What’s Wrong with the World

Is it really true that Chambers was never tempted by quietism? That doesn't square with what I remember of the last pages of Witness, in which he is saying something to the effect that he will be glad eventually to die, that he feels very tired and as if most of his life is behind him, and that he just wants to sustain his children until they are old enough to do without himself and his wife. Mind you, it might have been the expression of a particular moment--exhaustion after what he had been through. And perhaps you're talking about _political_ quietism, which is not the same thing as personal quietism, necessarily.

Misjudgments are par for the course in a world or civilization that as Eric Voegelin noted “can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time – but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves”.

There is no misjudging the present – we have reached the limit. Those still obstinate or obtuse will be won over when the rubble begins to bounce, figuratively or literally. Conservatives will be at a loss as to what it is exactly that’s to be conserved or preserved or restored. The Right, however, know precisely.

Lydia,

Whittaker Chambers describes a moment, a childhood recollection that was not lost on him through the lost years – a quietism before the storm that I believe dwelled deep in him and resurfaced again:

“One day I wandered off alone and found myself before a high hedge that I had never seen before. It was so tall that I could not see over it and so thick that I could not see through it. But by lying flat against the ground, I wriggled between the provet stems. I stood up, on the other side, in a field covered from end to end, as high as my head, with thistles in full bloom. Clinging to the purple flowers, hovering over them, or twittering and dipping in flight, were dozens of goldfinches—little golden yellow birds with black, contrasting wings and caps. They did not pay the slightest attention to me, as if they had never seen a boy before. The sight was unexpected, the beauty was so absolute, that I thought I could not stand it and held to the hedge for support. Out loud, I said: “God.” It was a simple statement, not an exclamation, of which I would then have been incapable. At that moment, which I remembered through all the years of my life as one of its highest moments, I was closer than I would be again for almost forty years to the intuition that alone could give meaning to my life—the intuition that God and beauty are one."

Whittaker Chambers describes a moment, a childhood recollection that was not lost on him through the lost years – a quietism before the storm that I believe dwelled deep in him and resurfaced again:

Not quietism...I have cognitive dissonance when I see that word in this context, because I am used to using in a precise theological setting. I think what is really being described is akin to Blake's mysticism:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

...

Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born,
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.

Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.

We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro' the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.

God appears, and God is light,
To those poor souls who dwell in night;
But does a human form display
To those who dwell in realms of day.

[The Auguries of Innocence]

The Chicken

Paul, more to the point of the post, this is a new distinction for me, so I'm trying to get a grip on it. I suppose one could be a "right-winger" in the sense of coolly making a prediction that things are going to get very bad and then decide that lying low was one's best bet and that there was very little to be done by way of larger-scale strategy. Would that make one also a "conservative" in the sense of the dichotomy presented here, so that one would be both?

Chicken,

I get your academic point, nevertheless, I take it that God may act in just such a way, to make an impression, without fearing he’d led someone to Gnostic heresy.

Is what we have "finance capitalism"? It seems to me we don't, so I'm not sure that that is what is breaking down. I don't think the "Conservative or Right-winger" is a choice I recognize.

Generally, I think the fundamental error people make, whether in personal life or in political decision, is not to see that when it comes to risk and merit, it is relative risk and merit that matters. In my opinion to the extent one is an optimist what you'll find is that it isn't based on some naivety but rather on the grasping of the relative relationship to the other investments, nations, or cultures. More often than not you'll find someone that makes comparisons to the past. AAPL doesn't have to be perfect, just a little bit better than the others for their stock to be in demand. We don't have to avoid error, just do better than the others for our nation to be attractive again to investors worldwide.

This idea is fundamental and runs deep. Take the recent comment on the WWII bombing of Japan's cities. I objected to the expression that it is "morally indefensible," an expression that I take to mean primarily that the decision was morally indefensible. I think that is going too far. That is not to say I think the act itself is justified. In different circumstances the same actors would likely not have made the same decision. But there is something I don't like about it nonetheless. Something it gets wrong. VDH puts his finger on it. It is a new mindset we're dealing with. I hope that isn't a threadjack, but it seems related to me.

Take the recent comment on the WWII bombing of Japan's cities. I objected to the expression that it is "morally indefensible," an expression that I take to mean primarily that the decision was morally indefensible. I think that is going too far. That is not to say I think the act itself is justified.

How do you make a moral distinction between the decision to destroy Axis cities and the act of actually carrying them out? Perhaps you mean to say that those who made those decisions are less culpable for their actions that we might naively expect?

How do you make a moral distinction between the decision to destroy Axis cities and the act of actually carrying them out? Perhaps you mean to say that those who made those decisions are less culpable for their actions that we might naively expect?

No, I made a distinction between the morality of an action, and the morality of condemning the actors years later without the context, context which allows one to compare the actor's choices to the choices of others in the conflict. People do immoral things all the time, sometimes knowingly and sometimes not, but condemning a person is another matter.

When we can see the actions of another are morally superior to others of their type or generation we rightly esteem them. But when people do what no examples we can find did not do, we err in condemning them in "lesser of two evils" scenarios.

Some comments from Fouad Ajami and Charles Hill on the decline thesis.

Has American resolve in resisting "political movements too wicked and reckless to tolerate" been somehow attenuated by the circumstance that Communism no longer registers as a military threat? Maybe the energetic response to the post-war communist menace was played out by the end of the eighties - when the wall fell. (An example of simultaneous decline.)

But the political self-confidence of modern America seems to have begun weakening during the years of Lyndon Johnson. Viet Nam was a brutal harbinger of 'resolution failure'. And the feeble reaction to the 9/11 atrocity gets near to an apotheosis of irresoluteness.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between American power and American fortitude. As the former increased, the latter diminished. By contrast, British power is negligible of course, but the moral infirmity is worse.

Paul Cella writes:

So what we can say with some confidence is that Chambers underestimated the resolve of America in resisting Communism. But we can also say that despite his “declinist” estimate, he thought very clearly and rationally about various political events, providing sound counsel and perspective.

Does the word "despite" properly describe the relationship between these two aspects of Chambers' thought?

It seems to me that a lesson we might learn from Chambers' example is the paradoxical attitude that a "declinist" attitude is exactly what is needed to be able to rationally and effectively respond to anticipated decline.

This, I think, is one of the major points John Derbyshire tried to make in We Are Doomed! Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

What is emphatically new and stark today is the realization that in America, and indeed the world over, finance capitalism is breaking down. A lower standard of living and persistent problems of poverty lie in the foreseeable future for most countries.

"And the cause is...?"

[Suddenly, the lights went out and there was a muffled cry as the only man capable of explaining the answer was grabbed, kicking and screaming, and escorted from the room by the Men-in Black. Then, the lights came back on]

"As you can see, my dear friends, the crisis was overplayed. Times may be rough for a few years for those poor people who didn't read my book, but hey, things will get better and there will be a glorious future awaiting us after the few deadbeats are disposed of, er, given a glorious send-off in our lavish hospices..."

[A hand raises]

"Excuse me, but wasn't there a commotion a minute, ago?"

"Oh, that, pay no attention to it. The man will get the best possible treatment. He seems to be a stalker...Now, as I was saying, only countries beginning with the letter L are really going to be hard-hit by the coming crisis, so try to avoid Latvia and Lichtenstein as much as possible...We have a lovely buffet in the foyer..."

[The Men-in-Black looked on from behind the curtain. The man tied up in the corner struggled, but they were sure that they were, once again, firmly in control]

The Chicken

P. S. So, you want those two minutes back?

Chicken, you're great.

In my view a defining moment was when Chambers asked Father Alan whether whether or not his position on the West’s doom had been too pessimistic. He replied: “Who says that the West deserves to be saved?”

That's revealing of the priest's view at the least. Who says anything deserves to be saved? You would think a priest of all people would understand that. I could never believe a person that uttered such a thing about any culture had not corrupted himself and might corrupt those around him.

But the priest points out something important. The problem with "declinists" is not that they think we have declined in some or various ways. The problem is that there are some who think our core values were always wrong and the culture deserves to decline (and even fall) because of it. And there are others who think our core values were corrupted so early that it is irreversible and for this reason we also deserve to decline and fall.

I'm reading Nesbit on the "Degradation of the Academy" and I noted that in the first sentences of the preface he clearly states that he emphatically rejects any view of "degradation" along the lines of Henry Adams and his brother's view of the dissolution of culture and moral values generally. I was impressed. I liked Nesbit right off the bat. That is the central question. That is the first question a thinking person wants to know, and don't make us wait. Nesbit's all right in my book. Knowing what the first question one should ask is sweet. Answering it correctly and saying all that needs to be said about it in the first four sentences so he can get on with his project without any doubt or confusion? If sweetness has an essence, that's it. He also goes on to say that the degradation of the academy could possibly even be a necessary part of the direction of Western culture. After all he says "There is no Golden Age known in history not based in some degree at least upon the dislodgment of old values and societal structures."

Of course, the Henry Adams didn't originate this sort of unrealistic pessimism. But he is the paradigmatic American version of it, and if one is a declinist of Adams' ilk, then that says something decisive. The Adams brothers were deeply confused and their judgment skewed on that issue, whatever their other merits as scholars. And that view has a very corrupting influence. That is why "The Political Education of Henry Adams" is on my American History reading list. Quite simply, someone who has never considered Adams' view and how this view has come down to us cannot understand very much about American history. Much of the political outlook that uses the terms "robber barons," "guilded age," etc. that many accept here as a part of their political outlook are nothing more than uncritical receptions of this view, even and especially including views on the Grant administration. Unknown unknowns can be decisive.

So which one are you, dear reader: Conservative or Right-winger?

Interesting distinction. Me, I'm definitely a Conservative by this definition. Romantic lament and despair, no rational strategy. I gradually became a cultural conservative based on my own personal life, not based on politics. I only later became a political conservative as a result of that gradual change.

I don't see any effective strategy for the conservative right, and there probably hasn't been for the last century at least. As technology gets better - cars, computers, telephones - life gets worse. What can anyone do about that, strategically? Force people to read I'll Take My Stand? Just fighting tactical battles is the best the right can do, no strategy. But we can win some battles here and there.

It seems to me that given a decline rooted very deeply in a community, it isn't necessary to despairingly conclude that the community must die or deserves to die. It is also possible and indeed obligatory to hope for, and work toward, that community's repentance. Indeed the only hope for arresting decline in such a community is repentance; whereas an intransigent commitment to the very false principles driving decline simply guarantees destruction, however deeply rooted those principles may be.

I would include attempts to "repurpose" those principles in some way that saves them as respectable civic pieties among false and self-defeating approaches. That is in effect an attempt to gain the results of repentance without actual repentance, and it cannot work.

So by far the most important thing for such a community's survival and eventual health is unequivocal opposition to those false principles. Communities are not bundles of propositions; but bundles of propositions can kill communities.

I'm not much into romantic lament and despair--in fact, I think despair is to be feared and strenuously avoided. However, I doubt I would count as a "right-winger," because I'm suspicious of large strategies, too. There are too many unknowns about human nature and what people will do. Also, I've seen strategy corrupt people in politics too much. It seems to me often better (perhaps even _as_ strategy) not to try to "do strategy" in politics but simply to till our own fields with as much integrity as possible. So I suppose that puts me more on the side of the "conservatives" in this dichotomy even though I often find that I don't get along very well with other people who would probably meet that description (the romantic lament and despair types).

The problem is that there are some who think our core values were always wrong and the culture deserves to decline (and even fall) because of it. And there are others who think our core values were corrupted so early that it is irreversible and for this reason we also deserve to decline and fall.

Mark, good distinction. Someone of Calvin's persuasion would probably say that ALL of our cultures are irretrievably corrupt, because they all spring out of humans, and humans are irretrievably corrupt. But that's to take the declinist view to its extreme limit. And, to say the least, sows the seeds of self-defeat. Whether all societies are corrupt at root says nothing about whether some societies are worse than others, in non-trivial ways. If so, we should be working to make our society less corrupt, and be damned to the stupidity of not trying to be less corrupt just because you cannot manage perfect.

If I may say this in all seriousness (and hope to goodness that it doesn't act as a troll-attractor), I think Lawrence Auster is a good example of a writer difficult to characterize in terms of the dichotomy presented here. On the one hand, he's very pessimistic and has no illusions about the decline of the West. He's also somewhat inclined unto purism when it comes to strategy (though not quite so much of a political purist as I am), and the strategies he himself suggests are strategies that, as he no doubt knows, are unlikely to be adopted. On the other hand, he is not despairing and has tremendous endurance and a will to "fight on" for conservative causes, whether or not they appear to be lost. I find both sides of this admirable, but I don't think it really makes for easy characterization vis a vis the "conservative" and "right-winger" distinction in the main post.

As technology gets better - cars, computers, telephones - life gets worse. What can anyone do about that, strategically?

I have a more circumspect view. As things get more complex, people have more opportunities to carve out spaces of simplicity for themselves if they choose to. We can all laugh at the advertisements of the 50's now. "Look how much extra time you'll have to do what you want with a riding lawn-mower!" We know better now, or we learn better the hard way. Things we own have a strong tendency to own us.

And yet, they need not, and we often forget how tools are important since we take them for granted. When I got up this morning I flipped on my iPad and "did" some Psalms using psalmody in the old monastic way by following a skilled master after reflecting on the Psalm illustration artwork of surpassing beauty corresponding to each Psalm from a 9th century illustrated psalter. On the iPad all this stuff is pulled together in a form that has its own surpassing beauty, and these activities require an engaging interactivity. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I wouldn't be able to do this in a way that would work for me without tools not available until the last year. Since my community has none of this sensibility it is doubtful I'd even know about any of this stuff without the internet and a modern interlibrary loan system of the type available to me in the last few years. We can live much simpler lives than we do, and I think it's a great time to be alive. Tools can tyrannize us, but you can pry the tools I use out of my cold dead hands. :)

Lydia, I'm not generally a fan of Auster's, but I think what you're getting at has been said in one famous slogan: "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." I think Auster embodies that more than anyone on the right. But I think that fits on the Right-Winger side of this distinction. After all, Whitaker Chambers thought that he was leaving the winning team to join the losing team, didn't he?

By the way, by Romantic despair I didn't mean in one's personal life, like grumbling or writing poetry or whining about how things were better in the olden days. That Miniver Cheevy stuff annoys me, too. I meant the lack of unfounded hope. And Romantic as a critique of rationalism and modernity.

Mark, I agree there are lots of great things about technology. I agree that people can do great things with it if they choose to. The problem is that they - we - I - don't often choose to, and even when they do, those good individual choices in the aggregate often make society worse.

Individually, we're almost all better off with a car. Collectively, no. I read once that Ivan Ilyich didn't wear a watch because, well, you can fill in all the usual reasons. But then when he visited someplace to give a talk, he'd always be asking his hosts what time it was so he wouldn't miss his flight. I think he should have just bought a watch.

Oops, I meant Ivan Illich.

Ivan Illich

Anyone that quotes Illich is ok by me. I love Illich for his insights, not so much for his Leftism. There are many fine lines here. You gain something, you lose something. In fact, I think some of Illich's more prescient dreams are about to come to fruition through technology in education.

On balance I'm still on the side that that the advances aren't bad. One of the things we know from history is that people have a tendency to be too pessimistic. It is a very common thing to think things worse when they are better. People lose their perspective.

On technology, imagine how different we'd think if Christ, rather than pouring wine at the last supper, had said "Hey man, this is my last day one earth. I don't want bottled wine, I want grapes straight from the vine so I can crush God's creation straight into my cup with my own hands. Now that is how I want to go out boys!" But he didn't do that. I think God loves our tools. I think he enjoys the way we subdue the earth. That some will use tools unwisely doesn't mean they are on the whole destructive of our lives. We can't save people from their choices, and I think we tend to be blind to how people improperly used the tools of past generations so that it skews our understanding of that in the present.

Wendell Berry has written that our economy is sucker-dependent, as is evidenced by the cretins camping out overnight at Best Buy in order to get the latest unnecessary and frivolous gizmo, and by our brainless and equally frivolous media broadcasting this as "news."

'On technology, imagine how different we'd think if Christ, rather than pouring wine at the last supper, had said "Hey man, this is my last day one earth. I don't want bottled wine, I want grapes straight from the vine so I can crush God's creation straight into my cup with my own hands. Now that is how I want to go out boys!" But he didn't do that.'

There is a difference between technology (if one can use that word for such things) that arises organically out of culture, and that which is developed with the intent of mere wealth-creation.

"I think he enjoys the way we subdue the earth."

Yeah, I'm sure he's thoroughly thrilled with mountaintop removal mining, factory beef and chicken "farming," and widespread soil loss and water pollution.

"I think we tend to be blind to how people improperly used the tools of past generations so that it skews our understanding of that in the present."

Bollocks. The difference is that we know better, but for the sake of the almighty ka-ching we ignore the knowledge. Also we are improperly using our tools on a much larger scale than in past generations.

Does Mark's "declinism is rooted in anti-bourgeois sentiment" theory apply to Chambers, I wonder? What about Solzhenitsyn? Or those Eastern Orthodox and Catholics from, say, Albania or Romania who look at contemporary Western society and shudder?

Interesting discussion, folks.

Is what we have "finance capitalism"? It seems to me we don't, so I'm not sure that that is what is breaking down. I don't think the "Conservative or Right-winger" is a choice I recognize.

One wonders, then, why you have been among the more frequent commenters on this thread, Mark.

That aside, the answer to the first question is Yes. What America has is finance capitalism. The arrival and conquest of this form of political economy constitutes one of the main stories of American economic history since the Second World War. Here's another piece of data, courtesy of our friend and loyal reader Jeff Singer, supplying the lineaments of finance capitalism.

That finance capitalism is actually breaking down should be clear to everyone by now. I will not bore you with a recital of readily-available facts. There is a long digital trail of discussion on such matters here at this website. Are you will conjecturing that this is all an effort to regurgitate Henry Adams?

Lydia --

I'd say that Chambers was definitely tempted by despair. He fought it constantly. But the discipline of his years as a Communist had taught him an empiricism that stood him good stead later on, and generally prevented him from falling into the trap of political quietism. His political actions were quite decisive and rationally calculated.

I'd probably agree that some writers show evidence of both tendencies, the Conservative and the Right-winger: they are not always exclusive.

So by far the most important thing for such a community's survival and eventual health is unequivocal opposition to those false principles. Communities are not bundles of propositions; but bundles of propositions can kill communities.

That's nicely put. But questions remain as to (a) how false principles may be best exposed and properly refuted, and (b) how men, especially men not much concerned with the intricacies of political principles, may be best motivated to repudiate false principles.

One wonders, then, why you have been among the more frequent commenters on this thread, Mark.

Paul, do you really think your comments were limited to finance capitalism? Surely not.

I think God loves our tools.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thoroughly thrilled with mountaintop removal mining, factory beef and chicken "farming," and widespread soil loss and water pollution.

Nice, these aren't tools, and I didn't offer a blanket defense of everything that is done with tools, which is everything.

Bollocks. The difference is that we know better, but for the sake of the almighty ka-ching we ignore the knowledge.

I see no reason to think you know better, but every reason to think you think you know better. I doubt there is anything you don't think you know better than your ancestors. Is it true?

Does Mark's "declinism is rooted in anti-bourgeois sentiment" theory apply to Chambers, I wonder? What about Solzhenitsyn?

Declinism of the Henry Adams' sort *just is* anti-bourgeois. That is its essence. When we talk about decline the context is people, is it not? And not just anyone, the other guy! Not the elites. I'm one of those! Who does that leave? Of course declinism of this sort is anti-bourgeois. This idea is not new.

I look forward to reading Chambers and Solzhenitsyn and discovering this for myself, and I find those who quote them generally can't answer this in any detail. But what if they were? What if they were anti-Semitic? Would their status validate false views? Of course not. Books have been written documenting this belief. We read great authors for what we think they get right. We don't look at people of credibility one one point and accept what they say on other areas because of their prestige. Anti-bourgeois sentiment has been a common view since the early 19th century so we don't need evidence for that. It was a feature of Nazi and Soviet propaganda, and on and on.

Or those Eastern Orthodox and Catholics from, say, Albania or Romania who look at contemporary Western society and shudder?

Here you go again with this trope. You said: "I daresay that the Islamicist critique of Western culture has a lot in common with that of the Eastern European Christian critique of same."

I asked for examples of common ground between the Islamicist critique and a Christian one. You said:

When the various Eastern European countries that were under communism became open to Western influence, many in those nations, like Solzhenitsyn, were surprised and quite taken back by the level of materialism and cultural decadence present in the supposedly Christian West. Many Muslims, and not just jihadists or "fundamentalists," have expressed similar concerns. What these two groups have in common is an adherence to a religion with intact traditional elements, either Orthodoxy or Catholicism on the one hand or Islam on the other. This traditionalism informs their adherents' views on such things as sexuality, modesty, and humility, and in this regard there are similarities of outlook.

So the common ground is that the Islamicists and Eastern Christians don't approve of the materialism? The former's piety on this issue is entirely political. They don't mind decadence at all. How about Pakistan, where rape isn't a crime, but a punishment? Was Bin Laden's giant porn stash a personal failure, or what all jihadists do if we could see in their cave? Probably the latter I'd say. Do you think they strive for purity in fact? The Eastern Europeans had rampant materialism and decadence, and they were disappointed that we weren't pure enough? The problem with this analysis is that for all our materialism, we aren't more so than those sources you cite. That is the problem. If Saudi, Pakistani, or Eastern Europe or any of these cultures really were less decadent you'd have a point. But they aren't. I know people from these places and the honest ones will tell you a different story. For all our decadence, it is a myth that Western culture is more decadent than ME ones.

And notice how fuzzy these terms are. You listed good examples of common ground between different ideological groups by the examples of abortion and farm subsidies. But all you can say about the common ground between the Islamic critique of Western culture is objection over "level of materialism and cultural decadence"? That isn't an example, that is a slogan. I don't see any real examples of common ground. Cultures the Islamicists approve of are not less materialistic unless you mean the different sort of materialism associated with far less wealth.

There simply is no common ground with the Islamicist critique.

No. But you began by briskly dismissing the two major premises of the post; and then commenced to dilate your own theory, of dubious relevance, about "the fundamental error people make, whether in personal life or in political decision." Following that we're back to your bone of contention concerning my remark last week about aerial bombings during World War II, which becomes the occasion for another little lecture, this one about the "distinction between the morality of an action, and the morality of condemning the actors years later without the context, context which allows one to compare the actor's choices to the choices of others in the conflict. People do immoral things all the time, sometimes knowingly and sometimes not, but condemning a person is another matter."

Now, it is of course true that no one is obliged to accept my premises. And it is also true that since we allow open comments, we're going to have to tolerate some divagations of subject-matter by commenters.

But this is a recurring pattern in your commenting. Instead of wrestling with the ideas put forth in a post, you'd rather focus on the nits you prefer to pick relating to the general editorial posture of What's Wrong with the World. The World War II digression is a classic example. The previous thread where it came up related to this website's reputation in conservative circles for taking a hard line of opposition to the Allied aerial bombings in that war. This fact, evidently unknown to you, provokes some annoyance on your part, annoyance persistent enough to be carried over into a completely unrelated thread. Thus we get the above quoted lecture on the distinction between judging actions and condemning persons.

But wait. What happens when the fact that provoked the annoyance is examined in detail? Why, the alert reader would discover that the objection of your lecture had already been anticipated and answered. Here is the final paragraph of Bill Luse's essay on Hiroshima, which has been linked to numerous times throughout the World War II bombing debates:

I am not interested in "finding fault" with President Truman. From reading his diary, his letters to his wife, and accounts of private conversations he had with others, I've come to the conclusion that Truman believed dropping atomic bombs on Japan would save American lives. After studying Harry Truman and the awful cup that passed to him, my heart goes out to him. He was happy in the Senate and did not want to become Vice-President or President. When the presidency was thrust upon him, we were struggling through one of the most crucial and chaotic periods in our nation's history. To make matters worse, neither Roosevelt nor Truman had taken care to see that Truman was well-informed on the war situation. Not surprisingly, the new President, by his own admission, was overwhelmed by the tasks facing him.

Well how about that? The distinction between judging actions and condemning persons was established from the very beginning of the debate. You're lecturing us on points we made!

The point, again, is not to insist that every reader spend hours slogging through old W4 debates. Few have time for that drudgery. But a little caution in making assumptions in your comments would seem to be in order. Most of the posts we put up now have readily-available antecedents; it may be that the objection you have in mind has already been addressed directly.

"I see no reason to think you know better, but every reason to think you think you know better. I doubt there is anything you don't think you know better than your ancestors. Is it true?"

We know more about such things as pollution, erosion, effects of chemicals, etc. In other words, the science. This knowledge often fails to inform our practices, however. We think that accumulation of facts is the same as wisdom. "Better living through chemistry!" has made us think that we can s--t where we eat.

"So the common ground is that the Islamicists and Eastern Christians don't approve of the materialism?...I don't see any real examples of common ground. Cultures the Islamicists approve of are not less materialistic unless you mean the different sort of materialism associated with far less wealth...There simply is no common ground with the Islamicist critique."

Please note that I wrote "many in those nations, like Solzhenitsyn, were surprised and quite taken back by the level of materialism and cultural decadence present in the supposedly Christian West." I didn't say "all" or even "most," but many.

I've read enough material from Eastern Christian sources to know that there definitely is common ground between the two critiques. This is esp. true in countries where both Christians and Muslims were persecuted under communism -- Albania, for instance -- and where the people of both faiths have their culture in common. Putting forth Bin Laden's porn collection as a counter-example is no more valid than citing Milosevic as an example of your average practicing Orthodox Serb.

Also note I'm making no moral equivalencies between Islam and Eastern Christianity. I'm simply making the observation that both, in their purer and more traditional forms, take issue with Western decadence. That some mullah condemns the presence of Britney Spears shaking herself and "dancing" with legs spread half-naked on TV does not invalidate the Albanian bishop's or the Baptist minister's condemnation of the same.

You seem to have the rather odd view that Islam cannot possibly be right about anything.

And as far as anti-bourgeois decline goes, what do you do with those who think that a major manifestation of decline is the destruction of the middle class? Those who espouse some form of populism, whether of the left or the right, would seem to fall into this category.

Note that I'm not saying that anti-bourgeois sentiment does not exist, or that it is not a feature of some "declinism." What I'm denying is that it is a defining characteristic of cultural pessimism in general, because if it were, pessimism of the populist type would be incoherent.

Well Paul, since it is increasingly obvious you resent my presence here I won't comment anymore. I have no desire to be where I'm not wanted, nor to cause anyone the angst that I see I'm causing you. Claims of incompetence are invariably something else.

Just to be perfectly accurate, Paul, those words you cite from my essay are not mine, but someone else's, whom I quoted.
My own sentiments were more in line with Anscombe's, who said:

I have long been puzzled by the common cant about President Truman’s courage in making this decision. Of course, I know that you can be cowardly without having reason to think you are in danger. But how can you be courageous? Light has come to me lately: the term is an acknowledgement of the truth. Mr. Truman was brave because, and only because, what he did was so bad.

But Truman's early enthusiasm underwent moderation. From an article:

On Aug. 10, 1945 (the day after the Nagasaki bomb), having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace wrote in his diary on Aug. 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946, pg. 473-474).

And further:

On July 21, 1948 Truman confided some other private thoughts on the atomic bomb to his staff. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission David Lilienthal recorded Truman's words in his diary that night, along with Lilienthal's own observations in parentheses:

"I don't think we ought to use this thing [the A-Bomb] unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that (here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively) that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn't a military weapon." (I shall never forget this particular expression). "It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses." (David Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Vol. Two, pg. 391)

None of which, however, has anything to do with your post. I'd probably rather be called a Conservative than a Right-winger because, in the public parlance, confessing to the latter amounts to an admission that one is a homophobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic monoculturist et cetera ad nauseum. The propaganda apparatchiks have captured all the connotations.