The Fall of the New Rome

What would Seneca say?

2014-04-11T17:15:00.003+02:00

Roman moralists were fond of decrying the decaying morals of their day. Famed moralists such as Seneca and Cicero often warned that the foundation of a society or empire lay in its moral and ethical foundation.

America's moral collapse seems to keep getting more and more apparent. Here is what a modern-day "moralist" has to say about America's moral collapse:

http://www.infowars.com/100-facts-about-the-moral-collapse-of-america-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe

Some of these things – the crime rate, the high number of STDs, the fake charities – are truly shocking. Mixed in are innocuous things such as a belief in evolution (which is scientific, not moral), or a belief in gay marriage (which is political, not moral). InfoWars has become discredited for promoting falsehoods.

Yet one can't help but wonder why so few people want to believe that ethics make a difference, and that when we refuse to live ethical lives, we destroy the very foundations of society.

SHOULD YOU VOTE? FATE.....OR FATALISM? An Error in Logic

2012-09-03T12:54:00.002+02:00

One common belief that made the rounds after the election of George W. Bush was that whoever won the election was "God's choice". Bush "won"; therefore, it was meant to be. God had spoken, and He chose Bush. Strangely, I haven't heard the same belief expressed by the so-called "Christian Right" (which is neither Christian nor right) about Obama's election. I've, however, heard a similar belief from conservatives, as well as fatalistic liberals; many of them mistakenly believe that whatever happens must be the will of God. As the bumper sticker reads, "Relax, God is in control". They feel that God will somehow override the political process and cause his favorite to win.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that all political activity, including even casting a ballot, is somehow "sinful". Traditionally, the Amish and Mennonites adhered to this belief, but now we see disaffected voters who boycott the elections. "It doesn't matter who you vote for," they whine at the sidelines. Others refuse to vote their conscience, picking instead the "lesser of two evils". "Otherwise, you are throwing away your vote," they reason.

However, a political election can hardly be seen as a reflection of the will of God. In a Democracy, all citizens can vote, if eligible - not just Christians. Does God use the votes of atheists and Satanists? What about the votes of "false" religions and cults, like the Moonies?

According to Medieval belief, the Kings were divinely appointed by God. This was known as the "divine right of Kings". The belief in the “divine right of kings” is, of course, undemocratic, as it implies that disobedience to the king is actually disobedience to God. This is what some Christians would have you believe, though, especially when "their" favorite candidate wins!

In order to believe that the election was somehow a reflection of the will of God, we also have to believe that God's will is made manifest in the lives of those who don't believe in Him. If everything that happens is the will of God, then we must accept that every child who dies of cancer has died due to God's will. We also must believe that horrible events in human history, such as the Holocaust, were direct manifestations of the will of God. This is a very severe view of human history, as well as a harsh view of God. I don't think that I would want to worship such a God.

Fate versus Free Will

This begs the question: If everything that occurs is fated by God, then what is "sin"? If everything that happens in the world is the will of God, then there can't be such a thing as sin, can there? If you take this idea to the extreme, then why bother to be a Christian? God's will will be done, whether I am a Christian or not. Maybe I wasn't "fated" to be a Christian. In Christian theology, this idea is known as "Predeterminism"- some were "fated" to be "saved", and some weren't, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So if everything that occurs was meant to be, isn't it cruel for God to punish people for doing "wrong", if it was His will for me to do wrong in the first place? If you apply this attitude to the Presidential Elections, then God will decide who will become president - so why bother voting? Many voters simply stayed home and didn't bother to vote in the German elections for Chancellor in 1932, reasoning that their votes wouldn't make much of a difference, anyway. Hindenburg won by a very slim margin, then Hitler was made Chancellor. Was that God's will? Did God divinely "choose" Hitler to be the leader of the German people?

Fatalism vs. the cross

The word "fatalism" is of Latin origins, deriving from the names of the Roman pagan deities, the "Fatas".
Here is some info, taken from the website takeourword.com, regarding this word's etymology:

"Surprisingly, it is derived from the Latin fata "fates" (plural of fatum "fate"). The literal meaning of fatum is "that which has been spoken" (from the verb fari "to speak") and implies a destiny which has been pronounced by the gods. In Roman mythology, the Fata were the three terrifying sisters Nona, Decima and Parcae, who determined the length and quality of each person's life. "

This belief is not a Judeo- Christian belief, but one whose fruits are the basest form of nihilism, decadence and cruelty. Roman society was renowned for its cruelty, bestiality, violence and bloodshed. It's interesting, then, that some Christians have adopted paganistic beliefs into their theology.

Thank God, the Bible does not teach fatalism; we don't believe in an angry, harsh taskmaster who sets us up to sin, then condemns us for all eternity at his own whims. That's not our God - that's more like the god of the Romans, Zeus, who favored whomever he pleased, and lashed out in jealousy at anyone who displeased him.

The Bible teaches that the cosmos comes from God, and that its beauty and intricacy are a reflection of His will. However, all creation also was given free will- and thus, the capacity to do His will, as well as to do what is contrary to His will. Seen this way, world events can be the will of God, at times, since God reserves the right to intervene when we ask Him to. However, not all world events are God's will.

In the book of Exodus, chapter two, we read the story of the birth of Moses. Pharoah commanded the deaths of all the Hebrew infants- an evil action. Pharoah's daughter disobeyed the will of her father, and had pity on the baby she found in the water. Unlike today's "fatalistic" Christians, Pharoah's daughter did what she knew in her heart was right, and didn't meekly accept the rule of Pharoah to be the will of the gods.

Here we see the will of those who do evil juxtaposed with God's intervention, and His will made manifest despite Pharoah's actions. God would certainly prefer it that we would all do His will, but He only will directly intervene in human affairs to the extent that we allow Him to.

The cross represents the will of God meeting the human condition - the vertical line reaching up to heaven, and the horizontal representing the earth's horizon. On the cross, God made the ultimate intervention, and the most radical sacrifice ever made. Jesus, who could raise men from the grave, who could turn water into wine, and whose oratory powers could astound and bewilder the greatest teachers of His day, certainly could have prevented his execution.

Instead, He refused to speak in His own defense. What would impel Him to do such a thing? Two things - firstly, His substitutionary death on the cross was foretold by the Prophets, and was the will of God. Secondly, He gave us Himself as an example of radical nonviolence.

Which brings us to the topic of Prophecy- if God gave us free will, and everyone has the right to choose what to do, then how can prophecy operate? How can God know what will happen beforehand?

This is a divine paradox - God is omnipotent, meaning He is all-powerful. However, He has limited His power over us, so that we can exercise our free will. The paradox goes further- if He is all-powerful, then He also must know all things - otherwise, knowledge would be greater than God, and, therefore, God would not be omnipotent. Therefore, God knows what our choices will be before we make them.

Christians have a responsibility to make wise choices, therefore. We will be held accountable for our choices. We can't just make lousy choices, then claim that whatever God wanted was fated to be. So go out and vote, but vote for a candidate who truly reflects your moral and ethical belief system, not just the "lesser of two evils".

So what about the two choices before us? The two-party system is similar in many ways to the choices you see at a fast-food strip, featuring KFC and Taco Bell - two different "tastes" owned by the same company. While the parties differ in "lifestyle" issues such as abortion and gay rights, they are essentially the same on the real "meat and potatoes" issues - jobs, health care, education and war. Both parties are in favor of cutting social programs in order to benefit big banking, the military and the prison-industrial complex. It's ironic that a guy who grew up nominally Muslim and a Mormon are the only two choices for a nation that used to be devoted to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And why shouldn't they have more or less the same platform? They are both beholden to the same big business and banking interests who pour millions of dollars into their campaigns. So long as the corporate candidates hold all the power, nothing in the US will change.

Even worse, while Jesus upheld the sanctity of all life, even refusing to participate in an execution by stoning (which was unthought-of in his day), both parties support the extinction of human life, while upholding the bizarre doctrine that a corporation is a person. Is there a real difference? The democrats believe you are a person AFTER you are born, but have no rights even one hour before birth. The republicans believe you have rights BEFORE you were born (and wouldn't even allow a raped or ill woman to abort), but AFTER birth, you lose the right to healthcare, housing and education.

My suggestion? There are tons of small independent parties. Sure, you could be "throwing away your vote", but it is preferable to throwing away your soul or conscience voting for the devil.

The London Riots- UK's Chickens Come Home to Roost

2011-08-10T23:12:00.003+02:00

For years, we have been telling young people that they are what they buy, wear and own. We have been feeding them a steady diet of nihilism, violence and materialism. The recent riots across the UK show what happens when a whole generation of young people, bereft of values, is let loose in a society in crisis. We can soon expect similar riots in the US. The reason is clear- as the bible says, "You shall reap what you sow".

The pretext of the riots, police brutality and racism, quickly devolved into random violence. It would be easy to blame this on "black youths", but the pictures show another story. We saw young people, boys and some girls, of all colors, rioting, looting and setting fire to shops, cars and homes. Disenfranchised, alienated and hopeless, they took out their frustrations on whatever or whoever was at hand.

In the US in the days of the Great Depression, there was a spirit of unity. The idea that "we're all in this together" held society together, and while some social unrest occurred, on the whole, people made an effort to get along. One reason for this was that Roosevelt insisted that every segment of society should "buckle up" and make sacrifices, while at the same time, he provided relief for the neediest. The message was clear- all human beings are deserving of basic dignity, and our monetary worth is not the sum of our human worth.

Furthermore, people in those days had a belief in the greater good, which was linked to the common belief in spiritual values. Granted, religious beliefs alone do not make a person good, but for those who are inclined to goodness, there is a foundation for living one's faith, and for those searching, there is a direction.

Today, not just in the US, but across Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, governments are slashing budgets for social programs, all the while refusing to add one penny of tax for the upper crust. Multinationals, banking cartels and the defense industry are making record sums of money, while the poorest of the poor are treated like rubbish. The message is clear- those who have money are somehow worth more than those without. Without the designer clothes, the fancy car and the flashy clothes, you are nothing. Is it any wonder that young people crave these things?

Delayed gratification is nullified by advertising campaigns that tell us to buy now, pay later. Kids have watched as, for decades, their parents and elders have paid for everything on credit, sometimes getting things they could not afford. A sense of entitlement has trickled down from the very rich, who are held up as idols. Paris Hilton, a woman with no discernible talent, is lionized by the press while millions wait at the local food pantry for a bag of canned goods.

Meanwhile, for decades, religious values and morals have been scoffed at, and parents began to believe that so long as kids have adequate food, clothing and some kind of job training, their needs are being met. We all forgot somewhere along the way that our greatest need is the need for meaning. Kids who are left to solve the riddle of their own existence on their own find themselves overwhelmed and rudderless in a sea of confusion. They see that their elders not only are without answers, they refuse to acknowledge the questions. The kid whose parents refuse to provide moral guidance may join the Taliban, become a skinhead or join a religious cult. We let them "choose their own values", afraid to tell them what to believe, mainly because we are afraid of having our own lack of faith and integrity questioned. Is it any wonder that they respond with violence?

Money and materialism have also steered society for too long. "Extras" such as music, the arts and sport have been cut, in favor of "practical" programs that are more money-oriented. We often use money and careers as a "motivation" for kids to stay in school, not noticing as their eyes glaze over, and they begin to tune out more and more. The message we send kids is that money is all that matters. The things that make life meaningful are delegated to being "extras". Without the arts as a means of self-expression, they will express themselves the only way they know how: with brute force.

Who owns the television stations that pump kids up with value-free violence? Who owns the radio stations and record companies that promote music for "gangstas" and ""pimps"? Certainly not the young people! Yet calls to monitor the film, television or game industry are pooh-poohed as forms of "censorship". We forget that teenagers are still too immature to make wise choices.

We, the adults, have got to start behaving like adults. We have to be the role models that young people crave, and stop shirking responsibility. Parents have to stop blaming teachers, teachers have to stop blaming parents, and corporations that make money marketing products have to start showing some corporate responsibility. And lastly, we need a return to spiritual principles and embracing our humanity instead of materialism, hedonism and nihilism. These riots ought to be a wake-up call to act now, before something similar-or even far worse - comes to your town.

Light and Darkness

2011-03-28T14:18:00.001+02:00

In architecture, "structural integrity" refers to the strength of the building. Similarly, a man with integrity is strong, while a man without integrity (like a building lacking structural integrity) is weak. Lack of integrity also refers to sinfulness, a lack of moral backbone. This is weakness in a man.

As it goes for men or nations, so it goes for spiritual beings. God, the creator of the universe (I call Him the "Heavenly computer programmer") is without sin and pure Love. Satan is full of sin, therefore, he is weak! God is sinless, therefore, He is almighty! So why do we fear evil? Because some churches have mistakenly given the devil credit for power that HE CLEARLY DOES NOT HAVE!

The Bible says that the devil is like a roaring lion, always roaming around, searching for someone to devour. In Job, God asks him where he was, and he says; "Going to and fro". God stands still, but the devil keeps roaming. This tells you that God is the same, yesterday, today and always, but the devil is a master of disguise, always changing his face.

Satan hates those who carry God's name (Jews) and those who carry God's Spirit (spirit-filled believers) and he will never end his quest to murder God (attempted deicide). The pogrom never ends. The next holocaust will not happen in Germany- Satan has already moved to a new location. He is already setting up camp elsewhere so he can, once again, attempt to kill his enemies. But the devil cannot win because sin is weakness. Strength can only be found in God, who is sinless.

The question, then, is why an apparently intelligent being, Lucifer, who was created as a powerful angel, would imagine that he could wage war against God, who is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. The answer lies in the fact that God, after making the angels, concealed some of His power. He loves unconditionally, and wants to be loved unconditionally. He does not want His creations to love Him out of fear.

Lucifer believed that God's power was limited, so in his pride, he sought to raise himself up to be worshipped. The scriptures tell us that one third of the angels joined him and were cast down, forever separated from the light and love of God.

In these times, it appears that darkness and evil have the upper hand. Evil dictatorships rob citizens of their rights. Poor farmers are oppressed by corporations or international organizations. The middle classes and the poor lose their land, their jobs and their livelihoods and the greedy are rewarded. We see wars everywhere, as well as natural catastrophes, like earthquakes, tsunamis and floods. Is God really in control?

Some would say that God is in control, and that he is behind these catastrophes. They say he is judging humanity. But who would want to worship a God who would kill little children, or even entire families? We can acknowledge that all men are sinners, but how can we justify the suffering around us?

Others say that God is not in control. They believe that God created everything, but gave it to us, to do as we please. This idea that God just created the universe, then sat back and let everything happen is referred to as "Deism". Many of the founding fathers were deists, including Jefferson and Franklin. They believed that the universe functions like a grand machine, and that God seldom intervenes in human affairs.

However, the scriptures reveal that God has, indeed, intervened in a very dramatic and personal way. The heavenly computer programmer of the universe became a part of the "code" itself and entered into His creation. He did this for one purpose only- to save us, His creation, and to show us all a better way through His example- a way of peace, love, forgiveness and grace.

Meanwhile, He is, again, concealing His almighty power. Lucifer, now the adversary of God ("Satan" is Hebrew for "adversary") believes that he can win at war against God. He has summoned all of his power. He has produced a body of anti-God propaganda (including the lie that God does not exist!). He has unleashed his demons of war, hatred, racism, violence, perversion and corruption. He is gaining more and more power over the earth. I do not doubt that Lucifer himself is behind the catastrophes.

God warned us through His prophets that these times would come. God warned that He would withdraw His divine protection from those who continually rebelled from Him, and that in these times, He would stand back as Satan was let loose. God, in His omniscience, knows beforehand what will happen, and knows what choices we make. This does not absolve us of our free will choices! However, in His mercy, He chose that these times would be cut short.

One day soon, all things will be revealed- both good and evil. In the book of Genesis, we read the story of how Adam and Eve ate of the tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil", setting into motion the things that would be. The spiritual meaning of this is that we, humanity, want to know what good and evil is, but to do so, we must suffer. We have chosen the path of suffering instead of the path of Paradise. The final conclusion draws near. Those who choose Yeshua will be freed from eternal suffering. Their suffering here on earth will end in joy.

Good and Evil are being revealed in our time. Soon, God will reveal Himself to humankind, and put an end to suffering. He will reveal His power. Before that happens, we who live in times of darkness must hold on to our faith, knowing that it only takes a small candle to light up the darkness.

God has the power! Remember that God is light. The power of darkness is the power that a shadow has. Shadows can frighten small children, but adults know better. We are meant to grow in Christ, and put away childish things, so we can give up our childish fears and face the light, and know that the darkness cannot touch us.

Creative Rebellion versus Capitalism

2011-01-02T16:54:00.005+01:00

The work of a forest ranger is not easy. When old trees are not cut down, they rot and fall in the forest, and the forest ranger must be alert at all times to cut them down before they fall and injure someone. Without this, young trees cannot grow, because their light source is cut off by rotting dead trees. Soon, forest fires sweep through the forests, ravaging both old and young trees. In a similar way, the arts must be pruned or tended to. Without this, they die out. That which is old and dead must be cut or pruned, new forms must be sustained, and all that lives must be watered and nurtured. In our time, the long tradition of sacred or edifying music, poetry, literature and theater that was once supported by the church and the well-educated is in grave danger of dying out.

We can see that in all great civilizations, there is an innate need for each generation to differentiate itself from its forbears. This can take the form of either creative rebellion or destructive rebellion. Creative rebellion builds upon the cultural edifice of the past, adding to and embellishing upon the traditions that are wholesome, and discarding that which is contrived, outdated or superfluous. The impressionist painters, for example, saw the superfluity of realism in an age of photography, but didn't dispense with reality completely; instead, they supplanted it with a new technique. Modern jazz didn't merely spurn the jazz of the past, but expanded upon it. Destructive rebellion, however, seeks to destroy without building. It represents a negation of the past, and sees the wholesale destruction of society as the only possibility.

We are now seeing a society awash in destructive rebellion, one that can not differentiate between "art" and nihilism. Music, for instance, is based on the harmonic series,which comes from pure physical law. Even a newborn infant can readily tell the difference between consonance and dissonance, as based upon the tones of the harmonic series. That God is the creator of such laws was not lost on classical composers, many of whom dedicated their greatest works to God.

In recent times, however, with the dawning of the post-Christian worldview, the arts lost their way. Rather than seek to work with the laws of nature, music rebelled, and instituted the artificial laws of 12 tone serialism, atonality, or "modernism". Man sought to become a law unto himself. At some point, rather than the arts serving God, the arts became and end in itself. In the name of "freedom", aesthetics were relativized to the extent that noise and music were considered exchangeable. Art for art's sake means turning art into an idol. When the artist is allowed to do all in the name of art (including destruction of art), then art no longer serves either God, man or nature, it becomes a false "god". As Ingmar Bergman said:

"Art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. It severed an umbilical cord and now lives its own sterile life, generating and degenerating itself. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God."

Atheism is, of course, nothing new. Its advent in ancient Rome presaged Rome's fall into irrelevance and the dawn of a dark age. In our time, the same, tired old atheism is touted as something new and original. Brahms himself didn't see atheism as capable of producing great art:

"I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you, Joseph, that they are doomed to speedy oblivion, because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their works are purely cerebral. No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer." - Johannes Brahms in conversation with the violinist Joseph Joachim (1831 - 1907). (Quoted in Arthur M. Abell: Talks with Great Composers. (1955)

We can see the results of such thinking in the dreary, unremittingly bleak films being produced. Film critic Mark Butterworth stated, "A stylistic mood, a fashion of dullness, dimness, of the ugly, gritty, and dirty has overtaken us. We have a very sick elite operating at large calling evil good. Fortunately, most of these movies attract a small audience, but the general effects are pernicious and seep into the culture regardless of their success. The success is that such movies get made and more of them every year."

In addition, capitalism tends to produce pseudo-rebellion. For instance, a trend is marketed as "rebellious" to the public, and sold. Burger King announces the "cheese revolution". By co-opting the word "revolution", the word loses its meaning, thus minimizing the risk that angry, dissatisfied people will associate the word with any form of political revolution. Ironically, even the image of Che Guavara is being marketed and sold, on bumper stickers, T-Shirts and magnets. Instead of real revolution, people are sold a marketed, plastic form of rebellion. Tattooing, originally a part of the punk/grunge movement in the US and UK, was seized upon by marketers and advertisers, and commercialized. The result is that millions of gullible people have stampeded into tattoo parlors to get flames tattooed on themselves. Mass rebellion is a form of conformity. Even grandmothers are tattooed and pierced, so the original intent of getting a tattoo to rebel against the older generation is now a moot point. Tattoos are now the mark of the gullible conformist.

As Douglas R. Shearer describes it:

"Traditionally, art expresses the noblest impulses of the specific culture that produces it . But American art, since Andy Warhol, profanes the noble and ennobles the profane. And that's typically American. Americans distrust "all embracing cultural ethics" because they threaten personal choice."

The greatest cultures were awash in creative rebellion, ever seeking new techniques, assimilating influences from other cultures and combining different streams in new ways. We need only look at some of the greatest artistic movements of the past, the painters of the Italian renaissance or the composers of Vienna to see what a society can achieve when it is free to flourish. The greatest authors sought to illuminate truth, advance beauty and uplift humanity; today however, we no longer believe in beauty, unless it is simply physical, sexual beauty. We have replaced the divinity of the female form as depicted in the renaissance with the image of the busty stripper.

Creative rebellion, like an orchid, cannot grow and thrive in the acrid soil of atheism, nihilism and bitterness. It needs to be nurtured and can only occur under several conditions:

Firstly, there has to be a cultural tradition that serves as a framework. This is an agreed-upon common set of culture, beliefs, values and morals. If you destroy the framework, there is no longer the possibility of creativity. The framework can be modified, but too sudden changes spell the destruction of society itself. Like a living organism, society can be healed by necessary surgery, but cutting off entire organs kills the patient. What we see, however, is that in an effort to be inclusive, we have, too often, neglected our cultural traditions, dismissing them as irrelevant. "Political correctness" has demanded that works by Shakespeare, Milton or Dostoyevsky must be banned or replaced. With fewer and fewer students being exposed to the European cultural heritage, a European artist's work cannot draw upon such cultural references without risking the loss of a potential audience. As a result, the only "art" that succeeds is largely art that contains many pop cultural references, gimmicks or kitsch. Furthermore, America has seen mass immigration on such as scale as to nullify any pre-existing "common culture", causing a cultural Balkanization. In Europe, as well, with the declining birthrate, it would be dubious to expect any vestige of a "common culture" to survive the decades to come. We are seeing a slow decay into ruin.

Secondly, creative rebellion is in need of a culture that is at least somewhat conservative; otherwise, there is nothing to rebel against. The arts, by their very nature, tend to be made by liberals. However, when even the conservatives are liberals (that is, when they no longer hold to the traditional moral, ethical or aesthetic tenets of the society), then there is nothing to rebel against, except life itself. The result is nihilism.

The opposite extreme, however, is equally deadly. Fundamentalist or puritanical societies tend to view the arts with suspicion, even banning forms that they feel are evil. China's "cultural revolution" resulted in the suicides of classical musicians. The Taliban's rule in Afghanistan means the annihilation of a rich folk music tradition, which now is only a distant memory. No music of great substance is coming from America's fundamentalist movement; many of the right-wing universities that have sprung up in the past twenty years have no music or arts departments. Among America's "Bible Belt", classical music, painting and theater are often considered "worldly" and sinful. Among the liberal elites, they are invalid, unless they appeal to populism, radical politics or atheism.

Thirdly, there has to be an arts education in place, which is accessible to a reasonably large segment of society. Those who are inclined towards a career in the arts must be nurtured at a young age; those unfit for such a profession must learn the rudiments so that they can participate as amateurs and provide the arts with an educated public.

Capitalism and market forces are not sufficient to sustain the arts. Capitalism markets "products" the same way, regardless if the product is shaving cream or opera. Fine arts, however, cannot be sold like cigarettes or autos. Their appeal lies in the intangible, not the marketable. Furthermore, capitalist, mass-produced "art" tends to need a cult of personality around it in order to market the goods effectively. In recent years, this has had a profound effect on the production of the arts, causing artists to select their subject matter more on marketing principles than on their artistic worth. The best photographers become commercial photographers, tonal composers, unable to find work as "serious" composers, score for films. Film makers begin to eschew themes that are unlikely to have mass appeal, and "tie ins" with advertisers begin to have a substantial impact on the plot and characters, to the extent that in the future, I predict that all films and television will be simply extended commercials. The lines between advertising, art and entertainment will become so blurred that the arts will become entirely irrelevant.

Mass appeal for the arts could only be achieved by an educated public which would take the time to learn the cultural traditions. Capitalism, however, schools the public in the joys of instant gratification. There is no place for the intangible, the mysterious, the profound, the sacred. Any profundity that cannot be expressed in a five second commercial, a subway billboard, or an internet popup must be dispensed with. This approach is at work in all segments of society, resulting in churches that offer short sound-bite inspiration instead of depth and profundity, schools that emphasize entertaining, easy projects and wishy-washy discussions rather than hard work, and parents who demand pills to help them control their children, instead of disciplining them. The culture of convenience has turned into the culture of indulgence.

In the distant past, the arts were sustained by the nobility, who were well-schooled in cultural traditions, and tended to be somewhat conservative in their tastes. This served as a braking mechanism on society, preventing drastic changes that would be destabilizing and destructive. This also served as a backdrop of "old fashioned" taste which could be rebelled against. In time, the new forms and styles would be assimilated into the musical and artistic traditions, becoming the new backdrop for preceding generations.

Today, the "old money" nobility is being replaced by the nouveau riche, who have not grown up with a fine arts tradition, and are more likely to buy pornographic sculptures, or support pop music than support "fine arts". Many would not see any use for such things, figuring that the public can best decide what is and isn't good art. In the modern world, what isn't of benefit to the marketplace, or isn't utilitarian is easily set aside. Moreover, the arts marketplace has become more and more a conduit for money-laundering rather than a place for supporting great arts.

To make matters worse, the line between art, advertising and corporate entertainment has been obscured to such an extent that advertising itself is deemed "pop art", and music and art of little artistic value is over-hyped by a corporate media that is suspicious of anything that cannot be readily commodified or controlled. For example, Lady Gaga's value-free musical and video "artistry", including scenes depicting nuns being raped, is considered worthy of gallons of newsprint ink, while composer John Adams is seldom mentioned. Many young people have heard of Madonna, whose "music" is mainly the product of teams of producers and studio musicians, but many wouldn't be able to guess who Thelonious Monk was.

This promotion of music and art that is plastic, pliable and free of values or morals is not accidental. Music with higher meaning cannot be easily used to sell soap or autos. Music and art that is sublime draws us to higher things, or to the art itself. Only the superficial can lead to the superficial. Materialism and the consumer mentality require making consumer objects the focal point of worship, thus necessitating art, film and music that will not compete with the consumer's affections. The car is the object of desire, so the music must not draw the heart towards heavenly desires. The new shoes must satisfy, so any insinuation that shoes alone cannot bring satisfaction must be suppressed.

Religious art, which played such a huge role in the founding of Western Civilization, has, in the process, become a victim of de facto censorship by the corporate media fascists, who will allow songs about sodomy and murder to be played on the radio, but will not allow music depicting Jesus as the Son of God. In the end, capitalism has morphed into new breed of fascism, a rabid serpent devouring its own tail. And because music, art and entertainment of quality is not seen by the public, they take the paltry offerings they are given. The corporate plutocracy then justifies its actions by claiming that they are only giving the people what they want.

The public could decide, of course, if they were well-educated in the arts. However, in recent years, funding for public arts education has declined, due to pressure from corporations who demand a workforce that will be competent in math, science and technology. The result? Marketplace demands are being met, schools have installed computer rooms, corporations, eager to get qualified workers, have donated technology and resources to schools and universities. They have not, however, contributed to arts in education, and why would they? It isn't in their best interests.

Fine arts open people up to things that cannot be bought with money. They remind us of our humanity, spirituality and transcendence. If enough people experienced these things, we would no longer be so easily manipulated, or drawn into the web of consumerism, debt and insatiability. The market promotes whatever sells, and the public, ignorant of art, and primed to buy only what provides instant gratification, does not have the attention span to listen to something that lasts longer than three minutes.

In contrast to the past, in which enlightened, educated aristocrats chose the music they felt was most profound, and set it before the public, nowadays the lowest segment of society sets the tone, and the result is clear to see. Incapable of understanding chord progressions, unable to carry a tune or even understand a melody that is more than two measures long, wanting only a steady beat, grunting, and pornographic lyrics, the modern Neanderthal gets exactly what he wants- grunting, crude rhythms, repetitive, five note melodies endlessly repeated, all accompanied by images of gorgeous women dancing half naked.

Furthermore, the corporate plutocrats of our day and age don't want a public that is schooled in the arts, for the simple reason that the arts can be a powerful means to empower the poor. Keeping the arts ensconced in an ivory tower, to be gazed at by a privileged few means less chance that the unwashed hordes will storm the tower, and set the arts free to live among humanity, willingly serving both God and man.

Some feel that the arts are to be left at the hands of the government. In every industrialized nation, there is some sort of ministry of arts, or arts organization. However, these organizations are more likely to be run by the enemies of artistic tradition, not their supporters. Government officials often have no concept of higher art, and are likely to abuse their positions to promote political agendas.

Under communism, for instance, only openly pro-communistic, atheistic art is allowed. Similarly, in America, artists of questionable talent and ability are awarded grants and prizes for political reasons, often by radical nihilists within such organizations. This serves to further alienate the public from the fine arts, causing them to demand even less funding for the arts. The destructive spiral continues, as artists scramble to make art that will please the current set of political appointees.

As a result, artists whose political or social views are unpopular, unclear or uninteresting tend to be marginalized. Those who are "scandalous" can get press coverage, thus providing the capitalist marketplace with a selling point. Those who make easily digested, accessible art that can be "marketed" or used as film music, background music for television commercials and the like, are also rewarded. This leaves little room for genuine creativity, which can often take years to develop, and cannot be understood without patience and a fine ear.

Political correctness decrees that the droning of a digeridoo is the musical equal of a Symphony by Brahms or Beethoven, or a jazz piece by a piano virtuoso. To state otherwise would be political suicide. Music that took decades to perfect is cast aside for grunting and murmuring; the public refuses to pay for live music, because they can listen to a DJ for free. Why should they understand the hard work and years of dedication that allows a jazz musician to play a competent solo, or the hours of practice that enable the pianist to perform a Ballade by Chopin? A public that has been stupidified by an educational system that will not teach them how to carry a tune, clap in time or play a simple instrument will certainly not produce a public that can appreciate the arts.

Is America repeating the mistakes of ancient Rome?

2010-12-02T14:19:00.002+01:00

In 2001, a book published by a small publishing company in the US came and went without receiving much fanfare. Nestled among the many glossy get-rich-quick, positive thinking and self- help books that one commonly finds in Christian bookstores, "When the Empire Strikes Out: Are We Repeating the Pattern of Past Civilizations?", with its serious title and earnest, analytical tone, could not have seemed less untimely.

After all, America had just experienced a whole decade of growth, peace and self-indulgence. The economy was booming, after a few "setbacks" like the dot com bubble that burst in 2000. The Soviet Union, long considered America's archenemy, had collapsed. The Cold War was over, and Clinton had promised a "peace dividend". What could go wrong?

The book's author, William R. Goetz, delved into a theory with which most Americans are unfamiliar - Sir John Glubb's theory of the rise and fall of empires- and what this theory could mean to Americans - namely, that the United States was in the throes of its imminent collapse and death. Needless to say, the book was not terribly popular. Truth never is.

At the time, I found a copy in my local Christian bookstore, and read it with great eagerness. Goetz explains how Sir John Glubb's famed book The fate of empires and Search for survival. The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival outlined seven phases in the life span of an empire, from the first, the Age of Outburst, to the last, the Age of Decline and Collapse.

Goetz's book applied this theory to the history of the United States, and came to the almost inevitable conclusion that the United States was heading for disaster.

The parallels between the last days of Rome and the last few decades of the United States are appallingly clear -the political corruption, obsession with luxury, huge disparity of wealth, and above all, obsession with triviality, wealth and hedonistic sex are found in both. Of course, we have all heard of the decadence of Rome's final years. In Caesar and Christ, Will Durant described Rome's final days as follows:

"Prostitution flourished.... many rich men paid a talent ($3,600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm. Marc Antony surrendered to such sensuality that his subjects lost respect for his authority. He surrounded himself with dancers, musicians, courtesans and roisterers, and took wives and concubines whenever a fine woman struck his fancy."

The worst ruler, Nero "divorced one wife, murdered his own mother, killed a pregnant second wife, then in regret found a youth who closely resembled her, had him emasculated, married him and used him in every way like a woman."

Has it gotten this bad in the US yet? Thankfully, America has not yet produced a new Nero, but the many sexual scandals (including Bill Clinton's famed cigar incident with intern Monica Lewinsky) should give us cause to consider.

Goetz quotes Henry Cabot Lodge in The History of Nations: "Perhaps the most significant mark of the corruption of the age is the frequency of divorce and the general aversion to marriage..... immorality was the rule." Another sign of a society in decline is the division of wealth: "(There were) two predominant classes in the state... the mass of beggars and the (incredibly wealthy).

The "economic and social disintegration", as Lodge put it, caused the Romans to become lazy, overly fond of luxury and adverse to hard work. The indolence of its citizens, the endless internal struggles brought about by societal disunity, and the financial burden of providing free bread for thousands - these were the first cracks in Rome's invincible facade.

Add to this the assimilation of thousands of barbarians into Rome, the frequent invasions from without and the many foreign wars designed to bring in much-needed funds to pay for the bloated military, public welfare and luxurious decadence of the Roman aristocracy, and you have the makings of disaster.

To be sure, the long, slow decline of Rome has long been a favorite of historians, and innumerable books have pondered the causes for her fall. While few have read all of Edward Gibbon's momentous seventeen-volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the gist of the book's chronicle of Rome's downfall can be summed up in what Gibbons describes as the five significant factors in her inglorious end: a rapid increase in divorce, a craze for pleasure, a bloated military coupled with ignorance of enemies within, an increase in violence and a decline in religious morals. This, yet again, reads like a perfect description of American society today.

The frivolity, hedonism, obsession with convenience (so that even walking five minutes is considered an undue burden) are one side of America's decline, and are even looked upon as comical. Home-grown terrorists, school massacres, a sudden rash of child abductions by predatory pedophiles and the splintering of society are the darker side.

Selfishness and individualism cause children to be seen as a burden, instead of a blessing, as Goetz points out. One result is an increase in abortion, long a hot topic of controversy among conservatives in the US. However, this, too, is nothing new. Ancient Romans practiced not only abortion, but infanticide, as well.

American hedonism has also brought us the "Great Recession" we are now seeing: a nation that, for decades, consumed without producing, bought what it couldn't afford and demanded more wages for itself, while consuming cheap goods from overseas, is destined for defeat.

When he wrote his book in the last years of the nineties, Goetz could hardly have seen just how horribly wrong America's short- sighted economic policies could have gone– we now see Washington sending trillions of dollars to rich banking billionaires, while a whole generation of kids will spend their formative years living in tents, sleeping in motels or in their parents' cars.

Meanwhile, the open borders with Mexico means that the so-called modern day "barbarians" will continue their invasion. Why do they keep coming? Again, America's short-sighted economic policies, such as NAFTA, forced millions of desperate Mexicans into poverty and hunger. With a drug war out of control, many now have little choice but to risk their lives fleeing from danger.

At the same time, millions of American citizens, out of work, are depending on extended unemployment benefits and food stamps, some living in their cars or in tents; all the while, America's wealthy elite would rather hire illegal immigrants than US citizens.

On the political level, we see other signs of decay: the growth of a centralized, bloated bureaucracy, an inefficient, bloated military, the increase in expensive overseas battles, and a buildup in debt and ongoing corruption. No nation has ever successfully fought two wars on two fronts simultaneously and survived. The last two to try were Napoleon and Hitler, and both were defeated. The arrogance of our nation's leaders to think that they could succeed at such a task is astounding.

Interestingly, in chapter ten, Goetz enumerates the many threats facing America, many of which have, in the following years, come to pass. The Chinese have already committed many of the attacks that Goetz described a decade ago, including infiltration of the food supply (the melamine poisoning), shutting down power grids (which happened in 2003) and attacking the economic system through hacking (which happened last year). China's "information warfare" program is the second largest in the world - after the US. Because of America's dwindling number of native-born IT specialists (another product of the failed school and university system), we can expect the quality of China's program to soon exceed that of the US, if it hasn't already.

In When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black writes: "As I examine the parallels between American society and other great empires in history, I am often stunned by the way our civilization mirrors the fallen giants of the past." If we want to see the future, we need only look at the past. Goetz's book now seems chillingly prophetic in its warnings. Too bad America's leaders were too busy playing golf, conducting sexual affairs or attending campaign fundraisers to pay attention to his dire warnings.

How to Destroy a Nation in 15 Easy Steps, or What Happened to the USA: a cautionary tale

2010-11-23T13:22:00.002+01:00

1. Attack ALL tradition, even relatively innoculous traditions, like religious feasts, parades, traditional clothing, etc. Make sure that people follow fashion instead of tradition. Change the fashions as quickly as possible, so that people will have no time to attend to important matters, being continually consumed with following the latest trends. "New architecture", consisting of ugly buildings devoid of ornament, should be promoted. Old buildings that are beautiful should be torn down, so that people have little connection to the past. "Modern music" that is sterile, devoid of human feeling and hypnotic in effect should be promoted as well. Folk music, traditional forms of art and architecture should be eliminated. Art and film should reinforce a style that is either entirely devoid of meaning or substance, or simply decadent. "High art" should be eliminated from popular culture, and sneered at as "old fashioned" and "high brow". Thus demoralized, the population will be easier to manipulate.

2. Divide people by minor traits such as skin color. Reinforce these differences by treating people differently, or creating identity movements. Create separate magazines, television programs, radio stations, etc., so that people will be divided as much as possible.

3. Divide people by age. Make sure that young and old cannot wear the same clothing, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, or even speak the same language. Create a "generation gap". This will make it virtually impossible to create a community of resistance.

4. Create a plethora of different political groups, appealing to different factions, all proposing the same policies, and none of them offering meaningful change. Put "your people" in every party.

5. Make sure that most people work at jobs that have little relation to their lives. Eliminate self-employment as much as possible, so that most people are completely dependent on corporations and anonymous multinationals. Slowly lower the wages and make sure that people have to work at several jobs to get by. A nation that is being worked to death cannot put up any resistance. They will not be able to take time off to demonstrate.

6. Make sure that the nation is more and more dependent on imported goods. Eliminate small, family-run farms and locally owned factories. Bit by bit, send all meaningful work overseas to foreigners. A nation that produces nothing but debt will be easily cut off from outside resources. Those jobs that remain will be fought over by a desperate populace, who have lost their self-respect and self-sufficiency.

7. Make sure that the nation goes into debt. In order to do this, it is necessary to encourage spending and discourage thrift. Consumerism and a life of shopping will mean that people will do anything to "keep up with the Joneses".

8. Attack the family and traditional marriage as "old fashioned". Make traditional virtues such as chastity, faithfulness and loyalty unfashionable, and replace them with "sexual liberation". Hire women to do menial work, paying them much less than men, so that one-parent families will be thrust into poverty. The children growing up without fathers or mothers will be easy to manipulate. Some can be taken by the state, raised to be "killers", and sent to the army. Undermine parental authority, so that children will do as they please. With the help of the media, you can steer them to do as you please.

9. Attack the traditions of the army. Make sure that morale is as low as possible, by allowing and encouraging abuse of power, rape and torture. Punish whistle-blowers, so that the most competent, ethical members of the armed forces will resign in disgust. When such abuse occurs, make sure that it is readily publicized, so that people will fear and distrust their own government.

10. Attack or sublimate traditional religion. Those that cannot be turned into mouthpieces for propaganda can be eliminated through infiltration, division and scandal. Send spies to the theology seminars, and have them seduce priests, pastors and seminarians. Disseminate heresy and pass it off as "new thinking". Encourage atheism. Meanwhile, pour as much money as possible into "fringe groups", sects and cults so that there is little unity among people. Make sure that legitimate religion is cast into the same pot as fanatical sects, so that people can see little difference between the two. A nation that is godless is also without morals, and can be persuaded to do anything that is suggested, including murder and cannibalism.

11. Find anything that is traditionally a sexual taboo (pedophilia, sadomasochism, bestiality) and re-label them "alternative lifestyles" and use the issue of sexuality as a wedge issue. Make sure you stoke as much controversy as possible, by allowing religious "fanatics" to have equal time with "perverts". Eliminate indecency laws, and allow pornography to flourish, becoming more and more crude. Meanwhile, divide people on the issue of "freedom of speech", so that they equate freedom with pornography, sexual libertinism and vulgarity. People will be so involved in defending their own positions on these issues, that they will barely notice that their nation is being taken over.

12. Attack the traditional school and university system, making sure that "new methods" do not encourage young people to think for themselves, but merely teach them to memorize facts, repeat other people's opinions and regurgitate information. Slowly lower standards so that the typical student is ill-informed and lazy. Discourage logical thinking. Meanwhile, "dumb down" all newspapers, television reports and books. Denigrate the study of history, politics, philosophy or theology and encourage young people to confine their studies to "practical" matters, such as business, engineering, banking, accounting, etc. You will then have a mass of willing slaves to perform remedial tasks such as bookkeeping, data processing, banking or graphics, none of which will be able to convincingly challenge your rights to do as you please.

13. Plant some of your own people in positions of authority. Make sure that they propose laws that will undermine freedom and political transparency. If anyone opposes them, accuse them of being unpatriotic or old-fashioned. Use the word "patriotism" to your own advantage, diverting its meaning so that it is equated with flag-waving and nationalism instead of traditional values or traditions.

14. Consolidate all news media and publishing companies, so that "your people" control virtually all that people see, hear, read or experience. Package propaganda as "entertainment". Vulgarize the arts so that they appeal to sensationalism instead of reflective thought. Attack independent media by either "buying them out" or "shutting them down". Use the media to distract people with an unending stream of useless information, disinformation, scandals, gossip and trashy programming, so that they barely have time to attend to serious matters.

15. Without religion or traditions, moral and ethical objections to your political takeover will be rendered toothless. Set up fascist laws under the pretext of "security". Attack traditionalists as fundamentalists, reactionaries or terrorists. Attack liberal opponents as socialists or anarchists. Without laws guaranteeing fair trials, it will be easy to allow your opponents to "disappear", or die under "mysterious circumstances". You will now have the support of enough of the population that it will be relatively easy to take over. Many will barely notice a change in slave masters.

Do Morals Matter?

2010-11-23T12:54:00.006+01:00

If you want to see the true effects of religion on society, you need look no further than the eradication of much religion in the countries in the Soviet bloc. Thanks to communism, much of the values and traditions rooted in Christianity were, if not outright abolished, scorned and sneered at. Modern man, it was believed, could do without religion. Sloganeering, exhortations to do what is right for fellow man, moral campaigns to encourage a feeling of unity - these were to replace religion, the "Opiate of the Masses", as Marx ever so succinctly put it.

Religion was blamed for many, if not all the ills of society, and we could look forward to a "brave new world" based on scientific materialism.

In the "West", the new scientific capitalism was based on similar principles. It was widely taught that, because man was inherently good, he was in no need of religion, with its superstitious beliefs in candle-lighting rituals, miracles, prayers and saints. People would be able to do whatever they pleased, and somehow would gravitate towards doing good, without any outside help.

This pleased the business elite for two reasons: firstly, because without the church, they would finally be free from what the referred to as "middle class morality: the belief in such principles as honesty, fair play, integrity, a man's word of honor and a hard day's work. Secondly, they could finally be free to cater to the darkest impulses of men's spirits, without constraints; they could have free access to greed, avarice, lust, envy, wrath and all the other dark impulses; they could use modern psychology to manipulate our minds with advertising, all the while castigating critics as "old-fashioned" and "moralistic".

In the US, starting in the early seventies, traditional churches have been broken up, marginalized or replaced by "new" churches that preached a pro-Capitalist propaganda message, promoting wealth as a symbol of God's favor, in much the same way, in Communist countries, the "official" church preached pro-government propaganda, extolling the virtues of Marxism. Capitalism and communism are twin images, two faces of the fascist monster that is devouring the earth, robbing the poorest people of their God-given freedom.

What is the end result of the destruction of religious ideals in a society? If we look at two examples, Russia and Poland, we can see the effects of religion and a lack thereof.

In Russia, those who clung to the Orthodox faith were ridiculed and mocked, faced discrimination and were socially ostracized. After many years of communist rule, many Russians had never laid eyes on a Bible. Few had read one.

In Poland, however, the population clung to their strong Catholic faith, and it became a means of resistance in the face of communist oppression.

In the fall of communism, both countries faced enormous economic, political and social turmoil and hardship. Russia collapsed into tyranny, gang warfare and prostitution. Even today, criminal gangs roam the streets, preying on wealthy businessmen, bankers and tourists. Murders, kidnappings, rape, mafia-related crime and drug dealing are rampant. Without religion, men become animals, preying on the weak and defenseless.

Poland, in contrast, has become a popular tourist destination. The economy has recovered and is attracting foreign investment. The crime rate is nowhere near that of Russia's. The difference? Polish people kept their faith in God.

Like Samson felling the ancient temple by tearing down the pillar with one swoop, the "Business Elite", in toppling the Christian pillar, have torn down Western Civilization with it. A civilization is more than a collection of peoples; it is held together by a common heritage, common languages, beliefs and traditions. Religion is a huge part of it.

The Gnostics believed that religious truth was the sole province of the religious elect; as elitists, they believed that the common man was too crude for the subtleties of mystical truth. They were not too far off the mark; indeed, the mystical teachings of Meister Eckhardt or Hildegard Von Bingen may be outside the grasp of the typical truck driver or factory worker. However, all men need a form of religion to feed their deepest moral, eithical and spiritual needs. For a simple person, simple prayers and rituals fullfill a need for deeper meaning. Without this, there is no ethical framework to hold society together.

As with individual men, so, too, with nations; when a nation endures hardship, we see what kind of mettle they are made of. I fear it will not go well with America. A nation which, even in times of relative plenty, is awash in violence, hatred, animosity and greed will not suddenly find its moral compass in times of trouble.

A righteous man can endure suffering with patience. In the 1930s, America was thrown into economic hardship. At the time, most Americans were honest, churchgoing and devout. Little violence, rioting or fighting occurred, despite the hardship.

Today, America is a nation where automatic weapons are to be found on every corner. Thanks to video games, children as young as ten are trained killers and thieves. Millions believe in relative morality, that man decides what is right and wrong, not God. What will happen to America in the following years? I shudder to guess at it.

Weapons of Cultural Mass Destruction

2010-11-11T23:06:00.007+01:00

Is technology making us stupider? Are computers turning us into moronic dolts, incapable of reason? Or is technology a pathway to new freedom? In the 90's, when I was in college, our professors routinely pounded into us the idea that "technology is the future". The brave new world promised to us, in which every shiny happy worker with a knowledge of computers would have a stress-free life telecommuting to his high-tech job has been rapidly replaced by a dog-eat-dog world of techno-feudalism, in which workers compete in a furious race to the bottom. Is technology to blame? What new dangers does the post-modern world of technology offer up for us?

To be sure, technology has always resulted in a loss of jobs for those whose skills are outdated. Nowadays, arithmetic can be done by computers, spell-checking eliminates the need for learning spelling or grammar, and we rely on computers to help us with banking and tax forms, something that, years ago, we would have had to do for ourselves, using good-old-fashioned common sense and a slide rule. However, the danger inherent in technology is not merely that we use it as a crutch so that we can think less.

No, the gravest danger lies in what technology has enabled us to do without. We can now do without learning musical instruments, or paying musicians to play for us- thanks to the CD player and the radio. Those recorded musicians, incidentally, can do without bothering to play or sing in tune (auto-tune will take care of it), playing with proper rhythm (yes, there is a plug-in for that) and can even type the music in to a program and have the computer play it, thus eliminating the need for musicians entirely. Nowadays, pieces of music are composed, produced and recorded without even one single musician picking up an instrument, strumming a guitar, or pounding away on a real-life drum.

The same goes for the visual arts. Many of the visual images that we are flooded by, day and night, have been doctored by computers. The ability to draw and paint using traditional media is quickly fading away into obscurity.

Some would say good riddance. Composing by hand, as Beethoven once did, painting and sculpting, as Michelangelo did, are seen by scoffers as modern-day anachronisms. We live in modern times, and "cutting edge" is all the rage. Music needn't be beautiful, tonal, or even recognizably musical, and art has long ago lost all pretensions of being about artistic craft, higher ideals or even artistry. In our cynical times, it is often considered the epitome of higher art to consider art itself redundant and of no greater value than a plastic chair found on the sidewalk. Cynicism is all the rage.

However, in the very act of compartmentalizing tasks to the point of giving over almost all of the drudge work to computers, we run into not only the danger of losing essential skills that could be forever lost, we run the risk of destroying the foundations of society itself. A nation which produces no painters, handcrafters or traditional musicians is culturally impoverished. A small tribe of grass-skirted "primitives", in which every member has skills in arts and crafts, can sing or play a musical instrument, is in less danger of cultural annihilation than one in which the work of producing art or music has been relegated to machines. Without a tactile relationship to making music and art, a person soon loses all ability to discern the difference between that which requires skill and the commodified and cheaply made. Our senses, once dulled, may never regain what has been lost. Is it no wonder that so many young people are becoming alienated and suicidal? Archaeologists have often pondered the causes of highly complex civilizations, seemingly overnight, vanishing without a trace. Ours, with its assembly-line culture, could very well be next.

The transient nature of the technology, the internet and modern media, in general, poses yet another problem. In previous centuries, knowledge was passed down gradually, with each generation carefully pondering the works of the previous one. There was a canon of accepted works which was honored, and all cultural change occurred incrementally. However, our history and previous culture is being erased with increasing rapidity. Soon all traces of lost attitudes, perspectives and ways of life may be lost forever. With cultural changes occurring not merely by the day but by the minute (such as Wikipedia), we are in danger of losing our cultural and historical footing altogether. With older ways of transmitting knowledge are cast aside or "reinterpreted" according to the whims of fashion, the question is will future generations even share the same language with previous ones? Will there even be a chance of understanding between generations?

Technology is meant to be our slave, not our master. If we allow technology to rob us of our humanity, we have only succeeded in defeating ourselves. We mustn't let the traditional arts and humanities languish under the banner of modernity.

The Blue Meanies of Our Age

2010-10-06T20:39:00.006+02:00

I've recently been re- viewing an old childhood favorite of mine, the Beatles animated classic, "The Yellow Submarine", a psychedelic, pun-filled journey with the animated Beatles as they transverse through various seas, and use music as a weapon against the "Blue Meanies". I started reflecting on how succinctly the film depicts the cultural conflicts of its age, and what that means for us today.

The Beatles animated film was both a product of its time and a precursor of what was to come. The Beatles were, at the time, in the midst of the maelstrom of their time, culturally, politically and spiritually. Society was at a turning point. Social forces that had, up to that time, been kept in check, were now ready to be unleashed upon society.

The film's writers, no doubt strongly influenced by the messages and themes inherent in the Beatles' songs, could not help but be aware of the powerful currents of change in society at that time. The old order was crumbling. The new order and its ascendance was unmistakably present. The question was whose side were you on? The film's message, on the surface, seems to be a children's tale of the power of love and positivism. On a deeper level, however, the Beatles themselves are caught between the two sides, embodying this cultural conflict within themselves.

The two sides, representing love and madness, are embodied by the opposite forces, the residents of Pepperland and the Blue Meanies.

The residents of Pepperland, as well as Jeremy Boob, represent the traditional culture- one that valued order, authority, intellectual and artistic pursuits. It is no accident that Old Fred is represented as playing the violin. The rulers of Pepperland are so ancient that "Young Fred" seems to be at least 70 years old. Old Fred is positively ancient. Old Fred, as well as Boob, are, unfortunately, too out of touch to respond to the forces of evil in their midst. Old Fred, when warned of imminent attack, responds with, "They wouldn't dare". Boob, the "Nowhere Man", is helpless until the very end. Only George's advice, to box the Meanie, enables him to defend himself.

The meanies represent the forces of fascism and nihilism. Hating all beauty, they shout, "A thing of beauty, destroy it forever." Likewise, they hate music above all. The word "know", representing knowledge, is replaced by "no", negativity and oppression. They seem to have much in common with the communists, with their Draconian rules and one-party system, or with Fascism. The people under the iron fist of authority (represented by the flying glove) become monochromatic and dull, as all that is beautiful is prohibited.

The blue meanies of the arts and academia do not merely want to destroy things of beauty, then, they want to destroy the very idea of the beautiful, by erasing all memory of beauty. Snatches of beauty, heard throughout the film, are reminiscences of long-forgotten beauty, and are quickly dismantled. In the sea of monsters, we hear a strain of Bach, only to be blown up by the monster's cigar. The traditional arts, based on studying the art of the past, and building on this structure, are here represented by the old-fashioned residents of Pepperland, with their love of art, music and culture.

The art and music scene, as well as the realm of philosophy and the humanities, was being beset by the forces of nihilism at the height of the 60's. Andy Warhol was making what could be termed "anti-art", turning art into a commodity. This was not accidental; Warhol conceived his art as an extension of mass marketing and pop culture- it was meant to be as "throwaway" as the culture it represented. John Cage did similar things with music. Both were taking "rubbish" of consumer society and transforming it into art, thereby reducing art and music to a commodity, a temporary pleasure based more on the experience of the viewer or public than the intentions of the artist.

According to Douglas Shearer:

"Traditionally, art expresses the noblest impulses of the specific culture that produces it. But American art, since Andy Warhol, profanes the noble and ennobles the profane. And that's typically American: Americans distrust 'all embracing cultural ethics' because they threaten "personal choice". That thought underlies Warhol's two most famous paintings, 'Brillo box' and 'Tomato Can'."

"Beauty is Truth, truth beauty"- the opposite of this belief is the idea that there is no truth, or that truth is relative. Similarly, then, beauty cannot be absolute. A garbage pail could, according to nihilistic philosophy, be just as beautiful as a flower.

Nihilism can often be seen in the realm of film. Mean-spirited films, full of unlikable characters, often with downbeat endings, seek to punish the viewer into a dismal, hopeless view of life. The effects of continual demoralization can be seen everywhere. On the archetypal level, good triumphing over evil is the "default" theme, and can be seen in every culture, in folktales, art and poetry. The Blue Meanies, in their hatred of such words as "yes" or "love" and their especial hatred of music and the divine impulses that it engenders in us, would have been pleased to see our society destroyed by nihilism and the amorality that goes with it.

The old order, which included a love of learning for its own sake, is mockingly represented in the person of Jeremy Boob, who is full of knowledge, yet lonely and foolish. Lord Mayor and even Young Fred are, at best, incompetent. It is their incompetence and unwillingness to recognize the looming danger of the Blue Meanies that spells their disaster.

Nihilism, however, is a non-sustainable belief that contains its own destruction. It is like a virus that eventually destroys its host. The sucker monster sucks up everything in its path, including its own tail, much like the old masonic symbol of a snake eating its own tail. Similarly, the sentence, "There is no absolute truth" contradicts itself, for the sentence itself, then, cannot be true. The prohibition against absolute truths and absolute beauty must, and will, be destroyed.

The Beatles themselves straddle the two extremes. Indeed, their music, at the time, embodied both musical traditions, employing ragtime, skiffle, blues and classical influences as well as avante garde influences, such as Musique Concrete, atonality and free jazz. Similarly, their philosophy, as expressed in the film, is at times, simplistic, such as "All you need is love". At other times, Eastern philosophy, and its emphasis on the unreality of reality is expressed, by George saying, "It's all in the mind".

Often, the Beatles give practical advice that had never occurred to the older generation, as typified by "Young Fred". "Press a button", they tell Young Fred, starting the submarine. At one point, John must turn the hands of the clock forwards, so they will stop going backwards in time, something that did not occur to the hapless, helpless Young Fred. In a way, they are a fusion of both old and new ways of thinking, eager to experiment, but giving the residents of Pepperland new life through their music.

In Pepperland, evil is defeated by love. This is the message of the film, in a kernel - that love conquers all. This optimistic, upbeat message epitomizes the very spirit of the sixties generation, with its sense of boundless possibilities.

Unfortunately, the optimism of the 60s was soon shattered. Evil forces are not so easily won over. The first signs were the assassination of four unarmed peace protesters at Kent State University in 1970 and the government-approved murders of Dr. King, Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy. The subsequent virtual takeover of the US government by the Military Industrial Complex and the CIA proved to many that a peaceful victory over evil was virtually impossible.

In our time, the creation of a CIA-sponsored "Islamist" movement in the Middle East (which mimics the "Pepperland" Blue Meanies by hating music and the arts), as well as a government-engineered corporation-friendly "Christian Right" movement designed to uproot and supplant the burgeoning Liberation Theology Movement, are more signs that the Blue Meanies are now in charge.

American Babylon- Can America Be Saved?

2010-10-06T16:59:00.003+02:00

A huge change occurred in the 1920's, just after the "War to End all Wars" drew to a conclusion.

It was a change that hardly anyone, outside of a few crotchety old folks, bothered to notice.

It was the biggest change in culture that the US, and by extension, the now- US dominated European powers, had ever witnessed. This change in cultural mores, long in the making, was, in the 1920's, for the first time, out in the open: a change in clothing, behavior, music, the arts and the humanities. It was the beginning of a new age of crassness, cynicism, decadence and nihilism. Many trace the beginnings of this new nihilism to the opium dens and bordellos of Paris and Berlin, but the origins were firmly in the world's new cultural capital: New York City.

America had been a pioneer land, a land of farmers and manufacturers. America's cultural output had long sought to emulate European models, cultural models firmly rooted in Europe's Christian heritage. This would all change. Along with the change in culture, came a change in values; no longer were the good of society and the upholding of integrity and honor of highest benefit; instead, the new era celebrated the individual, and the self-aggrandization of the self as the supreme good. The bootlegger, mobster, robber baron and burlesque queen were the new reigning cultural heroes. How one gained success, whether through ingenuity or graft, was now beside the point.

William Butler Yeats' poem, "The Second Coming", written in the aftermath of WWI, clearly explicates this new moral illness that has taken its grip upon the West. As prophesied by Yeats:

   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

That this change was accompanied by Prohibition, a puritanical movement akin in spirit to Oliver Cromwell's ill-fated takeover of British society in the 1600's, is all the more ironic. Cultural descents into nihilism and decay are almost inevitably linked to counter-movements which seek to enforce morality through law. In such times, as man loses the moral fibre and will to control the beast within, he turns desperately to outward authority, hoping to quell the rising tide of inner chaos. Although Prohibition sought to fight the outward symptoms, the inner decay and rot had firmly set in, and we began, to paraphrase Robert Bork, "slouching toward Gommorah".

As this change in attitudes occurred, the fruits began to show- changes in modesty, morality, ethics, music and politics. America began to follow the path that brought down ancient Rome. As in latter day Rome, moralists who decried these developments were scoffed at as being "old fashioned". Seneca had decried the changes that he saw in ancient Rome. Tacitus, in his famed "Annals", had stated that Rome's moral degeneracy was the root cause of its decline; similarly, a decline in the American Empire is taking place, one that began in the years after the first World War.

The first obvious change was in standards of modesty. Suddenly, for the first time since the Christianization of Europe, we began to see women dressing immodestly, an occurance which scandalized conservatives at the time. For thousands of years, fashions had changed, and hemlines had gone up and down, always settling somewhere between knee length and floor length. Women in ancient Phoenecia and Egypt, as in many pre-Christian civilizations, had freely exposed themselves; in Christian countries, this was unheard of. After the 1920's, however, more and more women began to emulate the behaviors and fashions of showgirls and prostitutes. While the human body is not "evil", the beginnings of hedonism had appeared.

As in latter-day Rome, we now see this attitude taking a darker turn in today's culture, with women expected to demean themselves and be objectified. Women of all walks of life are referred to as "hos" in today's popular music, and those who take offense are seen as "uptight". This is the shadow side to our much-vaunted "sexual liberation".

Another change would occur in music. Gone were "romantic" sentiments, now replaced by crass admonitions to "give a kiss", or "make love". Of course, by modern eyes, these popular tunes are slightly risque, but nothing new. However, what we now, in out corrupt era, see as kitschy and quaint, was at the time shocking. This change in sexual mores was predictably coupled with a rise in divorce and abortion.

Before the 20's, a woman could expect that her first kiss might be on her wedding night, or at least on the day of her engagement. After the 20's, however, the norms had changed, and women were encouraged to kiss as many men as possible. Soon, by the 50's, the standard was "heavy petting". By the 60's, free sex was the standard. We now are seeing an era in which many teens are considered "uncool" and "uptight" unless they participate in orgies. Girls are constantly bombarded with images of Snookie or "reality TV" stars sleeping around and getting pregnant. Even worse, not only do we espouse these new "virtues", we export them worldwide, in the form of "entertainment", all the while holding a hypocritical stance, by pretending to be "shocked". We have become the new Babylon, a nation that seduces the world with hedonism. Is it any wonder that many countries call America the "great Satan"?

The question must be asked, what is the cause of this moral decay into nihilism?

In the 1920's, a commonly held belief was that the new mania for jazz, with its syncopated rhythms and "African" influences, could be held to blame for the sudden sea change in cultural values. This glib response can be seen to be overly simplistic. It would be putting the cart before the horse. The new ideals were as equally expressed by Stravinsky's paganistic "Rite of Spring" as by boogie-woogie piano playing. As opposed the what Nietzsche called the "Apollonian" side of culture, that which seeks balance and structure, we were now moving into the realm of the "Dionysian"- the irrational, the delusional, the fanatical side of human nature.

As a matter of fact, jazz progressed very rapidly from being simply a new syncopated dance form to being a full-fledged art music; in just a couple decades, it threw off the shackles of populism, and with its introspective passages and an intellectual language of its own, began to strive towards being an art music. Concurrently, as jazz became more artistic, however, it was seen as more and more culturally irrelevant- as well as less financially lucrative- by the music business. African American music reached a peak in the 1950's and 1960's, and was instrumental in giving African Americans a new, more positive image. Motown, Gospel R and B and jazz became popular all over the world; at this point, the music was a positive force.

Gradually, this, too, began to change and devolve; the "black music" that is been promoted today is more the doing of white businessmen who promote the stereotype of the black prostitute and criminal, as a means to have their cake and eat it too- to promote debauchery, all the while using "black culture" as a convenient front.

Thus the racist naysayers of the early 20th century were proved wrong by their earlier prophesy that jazz, as "black music" would be the undoing of America. What has, in reality, been the undoing of America, and its musical culture, is the unfettered capitalism of the music "industry". Music, always at the behest of patronage, became a "product" in a coolly objective machine of advertising, payola and graft, and as a result, became objectified and debased. In Classical music, as well, the intelligentsia has replaced tradition with "deconstructed" music. Nowadays, the more chaotic and lifeless the music is, the more popular it is with music critics.

The content of popular music and entertainment has also changed dramatically over the past century. Once, most popular songs dealt with home, hearth, family and love, as well as heart-felt religious sentiment. Films, once light-hearted dramas and comedies featuring the triumph of good over evil, happy-ending romances and musicals, have become bloodbaths with foul-mouthed criminal "anti-heroes". Good is seldom portrayed; godliness is unheard of, and the word "irreverent" now is taken to be the highest praise for any form of entertainment. Scoffing at "old fashioned" values is now so blase that nudity in the theater or film is merely yawned at. When I first visited New York in the eighties, "Oh! Calcutta", the seventies- era musical that was billed as the longest-running musical of all time, was still being performed entirely in the nude. When the show first opened, this was a sensation, meant to provoke shock or excitement, but by that time, it was already becoming blase. Today, we are used to seeing most films and many theater pieces featuring nudity, some also depicting incest or rape. "The envelope" has to be pushed ever further to excite controversy.

This future dystopia was, ironically, predicted in Fritz Lang's 1927 film "Metropolis", which depicted the dehumanized workers, and the inevitable ascent of machine over man that we now see. Similarly, Charlie Chaplin's 1934 film "Modern Times" deftly portrayed a man caught helplessly in the grinding gyres of industrialism, driven mad by the harsh dictates of the machine. Go to any dance club nowadays, and you will see young people, like marionettes, furiously dancing to the mechanized, lifeless unhuman beat of a machine, sometimes accompanied by chanted lyrics. This so-called "music" is often without melody, harmony or spirit; its breath is the frigid sound of the abyss. As depicted by Lang's "Maschinenmensch", the machine who broke free from her master to create destruction, our machines have truly become our masters, because we have refused to serve God and one another.

Along with this new obsessive fixation on nudity and sexuality, came the sexualization of children. Pandora's Box of "sexual liberation", once opened, couldn't so readily be closed again. America now exports tons of hard-core pornography, featuring torture, abuse, defecating and urinating on others, bestiality and child porn. The producers of such smut are even paraded on TV talk shows as "businessmen", just like any other- after all, who can argue with success? California, once a land of promise to weary immigrants, is now the center of the porn racket, ensnaring millions of women, men and children, many coerced into becoming so-called "sex workers".

At the beginning of the 20th century, American Gospel music, both the "white" country gospel, and the "negro spiritual" tradition, was characterized mainly by its rhythmic and harmonic simplicity, its heartfelt, humble lyrics, and contemplative character. Indeed, the plaintive sounds of black American singing often had such a profound effect on its listeners that it could be credited, in part, with helping to end slavery and promoting the cause of civil rights. At this point, black gospel and spiritual music was noted for its innate dignity and nobility of character.

As Gospel music became more and more a commodity and a form of entertainment, it, too, started to become "Dionysian"- emphasizing emotion over substance, becoming less and less introspective or meditative. Soon, what mattered was flashy arrangements, florid vocal displays, dramatic vocal leaps and hypnotic repeated choruses. This has, in our time, become so much the norm that we hardly question it.

In a "Christian" society, secular music tends to imitate the church's standard. In previous centuries, singers and musicians, schooled by the church, could "branch off" and turn to making "light" popular music, if they wished. The highest art was always that commissioned by the churches. In a fallen society, however, the church seeks to imitate the world. Hypnotic, repetitive music is now the norm in most churches. Contemplation and introspection are considered suspect, because that would mean that one would have to think for himself. Better to appeal to the rawest emotions- pride, vainglory, envy and malice. And all the better without that pesky conscience. It's a peculiarly Nietzschean form of Christianity, one that emphasizes the self above all, and declares each and every one of us a mini-god in the making.

As the church goes, so goes the society. And as church music goes, so goes popular music. Today's singers, coached in the histrionic excesses of America Gospel, eschew deeper, spiritual singing, and strive towards expressing pure ego.

The heart of these changes was in the rejection of God as moral authority. Although much about the nature of God and religion could be argued, in previous centuries, people had always agreed on the existence of a higher moral and spiritual authority. It was taken for granted that God was a God of order, that the universe followed logical laws and that music was an expression of order and logic, not chaos. The urge towards chaos, towards what Nietzsche described as the "Dionysian" side of the Arts- that which is irrational, emotional, and chaotic- came to the arts after it had thoroughly permeated the humanities- from Darwin, Freud, Marx and others.

This new era proclaimed great ideals which contradicted each other; Darwin proclaimed that we, mere mammals without souls or spirits, are descended from apes. Nietzsche told us that we will rise to become godlike "Supermen", through our own efforts. No higher power or higher authority would be needed. Social Darwinism has been used as the basis for both Mussolini's fascism and modern neoliberal "free trade" capitalism; at its root is a fundamental denial of the sanctity of human life, reducing man to the status of animal. With any of these modern philosophies, man could freely find justification to oppress his fellow man.

Moreover, without the intrusion of a guilty conscience, man could become the "noble savage" so fondly depicted by Rousseau in the 18th century. What Rousseau couldn't forsee, however, is that man without God is perhaps savage, but seldom noble. The senseless bloodbath of WWI, with technology being put to use to kill men in ever-more efficient ways, should have been a wake- up call to humanity, to put an end to the worship of the self, and turn to God. Unfortunately, man's pride will seldom give quarter to God's mercy.

What we have seen in this past century is that man, refusing to submit to God, claims his "freedom", and in turn becomes a slave. Science, meant to serve man and humanity, becomes a servant of death and destruction, and the master of mankind. So the misuse of aviation and chemistry in WWI begat the misuse of physics in WWII, which will beget the misuse of computer science, biology and genetics in WWIII. We cannot expect to survive WWIII.

We are now at a point in which America's music and entertainment industries have reached a zenith of cultural babylonism. No nation escapes Babylon's spell- all submit to her writhing melodies, hypnotic drumming, cunning, profane, seducing lyrics and visions of semi-nude dancing girls.

Mammon, the god to whom all things are sacrificed, stands at the apex of cultural Babylon. As with ancient Babylon, children are the preferred sacrificial victims. Unlike the God of love and Prince of Peace of Jesus' teachings, the new god is a god who demands blood – and hence, the nonstop hedonistic bloodbath of America's popular culture, in which death and murder are forms of entertainment. The spell of Babylon is completed by its "magic": technology which can bewitch young minds, and compel them to evil, murder and torture. We see ever-greater numbers of children succumbing to suicide, depression and violence- all sacrificed to the god of Mammon.

Sir Isaac Newton's third law states: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The moral descent is, inevitably, coupled with cries for law and order. Moral anarchy is quickly followed by tyranny, for as Jeremy Bentham states, "Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart."

As the moral anarchy rose in the aftermath of WWI, so did the people's demands for a restoration of order. Fascism soon spread in Europe and abroad- Mussolini, Hitler and the rise of authoritarian communism in the east. Robert Paxton describes fascism as encompassing "a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions" as well as "a need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts". In place of a spiritual force informing the human conscience, a man is placed in the position of God. In the moral vacuum of a world without God, this leader removes the need for self-inspection and moral responsibility. In the inevitable bloodbath that follows, "We were only following orders" becomes the new mantra of the self-hypnotized masses.

Is it too late to turn the tide? So-called conservatives want to usher in a new era of Cromwellism- by enforcing morality, imposing prayer in the schools, banning "sinful" acts, and expanding America's gulag system (which currently holds 2 million prisoners). Their calls for morality by force of law are accompanied by record levels of corruption in government, law and religion. Scandals involving pedophilia among priests, evangelist "church leaders" visiting prostitutes and "conservative" politicians soliciting sex in toilets or whorehouses are endemic of a culture that has rotted. Merely changing laws will not undo the decay that has set in. Allowing people to choose to follow their conscience, and keeping the separation between church and state is now more necessary than ever. America has never lived up to its promise of liberty and justice for all, but there has always been a force for good that had no need to be impelled by political force.

Cromwell and his Puritans proved themselves to just as intolerant of non-puritans as the oppressors they sought to replace. Repression and violence are the fruits of "moral" pseudo- Christianity, not the peace and love of Jesus' teachings. England soon tired of the dictates of Puritanism, and threw off the shackles of forced morality. Similarly, a fascist police state such as Mussolini's will not preserve, but rather, will destroy whatever vestiges of morality and Christianity America might have. These are the very shackles of pseudo-Christianity that the right-wingers implore us to put on. Morality, however, comes from within, and forcing non-Christians to live as Christians will merely produce a generation of hypocrites.

Thus, the conservatives' cry that "liberalism" is the cause of all ills is rooted in the liberal/conservative dichotomy, a Hegelian dialectic which has been set up to divide and conquer. The twin sides of modern political evil – authoritarian socialism and scavenger capitalism- have both served to sever man from his own humanity. Communism renders the individual into a mere number, and capitalism turns him into a commodity. What we need is a new, humanistic libertarianism, a "middle way" that would avoid either extreme.

If America can be saved, it will be by rejecting a simplistic hedonistic philosophy of materialism, and seeking values that, while adapted to a modern age, have, at their heart, reverence for life, humanity and planet earth. A kinder, gentler America can exist, if we agree to change our hearts and minds, for the actions spring from within the will.

This, of course, would mean being willing to change our way of life- it would mean a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle, with less luxury, but more meaning. It would mean embracing love and forgiveness, instead of hatred and negativity. It would mean living in harmony with nature, instead of fighting it, and it would mean placing technology below us, as our servant, instead of letting it be our master. It would mean dismantling the military-industrial complex, and renouncing any advantages we have received from it, and replacing military supremacy with moral supremacy. The question remains: are we big enough people to do it? I pray that we are.