It's been a demoralizing week for conservatives as the US Supreme Court muddled its way towards rubber-stamping the ruling class's views on gay marriage, as it rubber-stamped the ruling class's views on abortion a generation ago.
Meanwhile the US Senate is continuing the peculiar institution of "undocumented workers," the system whereby we don't enforce immigration laws on people that have overstayed their visas.
The frustrating thing for conservatives is that we are not the culture; we are a subculture. The culture is the culture of the ruling class, with its administrative welfare state and its libertine sexual culture. And if you disagree with that culture you had better expect to be named and shamed. Where does it end?
I have already argued that, economically the rule of the administrative welfare state will only end when it runs out of money. The American people voted for that in 2012 when they symbolically voted for an unremarkable scion of the ruling class, Barack Obama, over a man that symbolizes America. First of all, Mitt Romney is a member of an natural-born American religious sect, the Mormons, that was started during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. Mitt Romney entire life symbolizes "civil society." All his life he has combined faithful family life with an energetic business career and an untiring dedication to church responsibilities. His business career, in particular, was all about taking problem organizations and restructuring them. But the American people said: No. So we will probably not be able to reform the welfare state before it goes broke.
But what about the cultural side of things? In my view things will not change until women give up on the ruling class and form a moral movement of resistance against its self-indulgent libertinism.
It was said back in the Sixties that the sexual and the drug revolution was all very well for the upper middle class. It had the money and the resources to climb back out of the abyss. But the poor and the working class did not. They went to the wall and paid the full price of vice.
The ruling class argues that its programs are there to help people in need. The welfare state is there to help people that can't help themselves. Abortion is there so women have the right to choose whether to bear a child. We've moved on from the "Father Knows Best" family of the 1950s.
Nothing will change until women realize that they have been sold a bill of goods on all this. Women cannot rear healthy families unless government gets out of it. Every child need a mother and a father: their mother and their father. The welfare state breaks up the family. Women cannot allow the abortion culture that licenses young men to bonk everything in sight and tell their victims to go get an abortion. Women must realize that freedom for women is a world in which every man that impregnates a woman would be eager to marry her and raise that child with her.
I often argue that men are fighters and women are lovers. There's a beautiful eulogy in Commentary by John Podhoretz to his sister Rachel. Here was a woman so full of love it overflowed.
It is my judgement that the ruling class culture of the administrative state and "activism" and identity politics make it very difficult for women to construct lives built around love. If you ask me, the present culture is a war against women and their culture of love.
It is my faith that eventually women will create a moral movement that will rise up against the ruling class culture and restore a culture of love. Why will they do it? Because women cannot stand a world without love.
Coincidentally the women's movement of love will restore for men a culture of domestic warriors, fighting for hearth and home.
The new culture will be a culture of love and marriage and children and civic service. Why? Because humans are social animals, and social animals can only flourish when they are being social.
Yes, but what is "social?" It sounds like socialism, and we know where that ends up. So let me make it clear. Social doesn't include government, because government is force. Social doesn't include politics, because politics is division and hate. Social doesn't include system and administration and bureaucracy, because system is domination.
Social means little platoons, a culture of affection, civic society, associations, neighborliness, and love.
Yes, but when? I don't know, but I believe that if I can think it, someone is already doing it. And pretty soon that someone will form a movement, and pretty soon after that you and I will hear about it or read about it. And pretty soon after that it will get onto the media radar.
And then the cat will be among the pigeons. But only women can make it happen.
Meanwhile the US Senate is continuing the peculiar institution of "undocumented workers," the system whereby we don't enforce immigration laws on people that have overstayed their visas.
The frustrating thing for conservatives is that we are not the culture; we are a subculture. The culture is the culture of the ruling class, with its administrative welfare state and its libertine sexual culture. And if you disagree with that culture you had better expect to be named and shamed. Where does it end?
I have already argued that, economically the rule of the administrative welfare state will only end when it runs out of money. The American people voted for that in 2012 when they symbolically voted for an unremarkable scion of the ruling class, Barack Obama, over a man that symbolizes America. First of all, Mitt Romney is a member of an natural-born American religious sect, the Mormons, that was started during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. Mitt Romney entire life symbolizes "civil society." All his life he has combined faithful family life with an energetic business career and an untiring dedication to church responsibilities. His business career, in particular, was all about taking problem organizations and restructuring them. But the American people said: No. So we will probably not be able to reform the welfare state before it goes broke.
But what about the cultural side of things? In my view things will not change until women give up on the ruling class and form a moral movement of resistance against its self-indulgent libertinism.
It was said back in the Sixties that the sexual and the drug revolution was all very well for the upper middle class. It had the money and the resources to climb back out of the abyss. But the poor and the working class did not. They went to the wall and paid the full price of vice.
The ruling class argues that its programs are there to help people in need. The welfare state is there to help people that can't help themselves. Abortion is there so women have the right to choose whether to bear a child. We've moved on from the "Father Knows Best" family of the 1950s.
Nothing will change until women realize that they have been sold a bill of goods on all this. Women cannot rear healthy families unless government gets out of it. Every child need a mother and a father: their mother and their father. The welfare state breaks up the family. Women cannot allow the abortion culture that licenses young men to bonk everything in sight and tell their victims to go get an abortion. Women must realize that freedom for women is a world in which every man that impregnates a woman would be eager to marry her and raise that child with her.
I often argue that men are fighters and women are lovers. There's a beautiful eulogy in Commentary by John Podhoretz to his sister Rachel. Here was a woman so full of love it overflowed.
Our sister Naomi once said she had never seen anyone who loved being a mother so unqualifiedly as Rachel. It was not that she loved her children more than anyone else, not that she exemplified maternal wisdom like her beloved Marmee from Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women. It was that Rachel took an almost sybaritic pleasure in mothering, in all of it, the quotidian and the profound, the meals and the fights, the company of these small beings whom she not only loved fiercely but really, really, really liked.The longer I live, the more I appreciate how women's lives are utterly devoted to love.
It is my judgement that the ruling class culture of the administrative state and "activism" and identity politics make it very difficult for women to construct lives built around love. If you ask me, the present culture is a war against women and their culture of love.
It is my faith that eventually women will create a moral movement that will rise up against the ruling class culture and restore a culture of love. Why will they do it? Because women cannot stand a world without love.
Coincidentally the women's movement of love will restore for men a culture of domestic warriors, fighting for hearth and home.
The new culture will be a culture of love and marriage and children and civic service. Why? Because humans are social animals, and social animals can only flourish when they are being social.
Yes, but what is "social?" It sounds like socialism, and we know where that ends up. So let me make it clear. Social doesn't include government, because government is force. Social doesn't include politics, because politics is division and hate. Social doesn't include system and administration and bureaucracy, because system is domination.
Social means little platoons, a culture of affection, civic society, associations, neighborliness, and love.
Yes, but when? I don't know, but I believe that if I can think it, someone is already doing it. And pretty soon that someone will form a movement, and pretty soon after that you and I will hear about it or read about it. And pretty soon after that it will get onto the media radar.
And then the cat will be among the pigeons. But only women can make it happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment