Thursday, March 16, 2017

Does Our Culture have an Orientation?

Image result for college left wing activist

You can phrase this question in a variety of ways. It's a preoccupation of mine. What I am asking is if the orientation of our culture to a predominantly 'leftist' way of thinking is a result of extrinsic force (Marxist propaganda) or is it intrinsic (as a result of our way of life). Most conservatives tend to think that the leftist orientation of the educational system, the media, etc., is a result of propagandist intrusions. My default is that too. And yet, even though Marxism is a villainous thing, this surmise might not in fact be most accurate.

My argument is this: human nature + 21st century technology = leftist milieu.

Let me give a concrete example. Contraception is possible and inexpensive, human beings are libidinous and selfish, therefore marriage will be marginalized and abortion will be widely accepted.

I am not going to connect the dots above. The point is not how well I have connected these things; the point is to illustrate the main components of how our culture is formed the way it is.

Yes, I have spent most of my adult life charting the West's intellectual history, not it's technological profile, but for sake of my argument, I will subsume philosophy/ideology into technology. Of course, the old argument between idealists and Marxist materialists is whether ideas produce cultural states of consciousness or whether the means of production does (technological state of affairs). To avoid this digression, because it is not my preoccupation at present, I will simply refer to them both collectively as technology. We know through experience both that technology drives belief and that belief governs the use of technology. I consider myself justified in side-stepping this matter because, yes, that in order to provide a thorough account of the matter, it would be essential to know that the modern world would not be the way it is without Luther and Gutenberg, for instance, for sake of shorthand we can simply look at the 21st century as it is now with as few footnotes of this nature as possible. In other words, people in the world today recognize that there is such a thing as the subconscious but don't generally know anything at all about the man called Freud. Without ever having read a word of his they are quite willing to believe that their dreams are reflections of themselves and that their relationships with their mothers and fathers have significance for their psycho-sexuality. They know all of this, despite the fact that there is nothing transparently obvious about these ideas.

Are conservatives fighting a losing battle, then, if this culture is intrinsically left? I would say both yes and no. I find it interesting that conservatives are willing to accept so much today that conservatives were not in the past: gay 'marriage', the 'equality' of women, etc. They did not arrive there by conservatism. They arrived there because of my equation above. The same can be observed of liberals. Liberals are no longer liberals at all, they are leftists. Locke and Mill have basically nothing in common with Marx, but lo and behold we call the left liberal.

I grant that the liberal college student or professor, and the liberal journalist and millionaire Hollywood types are not the 19th century factory workers Marx had in mind. But what do such hybrids signify?

Ancient Christians were philosophers and slaves; Catholics were serfs and lords; Protestants were merchants; leftists today are urban white collars. Yes, we can scoff at the difference between the people Marx had in mind and these modern day dandies, but the fact remains, Locke and Mill would not recognize liberals today, nor would Augustine, Benedict and Bernard recognize Christians of today.

So what is to be done to stop the insidious doctrine of Marx today? I don't know. I noticed an article asserting that conservatives dominate YouTube (or the internet?) today. This is welcome to me, of course, even though I have just said that conservatives today are not conservatives of yesteryear, especially if conservative means Christian, which it generally has always implied. For although conservatives are rather poor at Christianity, or even Judaeo-Christianity, anything and everything is better than Marxism.

Yesterday's liberal is today's conservative. That's always true. These leftist profs and journalists have power and want to protect it. They will continue to try to use Marxism to do it: by race-baiting and class-bating, etc. But whether they will lose or not will to a great extent depend upon how technology changes. Will there be any gays when the next world war arrives? It is an urban phenomenon: what happens if there is an agrarian shift?

Again, back to the matter of sexual ethics, how will the decline of the white West effect how we look at contraception and abortion? I pay attention to the visions of the future that Hollywood presents. They are generally all rather shallow examinations of the human condition. I include things like, yes, my beloved Star Wars in this. Would human beings really act the way they are presented in Star Wars and Star Trek were those technologies available? No, because Hollywood is too preoccupied with telling us how we should act today to even begin to think about how we would really live in such circumstances. Would there really be so many (or any) women leaders in the world of The Walking Dead?

History is a great school master. Too bad so many are infected with the "history of right now" to learn from it.

The reference to women's rights which I made above can serve my point here. How often even conservatives grant that women have it better today than they did in the past, meaning that they are freer or treated more equally today. Gavin McInnes is one of the only conservatives to challenge this assertion, but he is so unserious that his point is not taken as seriously as it ought. I completely disagree with the narrative that women are freer, more equal, better treated today. Only someone with the most superficial knowledge of human history can say this. Is a vote really worth all the abortion, despair, purposelessness, and loneliness women have to endure today? Women, would you rather be loved by a Keats or by a rapper?

So, in summary, if you don't like the status quo, just wait a while, maybe something better will come along. Wait too long and something completely unfamiliar will.

Image result for hg wells time machine morlocks
The Morlocks, circa. 800,000 AD.


  1. I must strongly disagree with the idea that women were better off before feminism. It's like saying blacks were better off as slaves. Is freedom really worth all the poverty and drug abuse? Every generation has to deal with the flaws of human nature. Today women as individuals have the power to make choices and exercise their rational nature. I don't want to go back to the age women needed their husbands permission to open a bank account. You might counter argue that women aren't any happier because if the cultural disaster of feminism, but having the power to make choices they CAN be happier.

  2. 1) There were no chains on the women and they were not forcibly abducted from their homelands. Read any novel from the 19th century: women wanted to get married more than anything. Why? It was, thus, not like slavery in any way.

    2) There is an anachronism running through your thought here. Before the 20th century, life was of a certain kind and to forget this and to think of life prior to the 20th century as representing the life of women in modern day Saudi Arabia is misguided. Women were not waiting for thousands of years for the suffragette movement. There were no cars, there were no votes for average men, there were no bank accounts for anyone other than the extremely rich. You have to be sensitive enough to the complexities of life to recognize how every era was not the modern world in potentia. It is the propaganda of feminism to make us think so. Every freedom you can think of for women is technology dependent. Take away that technology and what are you left with? What would the pre-industrial world be like for women if men were not bound by moral law and state law to "take care of them," take care of them in a way that we today cannot consider as other than extremely belittling? It is not my (misguided) commitment to Catholic doctrine that leads me to these conclusions, but my knowledge of history.

    This is a great topic of which much more should be said.