Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Intended consequences?

This also says much about how we got here!


The Two Cultures
With All Due Respect
by Fred Reed




As the culture dies, the schools fail, the cities teem with
functional illiterates and our children turn into tattooed
primitives cosseted by a civilization whose origins they barely
know, I watch them with�I will say it plainly�contempt. A mild
contempt, but contempt. Sadness also, for they have lost much,
but yes, a contempt I do not want yet cannot escape.

So, to judge by my correspondence, do many people old enough
to read fluently. None use the word "contempt." The taboos are
too ingrained, the penalties too harsh, the unspoken laws
protecting everyone's self-esteem too punitively policed. Again,
it is not a contempt that people want to feel: All would prefer
that things not be as they are. Yet contempt is unmistakably
what peers through their letters.

Contempt is the proper reaction to the contemptible.

I sometimes think the country is dividing itself into two cultures.
The first, and much the smaller, will be of those who read widely
and know much, who are cultured and live in a wider world than
the merely present. The second will be of those who received
high grades without understanding that they were being cheated
by their elders. An abyss will separate the two.

The chain of cultivation, once broken, is not easily rejoined. We
are doing everything we can to break it. It is a shame. People
deserve more. We are doing this, as nearly as I can tell, so that
the dull and uninterested will feel good about themselves. We are
doing it to conceal that some of us are better than others.

Yes. Better. That word.

In the past it was recognized that certain qualities were superior
to others, and that people who cultivated those qualities were
superior to those who didn't. The honest were thought superior
to the thieving, the kind to the cruel, the provident to the
shiftless, the wise to the foolish, the learned to the ignorant.
Today one must not hold these views. They constitute the crime
of elitism, which is the recognition that the better is preferable
to the worse.

One must never, ever notice that some people are better than
others.

Not to notice the inescapable requires either stupidity or moral
blindness. Since few people are very stupid, we have chosen the
road of blindness. We feign stupidity for reasons of politics.

It takes some serious feigning. If I said that Mother Theresa was
no better than the Hillside Strangler � "she wasn't better, just
different" � people would laugh. If I said that Albert Schweitzer
was of greater worth than an illiterate drug-dealing parasite in
what is called the inner city, I would be called a racist. If I said
that a white suburban kid who couldn't do long division
amounted to a medieval peasant without the excuses, I would be
called, spare me, an elitist.

Which I am.

What, pray, should one feel toward intelligent people who cannot
read without squinting laboriously, who know less of their
language than a fourth-grader in 1954, have a shaky grasp of the
multiplication tables, cannot write a coherent paragraph, and
seldom read a book? Respect comes to people who merit
respect. It isn't an entitlement. Contempt also comes to those
who merit it. And should.

I do not scorn, say, savages from Papua-New Guinea who wear
penis gourds, eat huge grubs from within logs, and peer at
distant airliners as those vouchsafed a glimpse of divinity. It is
unreasonable to blame them for not having profited from
opportunities they didn't have. I watch them with wonder, but not
contempt.

But the lazy, shiftless, deliberately half-lettered, the feckless and
socially worthless � yes, worthless: that, and "shiftless," are
words that could well be resurrected � those who have had every
opportunity to better themselves but couldn't summon the
effort�for them I cannot help feeling pity. And contempt.

And what should one think of the bloated welfare mother with a
second-grade education, with a litter of five she can't feed and
won't school, by twenty-five fathers she can't remember, who
spends her limited time between couplings in watching Oprah
and feeling abused? The best I can come up with is revulsion.
And pity, yes. Being a public uterus cannot be pleasant. Yet I will
not pretend that it is admirable.

And what of the mall children of the suburbs, who leave high
school with less arithmetical fluency than I had in the sixth
grade in 1957 in the schools of Alabama? I didn't know arithmetic
because I was particularly meritorious. I was a barefoot
Southern kid with a BB gun in one hand and a fielder's glove in
the other. I knew arithmetic, we all knew arithmetic, because
the society, the schools, and our parents made it plain that we
ought to know it, and in fact were going to know it, at which
point the conversation was over.

This brings us to a greater question: What should one feel other
than contempt for a society that, enjoying virtually unlimited
resources, deliberately enstupidates its children? We don't have
to do it. We choose to. We are ruining our society on purpose.

Today I see mall rats who go through high school with the red
puffy eyes born of dope, and literally count on their fingers to do
multiplication. On graduation they take one course at the
community college, play video games, and hang out pointlessly
with their friends. I've got more respect for dirt. You can grow
plants in it.

I once wrote a column on the almost comic state of regained
subhumanity. A friend of mine responded:

"Johnny can't add coz (a) his grade school teachers are moron
socialists, (b) his parents are mouth-breathing, TV watching
losers, and (c) he's majoring in sociology so he can get a gov't
job like everyone else."

I can't see much wrong with that analysis.

The desire to disguise differences in merit by ideological
cleansing, and the atmosphere of pre-human irredentism now
earnestly promoted in what were for a time the schools, will
promote precisely the elitism they pretend to vanquish. Those
who achieve will always look down on those who didn't bother.
This is certainly true in regard to schooling. As the gap increases
between the few who know their history and literature, and those
who gurble ungrammatically about their favorite situation
comedies, the contempt will become sharper. Two cultures.

Maybe self-esteem comes too high. Besides, who will have
greater respect for themselves, the puzzled and half-literate, or
those who read confidently and know that they have been well
educated? If you want to respect your self, do something worthy
of respect. Now there's a concept.
August 18, 2003
Copyright � 2003 Fred Reed

I love Fred Reed. His articles are always entertaining and insightful. However, that one is somewhat depressing. It is also an example of precisely why I am so pessimistic.

Barak - You may take your old 98 Mauser and do some good, but you will never be able to count on any support from anyone and, in the end, you will be just another kook. The masses will believe it because Fox News tells them so.

We have already reached the point where the average person is incapable of understanding things well enough to ever have an intelligent revolution. As I said earlier, we may eventually reach a point where the peasantry can no longer support the bloated corpse of government, but what then? Who will know enough to accomplish anything but mindless slaughter?

We are losing our Culture. Read something from 150 years ago written for the average reader. It was full of allusions to Shakespeare and the Bible that, presumably, the reader understood. Greek mythology was something that was taught in the schools so that we would all have a common understanding from where we came. No more. The most expensive education one can buy today, is nothing more than a vocational school. College teaches nothing but a set of narrow skills (not too well I might add) and graduates are, by the standards of earlier generations, idiots. We are doomed, doomed, doomed.

Amen brother.

Now, about the education: I have somewhat of a unique perspective, having experienced the East-German, West German, and American High School systems, and the American college/university system.

Why is the American system (HS) such an under-achiever?
The East/West german HS systems are stellar compared to what I have experienced here. But why?

It was engineered to be so. America was a shining example of the success of ordered liberty. That could not be allowed to continue.

Matthias

It has always struck me that in European countries, including the former Eastern Bloc, they understand that a government cannot control what people think. Sure, in the Eastern Bloc strict prohibitions were put on what people could do and, even, what they could say. However, there seemed to be the admission, at least tacitly, and the understanding from the governments that the actions of the people did not necessarily represent their true thoughts. Likewise, in Western Europe today the societies are much more socialistic than ours here in America. Yet, public discourse seems to be more valued and people understand at every level free expression is valuable. I have had better conversations sitting on a porch in Germany a 2:00 a.m. speaking to my hosts in a mix of pidgen German and pidgen English than I have had over here in quite some time.

Now, in America, we have always understood that government restrictions on what people could do or say should be quite limited (Rights of Englishmen and all you know). Yet, the urge to control remains. Therefore, I believe our culture has taken the path of seeking to control what people think so that they remain free to act or say what they want, but, of course, what they do or say naturally becomes less contriversial. By doing so, we remain free to trumpet our moral superiority and point out that we are more free than other countries, but in reality, we are just fooling ourselves. The dumbing down in the last century is just a natural progression of this process. It is much easier to control what people think if they are generally on a uniformly low intellectual level. Therefore, schools must not teach too much.

All of this goes back a long ways. Since the Civil War the triumphant force in American culture is the New England Yankee attitude. Keep in mind, that this culture is the same one that delivered Oliver Cromwell and totalitarian theocracy to England in the 17th century. One hundred years ago there were books aplenty where this was discussed, particularly among Southerners. Today, you would be lucky to find 1 person in 20 who knows who Oliver Cromwell was and can tell your the difference between a "Cavalier" and a "Roundhead". Today that Puritan spirit manifests itself in the secular "do good" ideology that most of us hate so much. Remember, these people are not content that you act a certain way or refrain from acting a certain way. They want you to think a certain way as well. All of those who don't are vilified and portrayed as bad people. It is not enough that you ignore homosexuals, you must embrace them.

This Puritan influence has destroyed the Republic. We see it manifested in little ways that most of us never even consider. Our history has been a continuous struggle between these Puritans and others, notably the Celtic (Scots-Irish) attitudes. It is an age old struggle and in it lies the true roots of the Civil War. Read some books. One hundred years ago, all the Southerners knew this and that is why they felt such a loss after the War. Our forefathers knew that we had lost much more than a War. They knew that we would eventualy lose our minds and our ability to think.

In years gone by, damn near too many, when I attended school one attended school to gain knowledge, learn HOW to think and to learn how to solve the problems one might come across in the future. Now young people attend school to be TOLD what knowledge will be useful to them, to be TOLD WHAT to think and to learn that there aren't any problems that GOVERNMENT can't solve.

legs-
I hope you are a fan of Thomas Sowell (economist, author, columnist), if not you should be. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Kirt
Thomas Sowell:

Maybe our American HS try to hard to prepare students for their future jobs. I think a successful school must try to prepare students for [i]life[/b], enlighten them, teach them about the world, regardless of future practical use of that knowledge.

A M E N Sir, they used to teach us HOW to learn, not USE a calculator!

My thoughts, too. Heck, I can't think of a practical use of my knowledge of Shakespeare, Goethe, Greek history, etc...but it was fun learning it, and it is fun having the knowledge.

Well, the best part was I learned to read. That is the key to ALL learning IMHO.

TLee:

I had never heard of Mr Reed until now. Years ago there was a saying on the streets in North Philly. 'Tell it like it T I tis, not like it T W Twus" . Fred Reed did both.

Thanks for the introduction TLEE.

I love the guy, totaly UNPC!

Bend:

I certainly am a fan of Thomas Sowell. I have been for a long time. I sure wish I could see more of him on Fox News, & less of these screaming left wing idiots who seem to be there all the time.

I'm thinking of a guy named Charles Barron, a NYC Councilman. He raves. He froths at the mouth. Once he said he "would never let them ( whites ) forget slavery. He has said that he has to restrain himself sometimes when he is overcome by the need to just walk up to a white man & punch him in the mouth.

This guy says he is a former Black Panther. I have caught his act a few times. I think that if he was a Panther he was a member of the Ladies auxilliary. At least that is the way he looks to me.

It would be wonderful to see Thomas Sowell debate this guy on national TV. If the moderator prevented Barron from shouting down Mr Sowell. Lefties use this tactic & too frequently Fox News commentators allow it to happen.