|
All of Mark Steyn’s articles and podcasts are full of incisive analysis and blazing wit. But his Clubland Q&A installment from June 4th is particularly brilliant, as he covers “a range of topics from the dawn of Pride Season to the death of nations.” Worth a listen (audio only).
0 Comments
Contemporary life has many odd and often infuriating aspects that leave one scratching one’s head, searching in vain for some shred of logic to explain them. A prime head-scratcher is the late-model automobile. Have you ever wondered why cars have become outrageously expensive, ugly, overly complex, packed with unnecessary electronic nonsense, and increasingly unrepairable?
Wonder no more. Everything is explained with great clarity on the fascinating and informative YouTube channel, “Uncle Tony’s Garage.” Here's a sample. "A person's wisdom lights up his face⸺and the boldness of his face is transformed."
— Ecclesiastes 8:1 The study and practice of physiognomy has been somewhat neglected in the contemporary West, drowned out by the endless din of the equality-mongers. But it never really goes away. Everyone practices the art; we all react to a person’s face. At the very least, we evaluate it on a gut level, as we do with body size and shape, voice, skin color, movement, gestures, etc. Physiognomy has been at the forefront of my thoughts lately due to the dramatic changes, over the last few years, in the facial characteristics of the population. This transformation includes a strong tendency toward dullness of expression, lack of symmetry, and downright ugliness. [I discussed these trends, from an evolutionary perspective, in my post The Darwinian Surprise (4/18/2025).] The severity of this deterioration was driven home to me when I stumbled across a certain video clip from Fox News. The topic in this case was irrelevant; what was important was the newscaster, a young man named Andy Mac. Take a look at this three-minute clip. It is clear immediately that something is awry with this specimen of homo sapiens. Physiognomy tells all: the shape of the face (and head), the placement of features, the bizarre haircut, the protruding ear, the odd movement of the mouth. Emanating from that mouth is an unpleasant and halting voice, with faulty cadence and pronunciation. He has difficulty reading the text of a tweet shown on the screen. The whole performance is no less awkward than a midget playing in the NBA. This man is a newscaster on a national network, for crying out loud. We are not talking about a bus driver, or an amateur from Podunk making a podcast in his living room, but rather the face of an important institution, seen by millions of people. Walter Cronkite he is not. Even a standard media apparatchik such as Jake Tapper is, by comparison, normal-looking and articulate. At any time and place, there is a distribution of facial attributes among the population. Not every man can resemble Sean Connery. But there has been a distinct shift toward the dysfunctional side of the curve. And, presumably, in the wake of that shift, more of those people are “promoted” into inappropriate roles. (But is the case of Andy Mac the result of something nefarious; part of the effort, in media and entertainment, to consistently portray white men as defective?) There is no question in my mind that the precipitous decline of our culture and in the overall level of intelligence is reflected in physiognomy. If you want proof, spend some time watching movies from the 1940s and 50s, or even a bit later. Look at the faces of the actors. You will see brightness, intelligence, curiosity, and humor. And this before they even speak. I can also attest that when I was growing up, in the 1960s and 70s, the percentage of people with this “look” was substantially greater than it is now. Today, it’s a different story. The aforementioned verse from Ecclesiastes could be rewritten for our era as: “A person’s idiocy darkens his face⸺and the dullness of his face is transformed.” Can this trend be reversed? [The post below was first published in 2007 on the original AWOL Civilization blog. It should be mentioned that Scruton passed away in 2020.]
It is unusual in our day to find a philosophical work that is profound, erudite, and oblivious to current intellectual fashion. I have just finished reading such a work: An Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture, by Roger Scruton. First published in 1998, it is a thoughtful attempt to explain the demise of Western culture. Scruton takes on all the familiar antagonists: deconstructionism, contemporary art, the youth culture, and much more. They scatter in disarray before his mighty pen. For example, discussing the role of artists in contemporary society: "Art is no longer a reflection on human life but a mechanism for excluding it." As for the more vulgar varieties of pop music: ”We witness a reversal of the old order of performance. Instead of the performer being the means to present the music, which exists independently in the tradition of song, the music has become the means to present the performer...it has a tendency to lose all musical character. For music, properly constructed, has a life of its own, and is always more interesting than the person who performs it.” I particularly enjoyed his debunking of deconstructionism, the best such effort I have seen. Scruton traces the development of this exaltation of nothingness, showing how it is intimately connected with the culture of repudiation, that phony pose of our self-styled intellectuals who claim to be in a permanent state of rebellion against the authorities. He shows how deconstruction became a quasi-theological underpinning of the culture of repudiation, enabling people to believe that they are in the opposition, even as they are being swept up by the dominant wave: “The subversive intention in no way forbids deconstruction from becoming an orthodoxy, the pillar of a new establishment, and the badge of conformity that the literary apparatchik must now wear. But in this it is no different from other subversive doctrines: Marxism, for example, Leninism, and Maoism. Just as pop is rapidly becoming the official culture of the post-modern State, so is the culture of repudiation becoming the official culture of the post-modern university.” Scruton delves into a thorough analysis of the Enlightenment and its aftermath, tracing the main lines of thought through the 19th century to Modernism, Post-Modernism, and finally the morbid state of collapse in which we now find ourselves. He presents several interesting hypotheses, including the notion that art, in its post-Enlightenment sense, stepped in to fill the void left by the collapse of religion as a guiding force in the West. Explore these fascinating insights when you read the book in its entirety. Trump did this, Trump did that. The Trump Effect. Trump is purposely collapsing the economy. Trump is saving the economy. The tariffs will lead to war. The tariffs will lead to peace. Trump is sticking it to Wall Street. Trump is working for Wall Street.
Many observers, pro and con, are assuming a tight causal linkage between two events: the implementation of the tariffs and the wild fluctuations in the financial markets. As the commentariat bloviates on the situation, they forget that correlation is not causation. President Trump and his associates are not causing anything. On the contrary, they are struggling to keep pace with a rapidly changing landscape that is mostly beyond their control, and for which the die was cast well before the advent of Trump 2.0. Like a person sinking into quicksand, the Administration will grasp at any stick within reach. Here is the quicksand they stepped into: The mother of all bubbles, an agglomeration of bubbles such as the world has never seen. A financial bubble. A debt bubble. A real estate bubble. A bubble of lies and fraud. A bubble of Progressive ideology, of Keynesianism, of central control, of fake science, of media propaganda. Of pure idiocy, of hypocrisy, of insanity. This megabubble is at its bursting point; a balloon in search of a pin. The tariffs are related to the bursting bubble, but not in the way that many think. Sure, they might advance or postpone certain aspects of the bursting, but those aspects are baked into the cake. Looking at the big picture, the imposition of these trade restrictions is an attempt to outwit processes that are already in motion. The Trump policy is not causing the stock market to be unstable, nor is it causing the demise of free trade and the Bretton Woods economic order; it is rather a reaction to the crumbling of the order and its constituent parts, a movement that has been accelerating for several years. The post-World War II international order, led by the United States, is dead as a doornail, with or without tariffs. The West is bankrupt, financially and in every other sense of the word. The financial system is a house of cards. NATO has been defeated in Ukraine. Europe is ruled by shrieking hags and ghoulish fanatics. Meanwhile, the BRICS countries are severing their connection with the Western system of global economic fraud. They no longer want to play the game of make-believe. Thus the frantic accumulation of gold, the anti-bubble par excellence. (The BRICS may end up with their own fraudulent system, but it will be their fraudulent system.) The tariffs are a reaction to this massive realignment. The Titanic is sinking, and this is a handy lifeboat, albeit one that has been in mothballs for a while. Will it really help rebuild manufacturing in the U.S.? I certainly hope so, because the extreme market volatility is only the start of the Great Bursting. The phony-baloney financialized economy, along with its ecosystem of institutionalized grift, is disintegrating before our eyes. When it’s all said and done, the only edifice left standing may very well be manufacturing, energy, mining, and agriculture, and the networks that surround these sectors. [SERVICE NOTICE: For the foreseeable future, I am going to publish one article per week, every Friday. There will still be a smattering of other quick posts, such as quotes, and links to interesting posts on other websites. But Friday will be the day for the real "thought pieces."]
In my post of 3/24/2025, I discussed Conquest’s Second Law of Politics, which states that any organization that is not explicitly right-wing, sooner or later becomes left-wing. Part of my analysis revolved around the question of high versus low culture, and the difficulty in maintaining the higher form, which is a bedrock of civilization. The entropic forces in society, always present, tend to drag us down to the level of low culture, which is one of the symptoms of Leftism. In the article below, first published on the original AWOL Civilization blog just after the 2008 presidential election, I examined this issue from a somewhat different perspective. * * * So it finally happened: a bonafide neo-Marxist has been elected President of the United States. He will have a sympathetic majority in both houses of Congress, along with a choir comprising the judiciary, the press, academia, the cultural “elite," and the most hardened enemies of America at home and abroad. This is not a macabre scene from a dystopian novel. It is our reality. In order to grasp the full significance of the catastrophe that has enveloped America—and indeed, Western civilization—we must cast our intellectual net far and wide, so that it encompasses the great thinkers of the past. They can guide and inspire us as we confront a phenomenon with which we, in America, have no experience. They can help us re-examine our approach to politics, the arts, education, and a host of other realms, a task that is part and parcel of salvaging and reinvigorating our culture. We can start by reconnecting with the thinkers of the ancient world. It is there, in the literary masterpieces of Athens and Rome and Jerusalem, that one finds clues to the riddles that present themselves to us. It is there that one sees how people prevailed in the face of upheavals that defy the imagination. In this spirit, I would like to present two ancient literary references that have been in the forefront of my mind in recent days. The first is from the Bible, the second is from the comic theater of Athens. In Genesis 25:29-33, a moving scene occurs between Esau and Jacob, the sons of Isaac. Esau sells his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage (a type of stew): “And Jacob cooked pottage, and Esau came from the field, and he was faint, and Esau said to Jacob, Give me to swallow, I pray thee, of that red pottage, for I am faint…And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am going to die, and what benefit is this birthright to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day, and he swore to him; and he sold his birthright…” The American people possess an impressive birthright: Living in a land of liberty, with all that is necessary to pursue their dreams. All the accoutrements are available: natural resources, a beautiful landscape, vast spaces, a noble history, brain power, and a deep tradition of opportunity. But we have sold our birthright for the slick visage of Barack Hussein Obama, our latter-day bowl of pottage. The moaning, self-proclaimed victims have thrown away their heritage. What good is it? they ask. “Behold, I am going to die," so just feed me and clothe me, and let me forget the rest. The second reference from the ancient world is The Frogs, a comedy by the great Athenian playwright Aristophanes (c. 450 – 388 BC). The play was written in 405 BC, as the Athenian empire stood on the brink of destruction. Dissension was rife in the city, and defeat at the hands of the Spartans was nigh (it occurred in 404). The plot is simple. Dionysus, patron of the drama, descends into Hades (the underworld) to find the greatest Greek playwright. The intent is to bring the champion back to the land of the living, to Athens, where he might be able to rescue the city’s decomposing culture. The selection process for best playwright boils down to a contest between Aeschylus and Euripides, in which each attempts to demonstrate that he is the greatest practitioner of the art of tragedy. Dionysus acts as moderator of the debate. Aeschylus (525 – 456 BC) represents the old world, with its fine manners, its gymnastics, its piety, and its honor. Euripides (484 – 406 BC), by contrast, is presented as the poet of decadence, sophistry, and philosophical relativism. Euripides accuses Aeschylus of using highfalutin language, of ignoring romantic love, and of being an elitist divorced from the taste and temperament of the people. Aeschylus, for his part, accuses Euripides of contributing in no small measure to the downfall of the city: “You have taught boasting and quibbling; the wrestling schools are deserted and the young fellows have submitted themselves to outrage, in order that they might learn to reel off idle chatter, and the sailors have dared to bandy words with their officers…Of what crimes is [Euripides] not the author? Has he not shown us procurers, women who get delivered in the temples, have traffic with their brothers, and say that life is not life? ‘Tis thanks to him that our city if full of scribes and buffoons, veritable apes, whose grimaces are incessantly deceiving the people…” Then there is the following exchange between Dionysus and Euripides, almost creepy in its applicability to our current predicament: DIONYSUS: And you, Euripides, prove yourself [fit] to sprinkle incense on the brazier. EURIPIDES: Thanks, but I sacrifice to other gods. DIONYSUS: To private gods of your own, which you have made after your own image? EURIPIDES: Why, certainly! DIONYSUS: Well then, invoke your gods. EURIPIDES: Oh! Ether, on which I feed, oh! Thou Volubility of Speech, oh! Craftiness, oh! Subtle Scent! Enable me to crush the arguments of my opponents. We learn that Aeschylus used only heroes and god-like figures in his plays, whereas Euripides invented every sort of vulgar character imaginable. Euripides explains that his intent was to “please the people." Moreover, he says, “I introduced our private life upon the stage, our common habits…I did not burst out into big noisy words to prevent their comprehension; nor did I terrify the audience by showing them Cycni and Memnons on chariots harnessed with steeds and jingling bells. Look at his disciples and look at mine. His are…all a-bristle with long beards, spears and trumpets, and grinning with sardonic and ferocious laughter, while my disciples are [the effeminate and loquacious] Clitophon and the graceful Theramenes.” Euripides democratized the theater. He catered to the popular desire to portray the vulgar, the seedy side of life. Often, his characters were beggars dressed in rags. Theater was now for everyone, and about everyone. It is tempting to speculate: How similar was the situation in the Athens of 405 BC, the year The Frogs was written, to the America of today? Could one not easily think of a contemporary Euripides, some best-selling author or popular screenwriter, succeeding handsomely here in our dumbed-down victimocracy, with its effeminate and sophistic king, crowned by the rampaging mob? Which great cultural figure would Dionysus bring back to help save us? We cry out for our Aeschylus—who would it be? [Quotes from The Frogs taken from Aristophanes, the Eleven Comedies, vol. 2, Immortal Classics republication of the 1912 London Athenian Society edition, pp. 227, 245-46, 235, 239-40.] We have discussed in several posts one of the major challenges facing America at this late stage of its cultural meltdown: the seizure of power by rogue judges. This threatens to derail many of the reforms instituted by the Trump Administration, and to further tighten the stranglehold of the Left on our collective throat. The question I ask today: From what ideological septic tank percolates this audacious assault on the political system?
To begin with, let us note that this is nothing new, though admittedly the current surge is rather extreme. Degradation of judicial practice in the United States has a long and storied history. It received notoriety during the tenure of the Warren Court (1953-1969), i.e. the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. That period overlapped the Civil Rights Era, and the Court (along with the rest of the federal judiciary) did its utmost to stretch the Bill of Rights to a degree that would have made the Founding Fathers spin in their graves. Earlier instances of creative interpretation still bore some relation, however shaky, to the actual wording of the Constitution. But in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court gave itself the authority to extract from the Constitution whatever principles they desired. In the words of Justice William O. Douglas, “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Penumbras and emanations, got it. Translation: We can invent any legal principle we want. The actual text of the Constitution became irrelevant; the door was opened to Leftist bullying under cover of supposed constitutional law. This brazen attack on the foundations of the American republic paved the way for the eventual complete disregard, by Leftist judges, of due process of law; nay, of the entire Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Our current judicial insurrection is an outgrowth of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries’ seemingly inexorable march toward totalitarianism; more specifically, the expansion of the modern administrative state to monstrous proportions. This springs from a compulsion to control human behavior by means of central planning. If it can be achieved in the realms of health, economics, education, etc., then why not the political machinery itself? It is up to us, says the federal bench, to ensure that the federal government (and state and local, for that matter) dutifully obey the maxims of the Progressive canon. In this view of the world, everything is justiciable. There can be no sphere of life that remains outside the purview of the black-robed priesthood. Whether it be the laws passed by the legislature, the executive functions of the president, or the way a man interacts with a woman, they consider it their proper role to intervene, at any time and for any reason. A natural result of this infinite justiciability and destruction of the rule of law is the proliferation of lawyers, courts, and lawsuits. The legal system has become the arena for the settling of every imaginable type of dispute or moral controversy, across nearly all tiers of society. Normal human life, under these conditions, is gradually asphyxiated. To my knowledge, no individual or institution has ever slowed the progress of this bulldozer. And here we are. "People are sometimes confused about the apparent contradictions in that wider world: What do, say, open borders have to do with the trannification of the school system? Well, it's not difficult. What they have in common, throughout the West, is chaos: you get on the bus and a 'migrant' stabs you; you send your little girl off to school and she comes back a little boy; your boy gets picked for the rugby team and drops dead on the pitch; you could really use a break, but the airport is closed.
The easiest way to figure out the purpose of public policy is to look at the universal outcome: the abolition of even the possibility of normal life." — Mark Steyn These days I read and listen to an enormous volume of commentary on the deepening economic and financial collapse. Much of this verbiage is repetitive, tendentious, and confused. Once in a while, however, I come across an article or a podcast that sums up, in succinct fashion, the situation as it stands at that moment. Such was the case with YouTuber “Jeremiah Babe,” who yesterday did just that. Worth a look.
As more and more of the business of life is conducted electronically, one might be tempted to pause and consider the advisability of this trend. I believe that in most cases, the abandonment or minimization of in-person contact is detrimental to the future health of mankind.
Our species has a deep need for community, and the online world is a cheap substitute for the real item. Think of the small town or urban neighborhood of yesteryear. Its beating heart is Main Street, the primary thoroughfare of commerce, where flesh-and-blood humans interact to meet each other’s basic needs. They exchange physical money for physical goods; a value-for-value transaction occurs. Meanwhile, the humans speak to each other, cementing the bonds of community. Even the most trivial small talk helps to fulfill this function. This is one reason why using cash is so important. Granted, our fiat currency is a pale derivative, far removed from real money. Nevertheless, some-thing at least is being exchanged. Cash is a key vestige of meaningful human interaction in commerce. This is gone when you interract with a screen, avoiding the direct transfer of an object of value to the person with whom the transaction is made (if a person is even present). Returning now to the small town/urban neighborhood model: Expanding outward from the commerce of Main Street, we see schools, churches, playgrounds, parks, stadiums, courts, and the private offices of physicians. All of these are the scene of face-to-face encounters, most involving (gasp) actual physical contact. Schools, universities, and the learning of trades can never complete their mission in an online environment. Sure, via a computer screen a person can accumulate facts, but not craft. Craftsmanship, including in the white-collar world, can be acquired only from live human interaction. One must see the trade being practised, and receive on-the-spot feedback for one’s own tentative efforts. This is why true experts almost always had a tutor, mentor, master, or coach to guide them in the early days, and even throughout their careers. Let us take a step back from this later stage of education, and consider child-rearing. The creation of offspring is obviously a physical, in-person act, but so is proper upbringing. Once again, only live human role models can do the job. Integrity, character, honesty, etc. cannot be transmitted on line. My heart breaks when I see a parent giving a child, often a very small one, a screen of some kind to play with. I wonder whether this phenomenon contributes to the plague of autism-like behavior among our youth. We lament the rise of loneliness and alienation in our society. The causes are many and varied, but part of the story is surely the factors cited above. Of all the manifestations of the dehumanized society, one that is emblematic, in my mind, is “working from home.” Very few individuals possess the maturity and intelligence to work effectively in this manner. For the vast majority, it is the adult equivalent of playing hooky. This computer-age farce contributes to the angst that sits on us like a heavy fog. The infamous lockdowns, along with other totalitarian measures, led to the normalization of “working” from home. The bonds of human society were degraded. Small business was dealt a blow. Feelings of alienation were exacerbated. The building of real community, from out of the miasma that is contemporary Western civilization, would require the curtailment of lawlessness on our city streets. It also would require the restoration of freedom of association. I will cover this concept in a separate post. |
Dystopian literatureWelcome to the blog! While you're here, check out the six dystopian novels by Gary Wolf. His latest is The Cubist Supremacy. 
Archives
May 2025
Categories
All
Interesting viewpointsAce of Spades |
RSS Feed