“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens, but there is immediate publicity everywhere. In the present age, a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times.”

Soren Kierkegaard wrote these words in the 1840’s, in his classic work, The Present Age. He wrote this as his own Denmark was being threatened by the spreading revolutions across Europe. Often misunderstood and misinterpreted, and almost forgotten in his native land, Kierkegaard was a prophet of our own time.

The first postmodern ironist is an excellent article from the New Statesman that captures the essence of Kierkegaard’s thought in the context of modern Britain. As we endure yet another round of mindless American political fiddling while Rome burns, we would do well to keep his words in mind, if for nothing more than an island of sanity.

One of the reasons for the swift decline of the West in the post WWII era has been the rapid removal of dissenting voices from positions of influence. Mediocre “company men” squeezed out anyone who dissented from the party line, which became ever more banal and venal.

Robert Taft of Ohio represented the last gasp of old American conservatism, and was quietly sabotaged from within his party by the mainstream Eisenhower supporters. Many Taft supporters had mortgages called in by their banks, quickly ending their opposition to the party machine. Yes, behind the dog and pony shows served up to the Oprah crowd, politics has always been dirty business.

Of course, the outward signs lagged reality, as old American conservatism died with the defeat of the so-called “isolationists” prior to the war. It is almost laughable to see how far removed from reality conventional understanding of history has become. The left is the anti-war party, the right the warmongers in the bizarro world created by our media and schools. Yet the only serious anti-war movements in the last 100 years were reactionary conservative, and the left has pushed for and benefitted from every major war since the now lamented Mexican war.

If anyone insists on maintaining the fantasy that the Potomac branch of the Likud party is “conservative” in any meaningful sense of the word, or that Noriega and Hussein were really reincarnations of Hitler, we’ll give them a nice wink and pat on the head.

Back here on planet earth, those of us with at least an inkling of the monumental task before us must think seriously about how we can set up a system that will allow for real dissent, for the real strength of diversity. “In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom” states the old Proverb. We’ll need true wisdom, and not just the posed pictures of the corporate image ads and college admissions brochures, if we are to create a truly just and liberal society.

How much of the triumph of the left over the West can be credited positively to the left? In other words, is the breakdown of the West the result of enlightened advance or of decadence and malfeasance on the part of the bourgois? It is easy to see that much of the drive for multi-culturalism and tolerance is promoted by globalist corporations to keep the natives from getting too restless about having their jobs outsourced and wages undercut by cheap labor.

Former Trotskyite and Cold Warrior James Burnham outlined the workings of the “Managerial Elite” decades ago. These elites gained control through mastery of technology and set to work breaking down traditional bonds and mores to cement their control. It is a perfectly rational approach, but is it compatible with the ideals of liberalism?

The tipping point is being reached rapidly, as the short term goals of cheap plentiful labor (which Marx saw as a necessary requirement of capitalism) result in a complete overhaul of the demographic make-up of the Western world. The European-American middle class will be a distant memory in the coming decades. We will be ever more dependant on the good will of a small, wealthy elite to move forward with our agenda, which as has been pointed out already will have to shift away from its materialistic basis to deal with the larger, poorer, less educated and less homogenous populations we are building.

The present elites are riding and directing the “progressive” wave as the means to riches and power. What will happen when the honeymoon is over, and the interests of these elites come into direct conflict with those of the idealists? Are we willing to take a hard look while we still can? Or do we just wait and hope for the best, only to be led to slaughter like the hapless conservatives who followed their Judas goat leaders down the primrose path?

Stealing from the title of the classic work, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, we ask a simple question:  How will liberalism survive when it has to pay its own freight?

Can anyone seriously argue the fact that liberalism has grown out of the prosperous nations of the West?  It is the offshoot of Western Europe and the United States.  It does no good to point to the fact that most non-Westerners support leftist political parties or vote for socialist programs.  They are voting for their direct interest, as they see it.  Likewise for the large Jewish presence in every leftist organization.  How can we separate the self interest involved there from true principle?  Again, the Jewish people see themselves as a small minority whose best security comes from a broadly multi-cultural society with no dominant majority.  Hence the hard left bias found among them as a group.

Only Western Europeans and their cousins in North America and Australia and New Zealand, and even in South Africa, meet Kant’s standard for truly ethical behavior.  Only they can point to the large sacrifice that they have made, counter to their own interests.  Now that their success in cutting off their future is almost complete, how will we maintain liberalism?

This is a question that deserves serious thought from those who want to see truth and justice prevail.  The decision to open up the former West to the neglected “third world” will alter the current equation dramatically.  Do we keep the flow up until we achieve an equilibrium of wealth across the face of the globe?  If so, we’ve got a long way to go down here in the West. 

This is yet another question that demands moral courage from the new generation of leaders we must develop.  We can’t run from the issue like the Sierra Club did from the issue of immigration and its effect on the environment.  Surely the hubris of the current adminstration is no model for us to follow.

Keep this simple question in mind as we prepare for the upcoming three ring circus known as politics.  But don’t hold your breath waiting for an intelligent or courageous answer.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert - these TV preachers have been a despicable lot. But not for the reasons many on the left think. These men were ordained as Christian ministers, and as such cannot be faulted for upholding the standards of that faith. What kind of freedom is a freedom to practice a religion - but only if one doesn’t take it seriously?

What is despicable about such men is that they cannot or will not admit to the fact that they are being taken for fools, or at least the parishoners they represent. They continue to shill for the current administration and for the war in Iraq, even when the reason for it changed seemingly every day as the lies were exposed one by one.

Soren Kierkegaard pointed to the essential flaw in democracy as being its incapacity for repentance. We would never trust a person who can never admit when they are wrong. Why do we accept such behavior from the state?

Berdyaev points out in Slavery and Freedom the incongruity between the immoral actions we honor in the state yet would never condone in an individual person. Watching the likes of Robertson et al shill for a regime that despises them, as opposed to standing as a prophetic voice for justice and truth is what turns our stomach.

But let’s not kid ourselves. Does anyone think that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Bishop Spong inhabit a higher moral plane than Pat, Jerry, and Jimmy? How so? Does anyone believe these men take anything about the religion they profess to represent seriously? Of course not. They don’t even make a pretense.

So before we have to endure another whiny rant about how “scary” some neutered little sychophant Bush shill is, would someone please take a time out? Get real.

We didn’t turn the world upside down to create a bunch of ditto heads in drag.

Where do we go from here?  The revolution was, and it’s time to start tackling the tough questions.  Tearing down is infinitely easier than building up.  Yes, the revolution was televised, but television won’t help us now.  Is there a dime’s worth of difference between Gerry Springer, the 700 Club, and CSPAN… on the real issues we face?

What is at the heart of true liberalism?  Is it no more than the Yang to the Yin of Fox News and the Republican party?  For the sake of us all, it had better not be.

The passing of the West is an event unprecedented in world history.  And it has passed, despite any appearances to the contrary.  The Russian revolution was nothing in comparison.  Yet it may be our closest analogy, at least in the modern era.  We’ve been inspired by a writer who lived through that time and grappled with the issues substantively.  The works of Nikolai Berdyaev will be our jumping off point as we examine what lies ahead, and move past the Hannitized right and looney left in search of existential center.