Article

2005-01-26 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-26 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Unfortunately, his first point seems to be translating over real well into personal relationships especially in regards to marriage.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-26 10:04:24 AM|| 2005-01-26 10:04:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The costs are psychic more than economic, Jarhead. The children of the divorce generation are well aware of this,having been the ones who paid the highest price, and considerably more careful about making and breaking commitments. My prediction (for what its worth): the divorce rate will drop precipitously over the next two decades.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-26 2:15:15 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 TW, You might want to read The Anglosphere Primer that Bennett wrote a few years ago. Den Beste also had at least one post on the topic that I recall, but I don't know how I would ever find it. Also, there is a small bibliography at the end of the Primer. EVERY one of the books he mentions is excellent.

Posted by Mr. Spock 2005-01-26 2:30:56 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:30:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I would have to disagree, TW.

These children have been taught, consistently, that personal relationships are secondary in their lives. It doesn't matter if your family life falls apart, just moveon.org to the next temporary relationship. The 'ME' generation taught their children to think of themselves first.

The divorce rate may drop . . . but only as a symptom of the lack of committed relationships. Not that people won't get married, but you will find a widening gap between marrieds and dedicated singles, with more dedicated single than ever before.

In the end, without people from our culture having more children, as few women or men actually choose to be single parents, other cultures and value systems than what we are used to will become predominant. 'They' will outbreed us (pick your 'they').

Posted by Jame Retief 2005-01-26 2:33:11 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:33:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 If you want to read more about James C. Bennett's views, he has posted a 3 part "primer" at the Angloshere Institute's website, of which he is President. He's also an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute:
http://anglosphereinstitute.org/

Bennett is a little "too head in the clouds" veering leftward for my taste. When I got to his chapter on "Sojourner Provisions: The Human Element of Trade and Cooperation"( ie. sojourner status = "a new model of transnational personal movement")I lost interest because Mr. Bennett's vision is the same old, same old no borders, no worries shtick.

Also, Bennett's views on national security titled "Security Organizations: Sailing With the Fast Convoy" is "interesting." Hold on to your hats folks -
powers such as Britain and France, which had fallen to the middle rank of military capability, today have returned to the rank of top powers precisely because of their greater ability to master the cutting edge of today's information-based technologies

Mr. Bennett is a very smart guy, no doubt about it. He has a high profile in the field of nanotechnology and the commercial space field.
http://www.foresight.org/FI/Bennett.html

I'd agree that the book may be interesting but it's not entirely new thinking - kind of a mix of neo-conservativism with libertarianism with Neal Stephenson. Ranking freedom as the route to a new world order without properly addressing big barriers like some religions, that shall go un-named, that put loyalty to it above individual and familial needs is more pie in the sky.

It's not so easy for First World nations to lead Third World nations to world peace and prosperity just with slogans about democracy and liberty via the internet. I for one don't believe that it's every person's innate desire to be free. If you look at world history, there's been a heck of alot more years of servitude than equalitarianism and freedom. Even the system that pretended to believe in equalitarianism ( communism) actually had an elite oligarchy that governed the common masses and curtailed their freedoms considerably.

Also there is an issue about Third World nations, that have considerable devotion to Islamic faith, being in the driver's seat in the future just by virtue of their natural resources, which the First World nations desperately need. They do not need to embrace democracy or Western values to conduct business interactions with capitalist nations and be successful in the future.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-26 2:37:32 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:37:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Thanks, Mr. Spock. Saved for later, when I'm not on chauffeur duty. When the family went on holiday over Christmas, between the four of us we took an entire suitcase full of books. I think that when the girls set up their own homes, I'll divide the library between them, as my mother-in-law has divided her Xmas decorations. (Okay, I admit it, she gave me some books, too). That should fulfill .com's dictum about simplifying life, nez pah?

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-26 2:55:23 PM|| 2005-01-26 2:55:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 They do not need to embrace democracy or Western values to conduct business interactions with capitalist nations and be successful in the future.

Depends on your definition of successful.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-26 3:07:29 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:07:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 JH, Jame, TW-I don't fear underpopulation of the earth because people aren't having enough children. I do think about the demographics of the world population over time-what percentage is committed to individual freedom and rights? What percentage would fight to eliminate a psychopathic leader? It is crucial to the survival of the democratic way of life that these percentages remain majorities.

Over time, whether subconsciously or consciously, Westerners will examine our current ways of life and family and make adjustments to our expectations. Those adjustments will have to come from more than childbearers, however. Is our current way of raising children an attractive enough alternative for a larger number of talented and intelligent women to choose mothering and home-making over remunerating, rewarding and challenging careers?

Once children are brought into the world, I think it makes sense to have a parent at home for those children, and in most societies, that has been parent has been the mother. That is smart in terms of child-rearing, but that is a huge sacrifice for women who have talents and dreams of their own-talents and dreams that in the case of my mother would have taken her to concert pianist success has she lived in a different generation. Just as is the case for any human being entering an agreement, a free person will ask, is this a good bargain?

I wouldn't expect any huge shift in the numbers of women working outside the home without significant shifts in other arenas.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-26 3:09:40 PM|| 2005-01-26 3:09:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 TW, as a product of a broken home, trust me, I know the psychological aspect.

I think as it's easy for people to make and break contacts wrt business/professional life (as the author suggests) so goes their personal affairs.

50% of all marriages or so end in divorce, my belief is that's in part to the great "me" generation & I think the other part of it is that some people go into a marriage w/unrealistically high expectations and bail out as soon as things start to get dull.

As far as underpopultation, heck, I'd like to see a little underpopulation for a change. I think there's enough idiots on the planet already. I see so many parents today that have children they can neither afford economically or emotionally. BTW Jules, my wife is a stay at home mom. Sure we could be better off money wise if she worked but we both feel it's a far greater investment that she's home w/our son. I think her job is much harder and more noble then just about anything I can think of. We both laughed at Teresa H. Kerry for making the assumption that Laura Bush never had a job "if she was just home raising the kids."

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-26 4:08:03 PM|| 2005-01-26 4:08:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 MSM, Hollyweird, LLL, Socialist message:

Life is merely having the lead in a series of one-act plays.

And, as with all other aberrations of nature (read: ignoring the Darwinist reality; i.e. rational femalians must favor monogamy to protect their offspring), such a philosophy is a genetic box canyon. Here's to the day that rational behavior wins out over this social insanity. As with other clueless and self-defeating "strategies" (i.e. Ebola killing the host before spreading), this is yet another aspect of moonbattery that will eventually have suicide as its obvious end-point.

Posted by .com 2005-01-26 4:08:43 PM|| 2005-01-26 4:08:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Depends on your definition of successful
I used the word in terms of sustainability, power and I relate it to Bennett's philosophy for how the world can be transformed through the power of democracy. He claims liberty/democratic values can cause a former failing nation to become successful.

I disagree with Bennett. A nation does not need democracy to be powerful or successful. Look at China. It's motoring along quite well and getting stronger each day. Liberty has not made the Eastern Bloc nations prosperous. No matter how much democracy we promote in Africa, I doubt that continent will ever be successful, financially solvent, self-sufficient.

Bennett relates his political vision to economics, world politics, and power. He believes that universal values from the First World democracies like rule of law, individualism, "high-trust characteristics" ( per Fukuyama) can be used to get Third World countries up to speed and every one will float around through borderless networked commonwealths being happy happy with one another and prosperous and innovative to boot.

Nations that control fossil fuel resources do not need to change their values to be powerful in the future world. Islam does not allow for individual freedom - it requires individual loyality to faith so right off the bat the concept of liberty is a no-no, because that would call for freedom of association,freedom of religion, equality of man and women,blah, blah, blah. Islam is one of the oldest religions and its tenets have survived intact without its followers being "distracted" by values from neighboring democracies. European nations like the UK actually had ME nations as colonies yet the Magna Carta has never been embraced by ME'ers.

I think we need to use another paradigm to look at the future. Shared values except for exchange of money from fossil fuel poor nations to fossil rich nations is not going to happen. Perhaps civil business transactions is the best we can hope for. First World nationals better get used to the fact that our standard of living is going to take a tumble in the future. We have paid way below true market rates for fuel, especially in the USA.

I suggest that our nation should not put all its eggs in one basket ie. that democracy will make hostile nations like us and bring world peace. I think for every cent we invest in the military, we should invest the same amount in scientific research re: discovering a substitute for fossil fuels. I'm more a pragmatist than a dreamer.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-26 4:28:37 PM|| 2005-01-26 4:28:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Genetic box canyon? Huh? Can you splain that, please?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-26 4:39:06 PM|| 2005-01-26 4:39:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 When did the Third Reich cease being sustainable?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-26 5:05:38 PM|| 2005-01-26 5:05:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 When cannon fodder was reduced and they were spread too thinly?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-26 5:06:24 PM|| 2005-01-26 5:06:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 2x:
While you raise some excellent points, I believe that you are being overly pessimistic. In most instances people rise to the occasion when presented with economic opportunities, individual freedom, and the chance to govern themselves democratically. Certainly there is a rocky road to travel for many developing nations, but in the end the individual is always the basic building block of society. Individual, rather than collective, wants and needs rule human behavior. Mainland China will eventually reform and become democratic, given enough time combined with continued economic prosperity. It may take 50 years but it will come. Islamic nations will become more democratic, individualistic, and friendly toward women and minorities given time.... as well as the occasional military or economic "kick in the ass" by the United States.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-01-26 6:46:28 PM|| 2005-01-26 6:46:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Please identify one excellent point.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-26 6:48:45 PM|| 2005-01-26 6:48:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Exactly, #14. It was not liberty or democracy or those high minded ideals that beat the Third Reich. The Third Reich sowed its own defeat when it did not honor the peace truce Hitler signed with Stalin. Germany simply over-extended itself when it took on the Russian front. However, if Hitler had kept Stalin happy, I have no doubt Europe would have German as its official language today. We were lucky that Hitler turned on Stalin.

The Third Reich fell but communism became entrenched, yet another odious political system. Communism pursued its own genocidal programs and was every bit as evil as Fascism. Interestingly enough communism does not get as much "bad press" in the West. There's a statue of Lenin, believe it or not, in Fremont, Washington state.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0503/050119_arts_toughlenin.php
It should make every American vomit at the thought of having Lenin's statue in a US city.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-26 6:55:24 PM|| 2005-01-26 6:55:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 as a product of a broken home, trust me, I know the psychological aspect. Better than I do, as I only know from observation. And you and your wife have chosen the "sacrifice" of child-centered life, at least until the children are grown, which was precisely my point. I, too am a housewife (the 'little' that I often append describes my almost 60"/152cm height), for the same reason, and my husband says that hardest/noble stuff too -- I think of it rather as both choosing the most personally suitable role. He would be as miserable at home as I would be trapped in the endless series of meetings he revels in. Several of my house-husband friends made the same choice for the same reason, liberated by classical (Jules -- by that I mean pre-lesbian/bra burning absurdities) feminism to make seek the highest happiness for the whole family.

I agree that at least part of the cause for the current divorce rate is unrealistically high romantic expectations of marriage. I understand that military folks tend to marry younger than civilians, which would exaggerate that aspect. And indeed, that same unrealistic expectation leads to the whole Sex in the City eternal bachelor/bachelorette thing, as they keep waiting for the perfect, nonexistent One (.com's genetic box canyon).

The whole birthrate thing is a bit of a blind ally, I think. On the whole, prosperity world wide is increasing these days, and with prosperity comes decreasing birth rates. The Western World is just furthest along the curve, is all. (Although I wouldn't argue with those who suggest Europe has gone too far. But that's related to why they prefer talking to doing. Another argument altogether.) Those who choose not to have children will simply be replaced in another generation by those whose parents chose to become parents. (Ha!)

As for the Nazi Germany, the seeds of their defeat were inherent in their situation. A nihilistic, murderous society naturally turns on its own citizens when all the putative outsiders have been eliminated. Had Hitler won the war, his society would have melted down within a generation, as first the Slavs, then the French and Southern Europeans been killed off, then all non-Germans, then all non-blond Germans, and finally all who were not Hitler himself, were there any still willing to do his killing for him. The successful invasion of the Allies merely hurried that process (saving my mother and her family, among others, along the way, for which I am duly grateful). Even a non-nihilistic, but expansionist, Continental society like Napoleonic France was doomed to failure, for reasons that others here can explain much, much better than I.

And that, I think, is quite enough from me on this thread.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-26 8:02:04 PM|| 2005-01-26 8:02:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 TW, I think the causality is that in industrial society, larger families lead to poverty, smaller families lead to prosperity. Sufficient prosperity leads to purchasing the ultimate luxury, a larger family and a wife at home full time to rear it. I anticipate women constituting a shrinking proportion of the workforce as more of them have larger families over the next several decades.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-26 8:36:27 PM|| 2005-01-26 8:36:27 PM|| Front Page Top

00:11 2xstandard
23:56 trailing wife
23:51 Frank G
23:47 GK
23:18 Frank G
23:16 Sobiesky
23:12 Frank G
23:12 Seafarious
23:07 Frank G
23:07 Frank G
23:06 Old Patriot
23:02 Jame Retief
22:59 Sobiesky
22:57 Old Patriot
22:54 Raj
22:53 Dishman
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:43 Raj
22:41 whitecollar redneck
22:37 Bomb-a-rama
22:29 Phil Fraering
22:28 John Q. Citizen
22:27 Robert Crawford