Fragmentation and the Family

by Deana Chadwell7/16/18
Time was when society was a fairly simple arrangement. There was Noah and his wife and the three sons and their wives.  That mini-society obviously worked well because in just a few hundred years human beings found the time to build giant monuments. Babble complicated things, but still, people split up and went their own ways and continued to populate the earth. But now there are close to 320 million of us in this country alone, the Internet has us all sitting in each other’s laps, and our ability to function intelligently and cohesively is getting lost in the shuffle.

And time was when most of us in this nation operated on very similar religious and moral standards. We believed in Truth. We all wanted to survive, to thrive, to build a free nation. Even with the awfulness of slavery and the question of how to handle the native tribes, the majority of us marched forward toward the shared goal of a free and noble nation.

We did that by starting with the family as the main organizing factor. The family is one of the four divine institutions, and has always been a mainstay in human society, so we knew how to do it: you have a father and a mother and they produce children for whom they are responsible until those children marry and produce their own children and the original parents grow old and become the responsibility of the grown children.  It’s a pretty slick system.

But that time is no more.  We’ve dismantled such a large percentage of our families through welfare, through same-sex marriage, through relaxed mores about adultery, that the family is no longer the foundation of many of our communities.

Human beings seem programmed to work best in small groups; we self-divide into manageable clusters. Either society is separated into families as per the divine institutions, or it’s divided into groups of its own making: blacks vs. white, Jews vs. Gentiles, men vs. women, citizens vs. illegals, Muslims vs. everyone else, etc. Creating ad hoc identities wreaks havoc on a society. We can see this just looking around us.

Instead of a nation of cooperating adults working toward a common goal, we become a group of squabbling children fighting over the available toys. When society divides into traditional families, children are raised to get along, to work together to accomplish common objectives, to find a way to fit in with other families. When the groups are instead gathered by superficial commonalities that pit them against other groups, the result is a fragmenting of society – an us-against-them mentality that produces nothing but vitriol and complaint. We are not Americans anymore, but conservatives or liberals, Christians or atheists, pro-Trumpers or anti-everything leftists.

Since groups organize merely by yelling the loudest or creating the most guilt, they multiply. It won’t be long before we’ll have, in addition to gay pride parades, adulterers’ pride parades, and then the shoplifters and the prostitutes will demand their due respect – oops, forgot Stormy Daniels, guess that’s already happening. Now, even pedophiles are claiming what they think is their due. There’s nowhere to stop, no group too objectionable to support, or too specialized to gain a hearing.

And since groups are self-forming and there are no guidelines for determining their shape and no list of qualifications for membership, a person can claim group affiliation regardless of reality. Men can claim to be women; whites can claim to be Native American or black (remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who claimed to be black?)

To further snarl things, many people find themselves in multiple special interest groups.  A person, we’ll call her “Jane,” can easily be black, gay, and female all at once. What sociology professors call “intersectionality” happens and poof! like rabbits the number of special groups increases exponentially.  Now Jane belongs, not only to her original 3 groups, but to the group that is both gay and black, the group that is both female and black, and the group that is lesbian. Each group has its own set of issues and grievances and each group is competing with the other for attention and money. Where does that leave Jane? More discontented than ever because she now has to face off against white lesbians, against Christian blacks, against white men more than black ones. Can she be friends then with a white, Baptist preacher? Or with a Muslim? No – her social life gets both complicated and limited.

Which gets to the next point – issues and grievances. Families don’t have to gather around the drumbeat of shared miseries – they’re already connected by blood.  But these synthetic groups need to have a common cause, so victimology is inevitable. Groups tend to face off against one another, far more than families do, and this behavior increases when there are payoff funds to vie for and nothing helps more than a super-sad list of atrocities the group has suffered at the hands of what they imagine to be the rival group. “He wouldn’t bake my cake!” “I make less money than he does!” “My great-grandmother had to sit in the back of the bus!”

Groups just as often organize themselves around an issue that doesn’t necessarily directly affect its members. Very few of the angry demonstrating college kids have any real iron in any of the fires they set. They are aligned by ideology rather than by skin-color, ethnicity, or sexuality.  They are motivated more by hubris than by righteous indignation. They believe in socialism and so they fight the capitalist. They think the earth is being destroyed so they fight pipelines and plastic straws and beef.  They are lesbians in favor of abortion or men outraged over women’s issues or whites drowning in assumed, but unnecessary, guilt. Cross-reference this type of group with the racial/ethnic divides and the issue of intersectionality becomes acute.

We see this all the time – feminists who are pro-Muslim immigration, or men who are anti-gun, but also pro-Hollywood shoot-em-ups, or pro-choice where abortion is the issue but anti-choice where religion is at stake.  It becomes impossible in a society like that to be a coherent thinker.  A groupist finds himself constantly having to swing several hoola-hoops at once, each spinning at a different speed, and often going opposite directions.

We can no longer have intelligent conversations partly because we can no longer express a rational thought, but also because we are no longer talking as individuals, but as members of a soulless group – BLM, or AntiFa, or LGBT, or LaRaza, or NOW.  Thinking for ourselves is no longer an option, so adopting the latest talking points is all that is possible. No problems get solved that way because groups don’t think, individuals think, and because to focus on the problem, the supposed injustice, does not produce solutions.  Negativity never arrives at the positive.

Speaking of which, what do we do about it? We’ve made a good start by electing Donald Trump – a man who strongly believes in family. We’ve made other good starts by going back to teaching our own children, another reinforcement for the family. Let’s go forward and undo the welfare restrictions that remove the male from the household. This policy has destroyed the black family.  Let every step we take going forward be a step to bolster the health of the family.  After all, the family was God’s idea and He generally knows what He’s doing.


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.
About Author Author Archive Email • (248 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Fragmentation and the Family

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But that time is no more.  We’ve dismantled such a large percentage of our families through welfare, through same-sex marriage, through relaxed mores about adultery, that the family is no longer the foundation of many of our communities.

    I’m very very old-fashioned about this sort of thing. I wish all people good health and peace of mind. But what I’ve noticed is what gigantic Snowflakes many people have become — right or left, Christian or atheist. The point of life is “fulfillment,” not harder (although ultimately more satisfying things) such as duty, sacrifice, and just the plain benefits of a little suffering.

    I think you’re right that when we break up these basic institutions (family) people try to fill that sense of belonging with something else. Facebook has been like the crack cocaine for this, the gateway drug to shallowness pretending to be something more substantial.

    One reason I think socialism is on the rise is because of the many childless women who have entered politics. I believe they mean to “nuture” us when, frankly, they should be saving all that “nurturance” for their own damn children.

    Which gets to the next point – issues and grievances. Families don’t have to gather around the drumbeat of shared miseries – they’re already connected by blood.  But these synthetic groups need to have a common cause, so victimology is inevitable.

    I think that’s an important point. And I’ll say again, right or left more and more people are defining themselves (their personal theology, if you will) by their grievances. I took a right turn at this site a while back when I announced that we would not be an echo chamber of grievances or personal dissatisfaction (no matter how cleverly disguised it was).

    Trump seems a strange icon for a strong family. “Better than Hillary” doesn’t erase this man’s history as a hound, adultery, etc.

    I do believe it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation because, indeed, few can express a rational thought. We are training people to be thin-skinned reflexive agitators and cry-babies, not the kind of person that Kipling envisioned when he wrote, “If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch…”

    I was sitting around the campfire this 4th of July talking to a lady from Los Angeles. She was nice but she was from a different universe. They truly define themselves with what you or I would dismiss as tabloid junk ideology. It’s just so wafer thin, completely ego- and celebrity-based. C.S. Lewis wrote about “men without chests.” But entire organ systems have gone missing now. I don’t know what to call some of these people. Many are “nice,” I’ll grant them that. But they are to culture what cotton candy is to food.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Oooh, I haven’t had cotton candy since I was a child.

      Some interesting arguments here. Socialism because childless women need someone to nurture? There’s probably an element of truth there, though it probably has nothing to do with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, the Castro brothers, Mao, Chou En-lai (I don’t know the Pinyin transliteration), Lin Biao, Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Pol Pot. But it may have influenced La Pasionara. One might also note that single women with children need (or think they do) government support to get by.

      An important aspect of forming groups to mediate between individual and Behemoth is that they turn the economy from a non-zero-sum economy (free market capitalism) to a zero-sum economy (socialism of one sort or another). This inevitably means that each group has to fight every other group for a larger piece of the pie. Hence the society leftism has developed today.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Zhou

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I haven’t had cotton candy in years. I guess it’s the kind of thing only a kid could like — pure sugar on a stick.

        We might debate the pros and cons of being “nurtured” by women through government. But I think only political correctness or fear of being called a sexist keeps most from stating the obvious. I have little love for the Prussian or Spartan state. That’s not how I want to live. And those are distinctly male entities. And what we have today is distinctly female.

        But when the hot issues of the day are what pronouns we use, something has gotten off track. Our “caring” has become oppressive. I submit that men, and only men, are the ones who can make rational rules. Women are good at emotional, irrational ones.

        Whatever the case may be, the reigning paradigm isn’t “Suck if up, buttercup” but “Endless empathy.” I submit that we have turned ourselves into a Snowflakes and emotional basket cases because we expect life, government, and even the businesses we work for to always be “nurturing” and “fulfilling” us emotionally.

        It’s a shame to watch my older brother, for instance, ditch his Christianity (he now sounds little different from Christopher Hitchens) and make grievance and disappointment his religion while he dabbles with Native American ideas. He’d been extremely religious for decades (since his 20’s) and now I can only think, “What the hell was all that about?” But I guess disappointment sets in and Jesus is no longer good enough.

        If the family is waning it may be because it can never be as fulfilling (at least going by the expectations) of raising children who are often a pain in the ass, even on a good day. Certainly the Christian virtues (which generally put restraints on our behavior and put emphasis on things other than self-indulgence) are party poopers in regards to always feeling “special” and good about oneself. I don’t know if Christianity has always been a cult of self-indulgence where the point of God is therapeutic, but it’s substantially that way today.

        And let’s speak honestly: Family is no picnic. The supposed “Greatest Generation” is a failure in many ways. One thing that fuels liberalism is looking for meaning — meaning that has been partially hollowed-out by the narcissistic generations that have come before.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Michael Barone once wrote a book (Hard America, Soft America) on the idea that the US tends to alternate between competition and coddling in terms of dealing with all that goes wrong in the nation. One might also think of that as discipline vs. therapy (and I believe he has used similar terms as well). It shouldn’t be hard to figure out which is conservatism and which is leftism. This is probably one reason why alternate so regularly in control between parties. Of course, it doesn’t help when so much of the culture is so one-sided in support of coddling/therapy.

    • Rosalys says:

      “One reason I think socialism is on the rise is because of the many childless women who have entered politics.”

      Even more so are the growing numbers of women with children, but no husbands. The state becomes their protector and provider, the traditional role of a husband and father.

      “I don’t know what to call some of these people.”

      How about amorphous gobs of goo? 😉

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Gee it’s nice to not have my face bit off by a woman on this subject. Like I said, there are certainly pros and cons of the nanny state, especially in contrast to a more Prussian-like state.

        Again — for better or for worse (and I tend to side with Deana on the subject even though I’m not married — it’s interesting to see one symptom of the breakdown of the family. Many young (not old and with their children already grown up) couples are having dogs instead of children. I like dogs. There are even many advantages to having a dog instead of a child. But it’s still a little creepy to me.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Single mothers are indeed a major Demagogue constituency. In fact, single women in general are. Single mothers are often professional radicals or lesbians, and single mothers are married to the state.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We see this all the time – feminists who are pro-Muslim immigration, or men who are anti-gun, but also pro-Hollywood shoot-em-ups, or pro-choice where abortion is the issue but anti-choice where religion is at stake.  It becomes impossible in a society like that to be a coherent thinker.  A groupist finds himself constantly having to swing several hoola-hoops at once, each spinning at a different speed, and often going opposite directions.

    Probably we are a little spoiled amongst ourselves because we are able to think about things without resorting to soundbytes or hissy fits. And especially we don’t (or should not) resort to over-intellectualism.

    Liberalism’s conceit, starting back in the 30’s if not earlier, is that it was the hedge against the reflexive mob whose “conservative” views were always stifling the free spirits amongst us. These types were the lynch mobs, never the patriots. They were the religious scolds at Salem, not those who nurtured the souls and bodies of the weak and dispirited. They were the jingoists and racists, never the ones who protected the weak from those very people or fought our very real enemies.

    It remains an extremely effective conceit. Liberals are all the good, open, free, empowering things. Conservatives are all the killjoy, restrictive, dour, intrusive types who are more concerned about what you are doing in the privacy of your bedroom than anything else.

    So we’re dealing here not with reason, and never were. We’re dealing with identities. We’re dealing with conceits and delusions. One reason that “Snowflake” is such an apt term for those on the Left is because these conceits can so easily be melted (and cause hellacious tantrums).

    I would not posit for a moment that on “the right” there were not some of these traits that the liberals think do not exist among their Golden selves. I would expect most conservatives to acknowledge there are two elements at play in each of us: human nature (good and bad), and simply different visions on what a good and sustainable society should look like (the idea of honest disagreement is lost on the utopianists). And anyone who thinks promoting homosexuality as a good, Muslim invasion as a good, and demographic suicide (not having children) as a good is smoking dope (which, by the way, is another “good” so deemed).

    And that’s quite different from “tolerance” of a few things, which can be a good, although often a difficult one. But the Left’s lunatic vision is based on this truly binary view of things. They are the Golden Children of tolerance and kindness and then there are the repressed and repressive killjoys.

    I don’t think liberals are bad, per se. There are too many of this religion amongst all of our friends and family to paint with such a broad brush. But we can say that there is a point where conceit, naiveté, and sheer delusion are harmful, even capable of bringing down a civilization as many thinkers saw happening to ancient Athens.

    • pst3usa says:

      As Dennis Prager always says, “There are two parties in this country, The Destructive and The Stupid… I’m a member of the later.”
      I don’t think liberals are bad, per se.
      Can we say they are destructive, even when they “feel” they are doing their destruction for noble reasons? Notice I did not say, they think they are doing…

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Can we say they are destructive, even when they “feel” they are doing their destruction for noble reasons

        Pat, I have a hard time exactly describing the split that I see. Thank god for modern comforts, modern medicine, and the fact that I don’t have to do back-breaking work twelve hours a day just to be able to minimally feed myself.

        But it bothers me that we live in an increasingly Snowflake culture where even most conservatives share the same overall vision as liberals do: Life is for me to have as good a time as possible, somewhat at other people’s expense, and god help those who get in the way of my “fulfillment” or “satisfaction.”

        As I see many supposed “conservatives” acting just as stupidly, that’s why the softened words for the libtards. I’m not asking for a Prussian or Spartan culture but, good god, we are in need of a little bucking it up, buttercup, as you so often say.

        • pst4usa says:

          He does say two parties, the destructive and the stupid Brad. We Republicans are and can be incredibly stupid. And another part of all this comes from my crude saying when talking about congress; there’s no balls in those halls. If there were we could have gotten rid of 0bama Care and a Republican House, Senate and President would end this deficit spending within a year. Alas no political will or political courage.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I go with the Evil Party and the Stupid Party, which was originated by paleoconservative Samuel Francis to the best of my recollection. I also differentiate between the Inner Party (who know what they’re doing) and the Outer Party (who mean well in their way).

            In terms of the original Forgotten Man speech by William Graham Sumner, the Outer Party is A who sees something wrong about X (the various leftist client groups), and the Inner Party is B, with whom A discusses matters and comes up with something for C (the rest of us) to do for X.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I had this thought today, Pat, and not for the first time. But I was thinking about how most meat-eating, red-white-and-blue conservatives (especially in their jobs and their churches) have adjusted to the prevailing Progressive moral universe. I don’t say that they haven’t done so without some kicking and screaming. But that’s where talk radio comes in. It has served well as a way to vent while we all accommodate the moral universe of the Left. All that kicking and screaming has been vented into wasted energy.

            I really do think that’s the dynamic. And I’m not saying it’s a strange or unique thing to accommodate to whichever way the wind is blowing (instead of trying to blow the other way). Republicans have done an outstanding job of both acting as a voter receptacle for a general sense of frustration while still accommodating the moral universe of the Left.

            These are unkind words because they apply in part to all of us to some extent, including me (although I have just about physically tossed a socialist out of my office and have told a homeless person that if they want “free stuff,” there’s a Starbucks just down the road). Other than yourself and Mr. Kung (who has mentioned some political activism he’s been involved in at the local level), I’m still waiting for a story from anyone about what they’re doing about it.

            Can you really blame the Republican Party for having no balls when few of us do? They’re taking the path of least resistance, often doing little more than offering a receptacle for a protest vote. People vote for them and then scream that they’re not doing what the voters wanted them to do. But is this really true? Not in your case, of course. But do most of these people making such a fuss really want what they want or is it just venting frustration?

            I believe you can’t have a Federal government taking in and spending this much money (and regulating as much as they do) and have a conservative country. What we have is a “managed” country. That’s really what people want although it doesn’t sound very manly to say that you want the government to make all the big decisions in your life so that you can sit at home in your underwear playing video games. But that’s what it amounts to in various flavors and degrees.

            There is no way we can ever have a conservative culture again, let alone a conservative party. The question, as always, is can one carve out a sane place, to “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the Democrat Party, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I think a lot of what you call accommodation is the same as saying that the West accommodated the Soviet Union. It means treating their existence as a fact of life. At least at times, we opposed them, usually at a considerable cost. And we do the same for their American successors.

              Given my physical decline in recent years, and the lack of information about the location of campaign HQs for local candidates, I haven’t done any campaign work in a decade or so. But I’ve helped on a lot of mailings (Elizabeth joined me once), even supplying pizza coupons to help toward providing food for campaign workers. We also have put up a lot of campaign signs all over the Louisville area (except where we lived, oddly enough), which we always did jointly.

              And back when I had a decent job, I made small contributions to a lot of candidates. (At least one, far-right Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, noted what it meant to be contributing to a candidate you couldn’t vote for.)

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                It’s good you did something. And whether it is “accommodation” or “capitulation”….well, I think it is mostly the latter these days.

            • pst4usa says:

              I cannot argue with anything you wrote there Brad. Nor can I give up. There is a remnant, it must be saved and nurtured, because like I have said for as long as I can remember, it cannot get any better until the pain level gets high enough for people to change.
              Which direction will that change go, I know not, but if we do not have some leaders who understand these principles, then this last best hope for mankind will die a violent death in the final lunge to leftism.
              I still work local races, knowing that a good candidate is going to continue to be hard to find. But the left did not get where they are today by a short term plan, I need to always keep that in mind and take some solace in the knowledge that a little yeast can go a long way. Hey I went 3 for 3 in the City races a few months ago. Who knows maybe its a trend. I keep lion hunting as long as I can draw a breath.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Pat, here’s a guy at National Review who describes the problem well (the basic division of purposes I was trying to get at) even if his prescription (humanism) is highly questionable. Warning, this article is full of a lot of psychobabble. But there is one section I found extraordinary:

    This individual who sees liberty in the ability to follow every whim — someone whom Deneen would call a liberal, and Babbitt a Romantic — is drawn to a sentimental libertinism in which indulgent emotion is elevated over the hard work of becoming a good person. The Romantic wishes to see destroyed any laws and customs that might prevent him from doing all that his heart desires.

    When human passions are released, however, writes Babbitt, “what emerges in the real world is not the mythical will to brotherhood, but the ego and its fundamental will to power.” The will to power often presents itself in palatable ways, replacing traditional notions of virtue with what Babbitt calls “a sort of parody of Christian charity.” The Romantic is drawn not to humanism but to emotional humanitarianism. Believing himself to be blameless, the Romantic locates the source of society’s evils in everybody else. The Romantic humanitarian, Babbitt argues, will always go around pointing out the specks in his neighbors’ eyes while a plank burdens his own. Rousseau, the chief example of this tendency, wrote a 500-page book on how to raise and educate children, after leaving five of his own to a foundling hospital.

    I might amend that and say the emphasis isn’t so much on becoming “a good person” but a useful and productive one. Frankly, we need far fewer “good persons” who are forever trying to fix everybody (through the state) and more people doing implicit good by being self-supporting and productive.

    All this blather about “humanism” (which really has no definition because it has so many) is so much psychobabble straw. “He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.” Or “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.”

    Productive industry (especially including raising children within a family) is going to keep most people out of trouble. Leave the psychobabble for others. What a great story about Rousseau writing a 500-page book on how to raise and educate children while his own are put in the poorhouse.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ayn Rand considered herself a Romantic, though she meant that primarily in terms of celebrating the heroic aspect of man. But she certainly believed in her own self-indulgence, which ended up having devastating effects on her 2 closest followers at the time (Nathaniel and Barbara Branden). But I think we would agree that she definitely went with humanism, not humanitarianism.

      She also had more of that will to power than her fans of today would believe, at least initially. According to a biography of her I read when doing a biography of Rand for Salem Press’s “Jewish Americans” volume (I also did a bio of Stephen Sondheim, and later did James Meredith for the African-American volume, Iva Toguri for the Asian-American volume, and Linda Chavez for the Hispanic-American volume), in the first edition of We the Living, her protagonist (a stand-in for Rand) told a Communist that she approved of his methods, but not his goals, in contrast to so many. She later pulled an Emily Littela once she learned better.

      My European history text had a brief discussion of Rousseau’s Émile. One thing it noted is that the title character, having supposedly been tutored to stand on his own, wants that tutor’s continued assistance even after reaching adulthood. Maybe that’s why Rousseau gave up his own kids.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Rousseau, the chief example of this tendency, wrote a 500-page book on how to raise and educate children, after leaving five of his own to a foundling hospital.

    One of the many reasons it were better had Rousseau been strangled in his crib.

    His book is possibly the best example of the “don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I think” philosophy that I have ever heard. Experience is so inconvenient when one wishes to expound a new theory of life.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the many reasons it were better had Rousseau been strangled in his crib.

      We’ll just call that a late-term abortion, Mr. Kung. A prognosticator’s right to choose.

      I believe it’s good to have a general framework and think in terms of a general framework. But note that the article I linked to is full of High Philosophy but absolutely zero “thou shalt nots” (unless I missed it).

      This is typical of online eggheads who wax eloquent in generalities but give no examples as to what their framework will permit or won’t permit. Without the “thou shalt nots,” you don’t have a moral framework. One is just intellectualizing, perhaps even one’s non-specific framework is a crafty way to basically rationalize whatever it is you want to do.

      Don’t steal. Don’t kill unborn children. Don’t cheat on your spouse. Don’t beat your children. Don’t take drugs. Don’t take any alcohol at all if it makes you belligerent or reckless. Save your money, don’t waste it. Work hard. Don’t sponge off of other people or the government. Don’t cheat. Obey the Golden Rule. Be courageous in the face of evil instead of apologizing for it. Watch your language. Eat well. Exercise. Be respectful of people but not to the point of accommodating evil. Help you neighbor. Protect the weak and defenseless.

      From the article:

      So what was this “humanism”? Babbitt reacted against what he regarded as the twin evils of the modern era: Romanticism and utilitarian scientism. Like Deneen, Babbitt did not see them as opposed forces. Rather, they worked in concert to reduce humans — complex, multi-dimensional beings — to cardboard cutouts incapable of moral choice.

      Okay, but what moral choices should they make? This is why I tune out so much of the blah-blah-blah masturbatory “conservative” media. Without the “thou shalt nots,” you’re not saying anything substantial.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Our degraded culture/society has hammered away at the idea that “judging” anyone and anything is bad. Moral, spiritual and practical idiocy runs rampant as a result.

        Too many conservatives are afraid to stand behind moral choices. They do not have the courage of their convictions.

        Many try to hide behind the hyphenated label “conservative-libertarian” thereby avoiding the need to take a stand.

        And those who identify as simply “libertarians” either too confused or dishonest when it comes to such things. Of course, some are simply little monsters.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The irony is that “non-judgmental” leftists are actually far more judgmental than most conservatives. But they judge people on their views and their partisan choices, not on their behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *