Cultural Gadfly

Watch this video (especially the last half), change your pants, then join me downstairs for some discussion:

(N.B. Please understand that I base the following conlusions on the above premises. I do not mean to be alarmist; rather, this post is meant as a reflection on this man’s vision of the future. It is an unlikely development, but then so are the perfect circles of 1984 or Brave New World – they are illustrative and instructive rather than literally prophetic. So I mean this post to be.)

Essentially what this fellow is saying is, through the use of games and networks, that mass behavior will be trainable. The training will be ubiquitous, and we will, therefore, drown in it. Governments, factions, corporations, and anyone who has the money, will be able to propagandize entire populations. These groups will set cultural norms, mores, and beliefs. However, you can almost guarantee that whatever they want to program in will be according to whatever asinine theory of human behavior and politics is popular at the time. Once done, it cannot be undone – unless there are those of the population who refuse to accept the programming. (Conjecture can lead us to some scary consequences of rejecting the new culture, but this is neither the time, nor the place, and it would be, in the end, mere supposition based on a supposition.)

Do we really want a God-like state, that has as close to omnipotence as is humanly possible? And, do we really want to aid and abet that state by providing the very information which will serve as the chains to the new slavery? It is especially dangerous, this new slavery, because it will be enforced by carrots rather than sticks – more game points, tax breaks, etc. And because market research hardwired into their products, they will know what we like. Freedom will be replaced by superficial choice, and no one will notice because to us freedom will be preference. (Imagine fighting virtual wars over whether Coke or Pepsi is better.)

The problem with mass communication is that it is geared towards the lowest common denominator. I do not mean that it lowers our proverbial collective intelligence – though it does – but rather that the lowest common denominator is still not low enough to appeal to everyone. (In fact, the LCD is itself repulsive to some.) Instead, now, with endless choices recorded, mass communication will no longer be purely mass – it will be personalized communication to a mass. Each message aimed at a person’s known preferences, and so the mass message – do this or that – will be tailored in such a way as to make one person think he is choosing what is best for him, but is really the same choice everyone else is making, just with different window dressing.

Propaganda, according to Jacques Ellul, must have the following distinctive characteristics to be effective. It must be ubiquitous. It must be full spectrum, that is, be communicated from every available source. It must be constant. It must be convincing. It must be geared towards provoking action. In what way does what this man describes differ from these characterizations?

Once they know everything about us, and once, with a flick of the switch, they can control our behavior, what’s to stop those in power from hijacking the system? Why should we trust those with absolute power to behave altruistically? Eventually, there will be someone with the intelligence and ambition – the tyrannical man (or men, as the case may be) – to take control of the system. (And since we are all plugged into the virtual cave, no one would really notice or care.) At that point, peace, freedom, and humanity qua humanity is finished. We will be automatons, programmed by communication, subject to his will.

Networks are only independent if not controlled from above, yet this man’s theories marry networks to hierarchal structures for the worst of both worlds. Those in the network will hate those without. Once in the network, behavior will be self-reinforcing and mutually reinforcing – when you act “correctly” you will be rewarded, and so be more likely to behave that way again; when someone see you act that way, and get rewarded, they will also want to act that way. What is “correct”? Whatever those divvying up the rewards decide it to be. And once everyone is dancing to the same tune – except those at the very top who decide what “correct” is, because, as Ellul says, a propagandist cannot believe his own propaganda – society and human existence become masturbatory.

There is a reason that the founding fathers opted for decentralization and separation of powers – namely that only in decentralization can we be assured of human autonomy, freedom, and choice. Not only decentralization of the state, but of the person from the government. However, this does this opposite, centralizing human experience to be directed and synonymous to the state and corporations bringing about the closest thing to a hive possible for reasonable beings.

At the end he says that having our entire lives known will make us want to live better lives. We will want to lead good lives, but at that point, will we even know what that means? In the midst of the reprogramming, will we have forgotten what it means to be human?

Categories: Culture, Culture of Death, Political Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Technology, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: Centralization, Collective Intelligence, Cultural Norms, Dystopian, New Slavery

So, the Tea Party is starting trouble in Nevada, and everyone is very excited. Or upset. Or doesn’t really care. Luckily, Karl Rove, the genius, has something to say.

The tea partiers have made an important splash because they are not yet another auxiliary to the Democratic or Republican parties. Like the pro-life and Second Amendment movements before it, the tea party movement will have a bigger impact if it holds the feet of politicians in both parties to its fire. Each party must know it can win or lose swing tea party voters.

What these people have in common is a deep concern about the future of the country that their children and grandchildren will inherit. Many are also considering the next steps for their movement and often conflicted about its political course.

My advice to them is to keep their distance from any single party and instead influence both parties on debt, spending and an over-reaching federal government. Allowing third-party movements to co-opt the tea partiers’ good name, which is happening in Nevada, will only serve to elect opponents of the tea party philosophy of low-taxes and fiscal restraint. It could also discredit the tea party movement.

The Republican Party and the tea party movement have many common interests right now. But they are, and should remain, distinct from one another. This is one instance when, if they merged, the sum would be less than the parts.

I think he is correct. The Tea Party was so powerful because it was spontaneous and, despite the media’s attempts to show otherwise, not partisan. (By which I mean that it was not directed by, started because, or representative of any single political party, not absurd third way rhetoric.) To either institutionalize of permanently ally the coalition would be to essentially remove those things that make it special in addition to alienating all sorts of members in the movement.

Essentially, if the movement seeks to accomplish everything, to become a major force in all politics and change the world, or at least America, it will fail. Horribly. Like every coalition to overreach before it. Yet, if it limits itself, and its objectives, to dealing with taxes, government growth, and overspending and building its coalition around that, then it could become the definitive voice on those issues – and that would be a good thing. Starry-eyed idealism and optimism aside, coalitions of the street organizer sort are not sophisticated actors or savvy political organism, such as political parties, they are blunt instrument to be generally directed at a target and let loose. (Which is to their credit. Sometimes the Parties and the government need a bit of blunt force trauma to make them do the right thing.) Having to deal with the huge various and sundry policy issues would destroy the Tea Party movement, and deprive lovers of limited government of a major champion. In other words, a coalition movement should be a coalition movement, and a political party shall be a political party, and nary the two shall be joined.

Rove also says:

If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, “birthers” who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.

I am unsure of how much this would be possible, as any coalition will have crazies, who are especially useful in street demonstrating (because they are passionate about whatever, they really want to come out and stand around for hours, and since they are crazy, and hence alienated from society, the likelihood they don’t have 9 to 5s is increased as well. Perfect for street organizers, Horatius says, tongue in cheek). Yet, in order for the movement to build momentum, and gain credibility as a mainstream movement, they will need to dissociate themselves from movements that are considered extremist by the mainstream, at least as much as is prudent.

So, if the tea party wants low taxes, instead of forming an idiotic, still-born third party that will lose with the added benefit of guaranteeing the loss of the conservative candidate, they should leverage their broader appeal to assert leverage over both candidates in the race, and procure pledges from both. They will have maintained independence,  and accomplished their mission despite how the race turns out. Besides, America is apparently hungry for “bi-partisan” solutions, and there is no reason why the Tea Party cannot become the face of that.

UPDATE 1: Stuff like this doesn’t help: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14423113. Sen. Hatch, are you trying to alienate a decisive element of the Republican comeback this fall? Threatening mobs rarely works.

UPDATE 2: This, on the other hand, is PERFECT!

In other news, the boys over at the PRI have come out with their next video about the myth of over-population and the demographic crisis which is slowly but surely making its way over towards the West.   Enjoy, it is great:

Categories: Culture, Culture of Death, Local Politics, Politics, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: Common Interests, Fiscal Restraint, Partiers, Party Philosophy, Republican Parties, Tea Party

Watch this clip, and then I will explain myself. Please remember – though Jon Stewart is puerile in his thought and the Daily Show is a bastion of pop liberalism – thus making us a bit sick – that the reason he is spouting in this case is because he is really upset that Obama and the Democrats have failed to follow through on their agenda.

First off is the obvious misunderstanding of both how politics works, and why the democrats are being defeated. However, that is not the reason why I put this clip up – no one in their right mind would look to Jon Stewart or meaningful political analysis…

Except, the Daily Show has managed to catch onto what can only be called a phenomenon. Namely, that though the Republicans are still in the extreme minority, it feels as though they are running congress. We really should hand it to, I think, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who has managed not only to stall and stop almost the entirety of the liberal agenda in the last year using only chopsticks and bubble gum (MacGuyver Style), but has also managed to capitalize on the feelings and demonstrations in America to turn this around.

I keep worrying that everyone will wake up all of a sudden, and realize – really realize, because everyone’s been saying it, but it hasn’t mattered – that they actually could still ram through any legislation they wanted. (That is, if they could convince the blue dogs to martyr themselves.) However, Republicans in the House and Senate have managed to engender a feeling that they are in charge, in control, and Democrats, with all of the elections results backing the Republicans, are beginning to believe it. In a way, the Republicans really are the dominant party, because everyone thinks that they are. Anyway, it’s the world turned upside down, but in a good way.

Anyway, Jon Stewart, and his crack team of political comedians, have captured the atmosphere perfectly, and their obvious displeasure with it only makes the whole situation more perfect. The bitter taste that disappointment gives to their jokes makes it sweeter to my palate, especially as I imagine that it is representative of the reaction of most of the democrat party’s faithful.

And, in recognition of the fact that it is Friday, and everyone should have a little fun today, here is the JibJab video 2009 in review. One of their better efforts I should say.

Categories: Congress, Obama Craziness, Politics, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: Jon Stewart, McConnell, Political Phenomenon, Repulicans

Despite the inherent pessimism that educated conservatives seem to have in their characters, I’d say things are looking pretty good for the pro-life movement. What, you say? How can that possibly be – here’s how. From the mouths of babes, or something like that, Mr. Robert McCartney writes:

I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn’t it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What’s more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.

As always, we in Washington enjoy an up-close view of the health of various causes because of the city’s role as the nation’s most important setting for political demonstrations. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.

And although he still lacks the five votes needed to scrap Roe, which established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. warned explicitly in a Supreme Court decision Thursday that there was no “inexorable command” that the court must preserve past rulings.

Young people in the March for Life said they thought they were more opposed to abortion than people in their parents’ generation because they had more information about the issue, in part because of their education.

“I’ve seen the pain that abortion causes women,” said Michelle Fabian, youth minister of St. Catherine of Siena Church in Lancaster County, Pa. She said her mother still “can’t listen to a vacuum cleaner without shuddering” because it reminds her of the equipment used when she had an abortion before Fabian was born.

When feelings run that raw, this issue could stir controversy for 37 years more.

When establishment liberals from the Washington Post start to get nervous, it means you’re on the right track. Thirty seven years ago, there would be no Stupak Amendment, no protest at Obama at Notre Dame because of his stance on life, no Supreme Court Justice openly alluding to overturning Roe - basically, we have come along way.  All the time and effort the Church has put into youth outreach seems to be paying dividends. This type of support also belies the claims of those people who say that we are becoming a post-Christian nation.

In any case, more and more signs that the next generation will have a majority of pro-lifers is encouraging, to say the least. It also goes to show why Christianity and religion in general stays more or less healthy throughout millennium, and secular ideologies, well, don’t.  The old theologies dovetail exactly with human breeding patterns that have been proven to work, and to raise functional human beings. This is why progressive ideas cause social chaos – they disrupt inbred, and proven mating strategies that God, time and evolution have provided us. In any case, all of that is a round about way of saying that – we have kids, they don’t. We raise our kids, and look to their moral education, they do not. And we’re awesome, and they are losers.

Nor is this the only good news – in his op-ed column today (Corporations have rights, but do the unborn?) in the Washington Examiner, Cal Thomas makes some excellent points:

There is evidence that all the marches and the pro-life pregnancy centers are working. There have been roughly 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973. Opinion polls reveal a public increasingly concerned about the unrestricted disposal of human life and the potential contributions those lives could make to America and to humanity.

The shift in opinion is especially notable among the young.

The Marist Institute for Public Opinion, a Catholic organization associated with the Knights of Columbus, has published a survey that shows “millennials” — those 18 to 29 — are increasingly pro-life. Fifty-eight percent of them said they believed that abortion is “morally wrong.” They are joined in their view by six out of 10 of those 65 and over. According to the survey, only 51 percent of baby boomers — the “free love” generation — consider abortion morally wrong.

Thousands of pregnancy centers, many of which now offer high-resolution sonograms, not around in 1973, along with the unwavering commitment of pro-lifers, is wearing down the opposition and winning a new generation to their point of view.

A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey released in October 2009 found that 45 percent of all Americans oppose abortion in most or all cases, up 4 percent from last year. David N. O’Steen, executive director of National Right to Life Committee commented, “These results are unsurprising and track with earlier polling, including Gallup, and, most recently, a poll conducted by Rasmussen indicating that the majority of Americans are opposed to funding abortions in the health care bill.”

Still, pro-choice Democrats have kept pushing for federal funding of abortion, which is one of several reasons the bill has stalled in Congress.

In conclusion, there is perhaps room for a little optimism for those of us on the side of the angels, and it just goes to show that a country, a nation, a society, can be moved back onto the path or righteousness.  As the selfish generation dies, and with them their failed policies and ideologies, their excess and absurd notions, the spoiled brats who came from the Greatest Generation, we will take their places having learned from their stupid mistakes and sins. (Instead of Free Love, we’ll have Responsible Love.)  So let’s hear it for the young ‘uns  - they’re doing us proud. We will be the young fogy generation.

Also, thank you Fabius: Strength and honor, and Britannia rules the waves, and all that.

UPDATE: And, of course, there is also conversion and heroic virtue – on Breakpoint.

Categories: Culture, Culture of Life, Politics, The Horatius Report

Hitting the lack of rhetoric on the nail of the head, or some such thing.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Categories: Comedy, Culture, The Horatius Report, Traditions \\ Tags: Rhetoric, Ronnie Bruce

In his book – The Audacity of Hope –  the (then future) President of the United States wrote the following:

Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course.

This statement makes a very poor impression, and indicates a deformity of conscience, and a misunderstanding of reality, which is at the least extremely troubling in the man who is the chief of state and government for the most powerful nation in the world. In this essay, I hope to exhibit the moral and intellectual deficiencies that are implicit in this short statement, but which are representative of Barack Obama’s political and philosophic reasoning and of, I fear, his character.

Let’s take the first part. He says that the Constitution, and ordered liberty, rejects absolute truth when it very clearly does not: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” Perfection, the state of flawlessly conforming to a transcendental standard,  is impossible to achieve but to which we all must strive. However, the concept of perfection is impossible to even conceive of without there being an absolute truth. If we strive for the perfection in, for instance, union, that thing must have absolute meanings. Otherwise, we would end up negating that which we sought to achieve.  For instance, if Union or Unity have subjective or relative meanings, and each person seeks to achieve their “perfection” of that standard, then we would have people fighting over how to be Unified. However, everyone agrees, more or less, on what Unity is, and that agreement represents an acknowledgment of the absolute truth of unity and that acknowledgement binds us together.

The drawing a connect between absolute truth and the “infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism’” is a gross equivocation, but among the other errors of this sentence it is mild by comparison. However, it must be noted that the majority of ideas all have common goals – justice, truth, peace or put another way, ultimately happiness. This means that each ideology is not the end in and of itself, rather it is an opinion on how to reach the principles of ultimate truth. Obama’s statement, then, equates the ends with the means, and is therefore fallacious. Furthermore, the Founders made a definitive statement on ideology, namely that republicanism – or representative democracy, however you prefer – is the best way to achieve civic satisfaction. As a society, we have more or less agreed on this. Liberalism and Conservatism are not ideologies in and of themselves within the American context, but rather schools of thought contained within the ideology of republicanism.

In the last part of the sentence, Obama writes, “any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course.” Putting aside the previous paragraph, let us examine the political consequences of this particular statement. In it, Obama essentially says that absolute truth is “tyrannical consistency” and that it keeps people on a “single, unalterable course”. On the one hand, it could be argued that Obama is merely arguing the benefit that, through the legislature, republics may change their course according to the situation. If you wish to be charitable, you may take this view. However, what indicates to me that this isn’t the meaning of the statement, or, at least, not the only meaning, is the shambling corpse of his reason by which he drags himself to this conclusion. In other words, the charitable interpretation of his statement doesn’t follow the reasoning of the rest of the sentence. Rather the statement seem to imply that absolute truth is tyrannical.

From a certain (perverse) point of view, he is correct.  Absolute means unalterable, unchangeable, and undeniable. Absolute truth means absolute standards and morals. That means that there is a standard of behavior which, in order to be good and happy, one must strive for. Absolute truth, then, is compulsive to those who embrace it, and limiting to those who are coerced into obeying it. That is, in a certain sense, tyrannical, if by tyrannical we mean simply dictatorial rather than the more horrifying classical understanding of the tyrant. Absolute truth, then, put limits on the individual and their actions through a universal morality (what is often called the “natural law”), and if there is anything that progressives cannot stand more than limits I cannot name it.

The above observation gives us an insight into Obama’s behavior over the last year. He rejects limits to himself, and denies the inviolability of the universal truth of the Constitution. Therefore, Constitutional strictures, specifically put in to limit the power of the presidency in particular, and the government in general, are viewed as obstacles to “ordered liberty”, rather than reasonable guarantors of  it. Really, if he cannot accept limits to himself from absolute truth, there is nothing that Obama will find limiting except physical reality – not the people, God, the Constitution, morality, or anything else of that nature. This is borne out in his behavior since taking office. The unlimited man is the most dangerous, because the liberty and license he allows himself is at the expense of the liberty of others.

Absolute truth limits people, and in that limiting, other people’s liberty is maintained. Those who have this unlimited view have unlimited freedom, and if they see taking other’s freedom away as necessary to their self-actualization – to their freedom – then they will not hesitate to do so. Unchained personal will is the greatest danger to any society because there is nothing the unchained will cannot want, and nothing they won’t do to get it. It is no surprise, then, that the man in power who has an unchained will  is the classical definition of tyrant – as Plato puts it, the man who wishes to copulate with the gods.

Categories: Culture, Political Philosophy, Politics, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: Audacity of Hope, Constitution, Obama, Truth, Tyranny of Relativism

I thought about writing a post about the climate conference, and how poorly it’s doing.  However, I managed to get into a fight on facebook polls, which has eaten up all my writing time this week. So rather than make you go any longer without the benefit of my communication, I will copy and cost the argument here. I really think that my arguments in this regard are improving, and in this case I had a quasi-intelligent opponent, so it isn’t all stupidity. Enjoy:

[Bit of background:  people were making the argument that  homosexuals should get married because they are good people. The poll question was whether homosexuals are indoctrinating their children. I choose yes.]

Horatius:
Whether or not [homosexuals] are good, honest, and decent in other respects has no bearing whatsoever on whether homosexuality is in itself good or not, and it definitely has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to get “married” (and I use the word in the loosest sense.) There are plenty of people who are not decent and who are married, does that mean marriage as an institution is bankrupt, or merely that it has flawed participants? Continue reading »

Categories: Culture, Culture of Death, Foundations of Freedom, Political Philosophy, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: Argument, Facebook, Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Why It's Incredibly Stupid

With all the different things that need to be done before Thanksgiving, I think that the writers of CG will be taking a very brief sabbatical. It’s our very own break!

Please, be not afraid. We will return after the holiday of turkey.

Categories: Politics \\ Tags: Thanksgiving break

I just found this video on YouTube, and it is a fascinating sample of Soviet propaganda and communist culture. It is a (color!) recording of the Red Square parade immediately after World War II. The Soviet anthem is sung in English, which is also cool because I loved hearing the words in the context of the music – I always wondered what they meant. In any case, enjoy!

Yes, the Soviets were bad, the communist were bad, but, boy could they put on a show.

Categories: Politics, The Horatius Report \\ Tags: English Soviet Anthem, Propaganda, Soviets

I recently received a newsletter called Dinoscopus which had an interesting story in it. (For those of you who know that Dinoscopus is SSPX, rest assured that I not number among their ranks.) It follows, herein:

ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXXIII  (Nov. 14, 2009) : FEMININITY REDISCOVERED.

When a walled town is being besieged, and the enemy are continually attacking one part of the walls, the townspeople must continue to defend that part of the walls. Today the Enemy of mankind, Satan, is continually attacking true womanhood, because without true women there can be no true mothers, no true family life, no truly happy children and finally no truly human beings. I wish I could quote the complete testimony of another ex-feminist who wrote to me several months ago to thank me for, as she now sees it, “affirming and supporting our true nature as women”. The following is a cruelly brief summary of her classic letter:–

Born in the mid-1960’s, I had a violent and abusive father, and I have lacked a father figure ever since. After he died when I was 14, I rejected my Catholic faith and left the Church – it is difficult to believe in a loving God when you are not loved by your own parents. Away from the Church I embraced radical feminism and paganism, and I came to hate dresses because they were portrayed as an inferior form of clothing to what boys wore. I wonder where I got the idea that women are weak ?  I now understand that women aren’t weak at all, but we are strong in different ways from men.

I went to college determined to prove that I could do anything a man could do, but in my next seven years as a police officer I realized that the aggressiveness and dominance needed by the job just did not come naturally to me, and that I could never be as physically strong as the men. So I equated any sign of femininity in me with weakness. At the same time, as a radical feminist, I hated men, and wanted not to need one, and because of all that feminist garbage, I almost never married. But in my mid-thirties I realized I ran the risk of being alone for the rest of my life, so I decided to date. Soon afterwards  I met my future husband.

When he asked me to wear a dress because it was more attractive, I exploded !  However, I did try it just to please him. Then my behaviour slowly changed, and as I began to act and to feel more feminine, I discovered that I liked feeling feminine because it felt natural to me. When after some time we married, my priorities changed and I wanted so much to stay at home. At work I can be assertive, but I don’t enjoy it. I now understand that it is normal for me as a woman to prefer not to lead, because that is the way God designed me. I have spent my entire working life trying to compete with men and to be like men, and it has made me unhappy and feel like a failure because try as I might, I am not like men and never will be, because I am not a man.

It was my husband’s love that enabled me after 26 years to return to the Church, kicking and screaming, but God was calling !  There I found everything somewhat different from what I remembered, and to begin with I disagreed with the Church’s position on all questions involving women. But as I read more, my eyes were opened, and I realized amongst other things how the way I dress shapes my feelings and even my personality. When I wear dresses or skirts I feel gentle and feminine, more natural. My on-going education on the Church’s teachings on the role of women, which includes “Letters from the Rector”, has helped me to gain respect for myself as a woman and not as a pseudo-man. It is to the detriment of everyone that feminism has become ingrained in our culture.

In its own right, this is a stunning defense of traditional womanhood, and an excellent attack on feminism for its bankrupt and pernicious ideology. However, it also got me thinking about manliness and politics, so I wrote a short little essay expressing some ideas, many of which are from the book Manliness by Harvey Mansfield. You must now read it:

Continue reading »

Categories: Culture, Culture of Death, The Horatius Report, Vindication Essays \\ Tags: Feminist, Feminity, Masculinity, Politics