appears to be lost on the millions who continue to stream across our borders in record numbers.
It is the rouge element among us that must be exposed; their agendas revealed. This is never easy, as transparency is not a prominent feature of communist protocol. At the same time, we must protect our liberties at all cost. These are, and will continue to be, the source of our strength. Given the assaults we are facing on every front, freedom of speech will increasingly come under pressure. As we have seen, already the Left is loath to entertain conservative views on college campuses and in its outlets in the media. Make no mistake, this is sign of weakness. We, as Americans, cannot stoop to preventing an ideological opponant from getting his message out. Neither can we dispense with proper elections. What we can do is confidently counter any false or weak argument with the truth as we live it. The truth, so the saying goes, always wins out in the end. As such, truth equates with power. Some may feign power by deception. They can never succeed, for even the weakest among us who accept their weakness without equivocation are bound to win any legitimate struggle when pitted against another who is rift with delusion. Therefore, it is up to those running for office to be extremely articulate in pitching their case. Conservatives will no doubt find the job more daunting, given the media bias against them.
2008 will feature the next major election in America. To date, countless millions have been spent by the candidates (mostly on cosmetics), already guaranteeing a severely skewed result. Already a theme has been selected.
“Change” appears to have become the battle cry to accompany the political pageantry.
“Change to what?” continues to echo in my own mind and in the minds of anyone whose capacity to penetrate issues may be only marginally greater than the thickness of an oil slick on water. What change is it that the people would find so attractive? Is it a change from the policies that have assured our prosperity; our position of influence in world affairs? Has our loathing of success become so deep that we are now willing to risk emulating failure (just for something different)? Are we prepared to dispense with our faith in markets in favor of (cigar) smoke-filled backroom solutions crafted by greedy, self-centered politicians who distort the Constitution to conform to their elitist designs? Have we forgotten our history lessons?
Countries like, Cuba, Russia, China and (recently) Venezuela (now closely aligned with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe) are routinely given favorable coverage in our press. Isn’t it strange that none of those advocating in favor of such places on our air and in our newspaper columns have any intentions of packing up and going to live there? – but I digress.
The results of the 2008 election will give us a clearer picture of America’s current disposition toward itself and toward the world at large. It will likely show a greater willingness to appease the Left. It is doubtful that the voters themselves will see it that way. Most are simply intrigued by the prospect of seeing a woman or a black man at the helm (something that has never happened before but has suddenly become a distinct possibility). It is this season’s Democrat male candidate’s (dare I say it) entirely cosmetic skin tone that has intrigued most of the world’s people of color who for some unexplained reason place a high premium on the lighter shades to the exclusion of any other consideration including proven ability or ideology. On the other side, few will realize that Bush is no longer in the running and automatically cast their vote against anyone with the letter “R” next to his or her name (in brackets).
The notion of one world, hobbled and sullied by mankind, remains. Beginning in the ‘60’s, militant movements, ostensibly formed for the purpose of protecting the earth, gained traction and support within significant political quarters. It is no accident that there has been no oil exploration since in America. Neither have enough power-generating facilities been built - not to mention oil refineries - even as we are rapidly approaching the limits of the energy the country can provide for continued economic expansion. With regard to oil, we already are heavily dependent on nations some of whom have chosen to exploit our dependence to influence foreign policy decisions that often run contrary to our own self-interests.
At the same time, reams of propaganda were routinely distributed to our schools showing pristine acreage side-by-side with less-than-flattering photographs of man-built structures, all designed to elicit responses of panic and shame among those in their impressionable years who, with the same stroke, are prevented from appreciating the miracle of their heated homes in winter and a/c in summer. Neither are the benefits of economic development explained as it relates to a population’s general well-being.
Still, today, Americans are constantly besieged by the notion that they are complicit in the largest, most successful economy in the world - not within the context of worthy achievement, but - as representative of the twin evils of unchecked greed and gluttonous appetites. This strategy has been roundly effective in that if one were to conduct a survey in most American classrooms today, one would find that 100% of the students believe in Al Gore’s
'global warming' theory and that it is almost entirely America’s fault. 50% of those, even while believing, simply don’t care. 50% of those who do care would never consider traveling overseas because they are ashamed of being American. A significant percentage of those no longer salute the American flag in school and at sporting events. A somewhat lesser number, perhaps, could feel entirely comfortable wearing obscene or anti-American t-shirts in public. A handful would not be averse to joining forces with al-Qaeda in its on-going struggle against the West. Thankfully, only a few would actually consider bringing guns to school with the intent of blowing their classmates and teachers away. Such is the state of the American public and private education today. It gets even worse when we come to realize that the country’s future hinges on those who simply couldn’t care less.
All of us have faithfully followed the progression of ever increasing violence in our schools. After each horrific incident, a call for the greater restrictions on legally obtained firearms is raised. This is a standard, though misguided, response by knee-jerk anti-gun activists who continue to ignore the fact that such behavior is consistently underwritten by school curricula as well as by mass media ideologues who would like nothing better than to see America crushed and the red flag raised over the White House. While we wallow in guilt of our own success, the rest of the world is already chomping at the bit to relieve us of our prosperity by any number of UN-inspired schemes, unbowed by any possible consequences to polar ice caps. Even this base, but entirely human, impulse is viewed by those of the most radical persuasion through the twisted lens in which America appears as deranged arsonist wantonly igniting the fires of capitalism around the world.
Existing under our myopic condition of profound innocence, we keep harboring the illusion that all the world’s people are exactly like us: reasonably well informed and free to take decisions. As we find ourselves habitually bored to tears with our neat suburban homes and cardboard cut-out families - believing that nothing can fundamentally shake us free from our loveless obligations; that public policy reversals are eternally possible even if we do happen to slip up in the voting booth - we tend to discount the sacrifice of the heroes who in good conscience have made it all possible for us. We have become so impatient for a cause that would test our limits, even to the point of tacitly embracing the causes of our enemies. In a similar vein, we never think of the citizens of failed nations - encumbered with less effective heroes (perhaps) - who are fated to suffer decades of dictatorial oppression on one hand or utter chaos on the other, except (of course) within the context of a legitimate choice they are presumed to have made. We never think of our own laws and taxes which, once passed by our legislators, are almost never officially repealed, even decades after the need for them has passed, thus illustrating the undying monster of anything officially put to paper. We think of ourselves as being eternally exempt from brutal and corrupt governance by the sheer force of our unspoken will. As such, we tend to see suicide bombings abroad, the stoning of women, beheadings, genital mutilations, gulags and the like as quaint, idiosyncratic cultural expressions (similar to the French custom of men having mistresses and Germans eating Bratwurst and drinking beer) to be read about in obscure volumes in the warm comfort of wood-paneled rooms.
Some time ago, I was watching a television program based on the book,
THE POWER OF MYTHS by Joseph Campbell. In it the puberty rites of some far-flung island tribe was shown in graphic detail. It seems they pick the prettiest girl and the handsomest of the boys in their midst and compel them to make love inside a structure specially built for the occasion. At some point, others pull out the supports and the roof, laden with stones, collapses, crushing the couple inside while the entire village looks on. It was presented without comment. “It is not one world,” Paul Harvey continues to say
Who are we to judge, anyway? Our media tells us every day that we too have blood on our hands (starting with the Indians). Our every exhaled breath is said to pollute the atmosphere, threatening the existence of everything that requires air to sustain itself. We are urged to forgo having children (to reduce our personal carbon footprint) as a trade-off to taking yearly Caribbean vacations. Driving our cars to the supermarket or to work is said to endanger polar bears and people living in low-lying island nations. Our factories and power plants are said to cause draughts in Africa and killer rains in Sumatra. Our policy to protect Israeli Jews from genocide risks countless generations’ blind hatred towards us, resulting in endless terrorist threats at home and abroad. Why bother to protect ourselves? Do we, as self-proclaimed blight on humanity, even deserve a place at the table? (Make no mistake, the condemnation of ourselves originates from within our own borders, from where it is then taken and enthusiastically echoed abroad.)
Those comfortably ensconced in their ivory towers calmly expound,
“Let them launch rockets; crash planes; let them snipe at our heels. Let them draw blood. What is three thousand “Hitlers” killed at the World Trade Center when put up against so many millions from around the globe who are storming our gates to demand their just revenge? They are, after all, the innocent victims of our own racism, exploitation and oppression.” In a godless world we can only bow and scrape and hand out Clintonesque pardons for crimes (of “mismanagement” never) committed by those who may well be incapable of committing crimes simply by virtue of their (victim) status.
“By our own definition, only the powerful can be guilty. It’s our clever way of removing the words ‘enemy’ and ‘evil’ from the lexicon and adding the concept of ‘surrender’ to our options.” And the students, showing that they had understood the lesson, shout in unison,
“Let someone else be powerful so we can be at ease and fade into the background (surely, while reading Margaret Meade without daring to comment) as the sweat of our fathers is fussed over and divided (like Jesus’ robe) to be doled out to the poor who will now presumably be happy”.It’s come to be engraved in the spirit of our age that the time is ripe for America to disappear. The world can no longer afford to co-habit with a country that by its mere presence exposes corrupt governance for the spectacular failure it all too often exhibits.
Equality is the buzzword for a trend that is sweeping the land masses. What the intellectual elite underwriting this view are failing to consider is that there are two kinds of equality: Equality in results and equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, these cannot exist simultaneously. Understandably, the media, dealing largely in appearances, considers only the former when constructing its template. Sumptuously laden buffet tables are shown on a split-screen along with a hungry child, implying that something of what’s on the table should be given to the child. If it were in fact that simple, why didn’t the camera man do it? He was there!
Equality of opportunity is a far more difficult concept in that it involves a leap of faith. It takes faith to believe that a people, secure and left to their own devices, will figure out a way to prosper; that freedom (not equality) is the operative word that applies to any society that has been deemed successful by modern standards.
Academia, too, finds itself imprisoned by the limits of empiricism, i.e., that which can be counted or weighed. Together both (the media and academia) are attempting to force the imposition of two-dimensional solutions to multi-faceted situations that, if implemented, are doomed to fail dramatically (assuming that in the aftermath a distinction between success and failure can even be drawn). Picture the world as a broader version of Zimbabwe or the Palestinian Territories where the inmates have effectively taken over the asylum; where the freedom to inflict horror now reigns supreme; where all that counts is that the white oppressors have been kicked out - along with the Jews, of course. It is they, after all, who have had the audacity to introduce the world to a God who is capable of drawing the distinction between spiritual and secular matters, each with a separate set of parameters by which to gauge one’s fall from grace. Getting rid of them also gets rid of Him, and now we are free to do what we want (as long, of course, as He remembers to keep the lights on).
Change, we are told, will make the world a better place; a virtual utopia, in fact. Everyone will be equal (except some will be more equal than others). Those capable of orchestrating the most audacious atrocities will claim the throne, reducing the rest of us to rubberstamp party dunces, eternally living in fear of being found out to be human after all. Goodbye to progress, welcome in empty shelves; goodbye to competition, welcome in mediocrity; goodbye to free passage, welcome in checkpoints; goodbye to the arts and sciences, welcome in propaganda; good-bye to free expression, welcome in gulags. Welcome to the degradation of the human spirit off which communism feeds.
Posts
