Silence Dogood Wire

International tensions are an unavoidable aspect of an imperfect world. Every age has suffered from its own specific problems but conflict has been the norm rather than the exception. Given that we have a historical record replete with international confrontation and a substantial body of literature on foreign policy, one would think that our political leaders would start crafting reasonable strategies for combating foreign adversaries.

Unfortunately, such a wish is nothing more than a pipe dream as was demonstrated by President Joe Biden’s dismal State of the Union Address

The speech began reasonably well, with President Biden paying homage to the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. He characteristically gaffed at one point saying that “Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he will never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people.” The sentiment was nice, but it is unlikely that it would give those encircled by tanks much optimism.

To be fair to President Biden, the situation is very difficult. Russia is a nuclear power and any overly aggressive actions could trigger a massive escalation. However, much of the blame for a conflict begins in the months and years preceding it. The greatest politicians seek to avert bloodshed rather than waiting to act after it has already occurred. 

It is for this reason that we view Winston Churchill as a paragon of the 20th century while the pro-appeasement Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is seen as a failed leader. President Biden’s weak administration and unwillingness to stand up to enemies gave Putin the perfect opportunity to attack. After all, President Biden left hundreds of Americans in Afghanistan. If this is how he cares for fellow citizens, then why would he ever take effective measures to defend other countries?

One would think that in the face of these dismal foreing policy results, the Biden Administration would change its tone. After all, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Weakness, it turns out, is not a recipe for success.

Thus, if we wish to know whether or not President Biden has learned from his mistakes, we should look at how he addressed our greatest foreing rival; China.

Far from warning the authoritarian Chinese about America’s resolve and strength, President Biden only mentioned Xi Jinping briefly in his speech claiming that he told the President of China that “it is never a good bet to bet against the American people.” He then triumphantly stated that America will take steps to fight climate change, promote climate justice, build electric vehicle charging stations, and take lead out of pipes.

As China eyes Taiwan, it is unlikely that Xi and the CCP will care whether or not America is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint.

Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are so ideologically blinded that they are unable to craft rational policy. They keep showing weakness and expecting that their enemies will magically evolve into enlightened world leaders. They are, by definition, insane.

When President Trump was in office, one of the favorite pastimes of news anchors was to host psychologists to give their diagnoses on the former president. I would suggest diagnosing the entire Biden Administration with a learning disorder.

Photo Copyright Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

In previous eras, something that Americans have been able to rely on is their political leaders adhering to reality to at least some degree. After all, a failure to do so will likely show in the next election. However, the Democrats have taken up an odd strategy by completely shielded themselves from economic realities.

Tonight President Biden perfectly illustrated this fact when he delivered his State of the Union Address to the American People. Far from acknowledging basic economic facts, he gave a meandering speech about the evils of corporations who need to “pay their fair share.” In his long address, President Biden demonstrated that he and his party are unable to comprehend inflation, tax cuts, or monetary incentives.

In regard tp inflation, President Biden demonstrated an extreme amount of ignorance at how to combat this growing problem in American life. First and foremost, he urged lawmakers to pass his Build Back Better Bill which will cost over $2 trillion. According to the Tax Foundation, this could contribute to short run inflation. Apparently, dumping trillions of dollars into the economy is not a recipe for monetary stability.

Secondly, Biden claimed that he would combat rising gas prices by freeing up 60 billion reserve barrels of oil. What he failed to mention is that this amounts to about a three days supply for the United States economy. Rather than reinvigorate U.S. production, he is happy to rely on foreign oil exports because it fits his climate agenda. Supposedly, the smoldering ruins of Kiev are the price we have to pay so that the earth doesn’t warm another 1 degree celsius.

Another area of the economy that President Biden completely failed to comprehend is tax policy. He self-righteously accused President Trump of giving $2 trillion in tax breaks to the greedy top 1 percent. He then proceeded to claim that these cuts did not have any effect on American families, which could not be further from the truth. According to Karl Smith, former Vice President of the Tax Foundation, the economy saw enormous gains due to the Trump tax cuts. He writes that “In 2016, real median household income was $62,898, just $257 above its level in 1999. Over the next three years it grew almost $6,000, to $68,703. That’s perhaps why, despite the pandemic, 56% of U.S. voters polled last month said their families were better off today than they were four years ago.” It turns out that allowing wealthy individuals to invest their money in the economy is beneficial for job growth. 

Despite this proven fact, Democrats would like to shun economic literacy in favor of ideology. In 2008, for example, President Obama responded to a question on the efficacy of high tax rates by saying “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” The tax policies of the Democrats are not based on sound economic arguments but on their theoretical conception of fairness. However, it is hard to imagine what is fair about a government official weakening the economy for everyone in the name of fairness.

Unfortunately the economic fallacies continued. At one point President Biden praised Intel for pledging to invest in a semiconductor manufacturing plant. He claimed that all they were waiting for was for Congress to pass one of his economic bills, thereby admitting that he is paying companies who have good relationships with the government. 

Apparently, President Biden believes that his powers of observation are greater than the powers of the market. Whereas he balks at tax breaks, he seems to love subsidies. This is due to the fact that he can choose who the winners and losers are. No more need to deal with the impartial hand of the market. Instead, he can impose his will on everybody while making the market less efficient. 

Overall, President Biden’s speech was a hodgepodge of economic fallacies covered with the veneer of self-righteousness. It certainly doesn’t take an economics degree to understand that dumping trillions of dollars into the economy is bad for inflation, radically increasing taxes is bad for the stock market, and giving subsidies is the equivalent of a less efficient tax break. Unfortunately, the Democrats have completely shielded themselves from reality. Let’s hope they pay for it in the next election.

In 324 AD the Emperor Constantine the Great transferred the Roman Capital to the city of Constantinople. Situated over 800 miles from Rome, the move was a decisive moment in the history of the empire and a humiliating blow to the ancient republic.

By this time, the Empire was in full decline as barbarians closed in on all sides. The legions of the empire were being worn down by hordes of Goths and Germanic tribes who sacked cities and usurped territory. 

But more important than the barbarians was the lack of national spirit. In the 18th century the famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote that “If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honor.” The Romans had become content with their victories. Rather than assert their independence, they were happy to enjoy their wealth, they were happy to cede their authority to a succession of emperors and foreign mercenaries.

In such a state of dependence, the national pride of the Romans inevitably evaporated. They no longer provided for the defense of their country or made serious efforts to check the authority of the emperors. To be a Roman citizen no longer carried any real distinction, other than the ability to live in luxury.

In such a state of society, when national pride has evaporated, some other form of unity must take its place. In the Roman Empire, the lack of national cohesiveness was supplied by an increase in class distinctions. Constantine the Great, for example, created three new ranks of nobles, in order to gratify the vanity of his most wealthy citizens. Additionally, historians, living in this era contrasted the extreme indulgence of the Roman senators with their former frugality.

In this time period, as opposed to the earlier days of the republic, it was now considered more important to be wealthy than to be a Roman citizen. Thus, class solidarity took the place of national solidarity. Again Gibbon writes that the “principal officers of the empire were saluted, even by the sovereign himself, with the deceitful titles of your Sincerity, your Gravity, your Excellency, your Eminence, (etc).” These distinctions became so great that citizens were forced to salute the eunuchs of the palace as they walked through the city.

The replacement of national unity with other forms of distinction often signals the end of republics, because it illustrates that people no longer adhere to their country above other more trivial distinctions. Rather than be viewed as good citizens who defend their liberty people would rather vie for wealth, power, and honors.

In American society, this is certainly the case. Wealthy intellectuals in the United States believe that their distinction grants them the authority to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens. Reading over the appellations that were handed out by Constantine, one would be hard pressed not to think of Anthony Fauci.

Everything that Fauci said was treated as the epitome of truth by the mainstream media. In fact, he arrogantly claimed that his critics were “really criticizing science because I represent science.” Apparently, his superior intelligence and medical degrees raise him above the level of criticism. Such arrogance was repeated during the fall of the Roman Empire when wealthy officials raised themselves above the level of criticism.

Another more trivial example of the increase in class distinctions was illustrated when the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed claiming that Jill Biden wasn’t an actual doctor. Jill Biden, who has a doctorate in education from the University of Delaware took major offense to this reasonable call-out. Biden’s director of communications Elizabeth Alexander lambasted the piece as “sexist and shameful.” Additionally, Jill Biden took up the cause of young women stating that “Together, we will build a world where the accomplishments of our daughters will be celebrated, rather than diminished.”

The fulminations of Dr. Fauci and Mrs. Biden illustrate that the Ruling Class is a very real phenomena. Rather than be seen as citizens of a republic who are dedicated to freedom, bureaucrats would like to expand their authority, wealthy individuals would like to expand their influence, and vain intellectuals would like to expand the usage of meaningless titles. 

America has certainly always had class distinction as all free societies do. However, these distinctions were tempered by social mobility, individual freedom, and patriotism. Unfortunately, as the bureaucracy has increased, more outlets for powerful individuals to exercise legal authority have emerged. Additionally, the reduction in patriotism has been a major source of discord and division.

At this critical juncture we have a choice to make; whether we will take pride in being citizens of a free nation or succumb to the more vainglorious and tyrannical distinctions of class.

One of the most fundamental aspects of our legal system is the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.” Rather than brazenly accuse people of crimes, legal authorities must offer up convincing evidence to a jury in order to eliminate any “reasonable doubt” that a person is innocent. This humane system assists with a smooth operation of the laws and protects the rights of the defendant.

However, in addition to being an important legal doctrine, “innocent until proven guilty” must also be seen as a way of life. By assuming the best of others, until proven otherwise, we are able to flourish as a cooperative and healthy society. Instead of being suspicious and resentful of one another, “innocent until proven guilty”y provides the necessary framework by which we can come together and form communities with one another.

Social critic Os Guiness has written about this phenomenon in his book The Magna Carta of Humanity. The central idea of the book is that the wisdom for our free society comes from the revolution that freed the Israelites from bondage.

Out of this momentous event emerged a nation that was based upon a covenant rather than a hierarchy. By incurring mutual religious obligations to one another, loyalty, patriotism, and charity were created, which allowed the state to flourish.

Guinness recounts how the Jewish scholar Daniel J. Elazar has created a new framework for viewing governments through the lens of community relations. The three types that he examined were organic, hierarchical, and covenantal. Organic societies consisted of African tribes or Scottish clansmen while hierarchical societies consisted of authoritarians.

By contrast, covental societies are unique because they have been founded on an agreement between people to found a republic or commonwealth. This idea is what birthed the Constitution of the American Republic and the Declaration of Independence. Each set limits on the authority of the powerful and laid out the rights of the people.

This form of government has always required a significant amount of trust. In order to grant your fellow citizens liberty one must trust that the freedom of individuals is better than the authority of a supreme magistrate. 

This was certainly a great leap for many people. In his famous Meditations, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote that he wished to have a republic of free men. This seems contradictory, given that he was an emperor. However, he believed that men could only be free through moral submission. In his mind a politically free society was too utopian. An untrustworthy and unstable goal. After all, he was surrounded by savage barbarians and a population that generally didn’t subscribe to his moral code

Today we are seeing the resurgence of distrust with claims such as “all white people are racist,” “believe all women,” or “all cops are bad.”  If our fellow citizens are so evil as to merit universal condemnation, then how will we remain free together?

The answer is that we will not. Instead, we will become suspicious, resentful, and angry. Demagogues will be able to capitalize on this anger and usurp the authority to “make things right.” Only through trust can we build a free society together.

“Some Socialists see private enterprise as a tiger—a predatory animal to be shot. Others see it as an old cow to be milked. But we Conservatives see it as a sturdy horse that pulls along our economy.”- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, in our modern age, many people have chosen to scorn the institutions which have brought prosperity and freedom. One of these institutions is free market capitalism. Although it is often caricatured as being a system for the greedy and ignorant, many who offer the loudest criticisms have never actually read about capitalism. 

Far from blindly endorsing profiteers and business owners, Adam Smith, capitalism’s intellectual founder, was highly skeptical of businessmen. The famed economist Thomas Sowell notes that Smith’s views of capitalists were almost as bleak as those of Karl Marx. In the first book of his classic The Wealth of Nations Smith warns his readers that “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profiteers], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.”

Modern day leftists would do well to remember this sound advice. Although they constantly lambast the corporate sector, many are happy to support companies that offer woke messaging. For instance, they cheer as the NBA plasters the court with progressive slogans while turning a blind eye to oppression in China. 

Similarly, bourgeois individuals purchasing hundreds of dollars worth of clothing from Nike marvel at ads featuring Colin Kaepernick while ignoring the fact that Nike lobbied against a bill to put increased tariffs on products made with slave labor.

Everyone would do well to keep the danger of profiteers in mind when judging big tech, which is perhaps the most powerful sector on the planet. These companies have the ability to propagandize, silence information they disagree with, and create an artificial environment. 

Meta (formerly Facebook) which is on the cutting edge of the social media sector recently released an ad campaign asking for regulators to take action against them. Such an odd request was met with applause by many who naively viewed this company as acting in a selfless manner for the general public.

Unfortunately, we should keep in mind Adam Smith’s prescient warning about the danger of corporations. Far from acting out of selflessness, Facebook and their marketing executives are acting in a manner that is contrary to the public interest.

Due to public uproar, they are unable to ban people without incurring significant reputational damage and backlash. Twitter, for example, has seen a number of users, including Joe Rogan move over to the free speech platform Gettr.

By allowing a governmental agency to step in and regulate their company, social media moguls could have their cake and eat it too. They would be able to censor at will while avoiding the reputational damage that comes along with such actions. If a government agency ordered them to censor content, they could abdicate responsibility and continue to stop the spread of information they dislike.

Despite the fact that leftists often like to think of themselves as rebels, they are perhaps the most establishmentarian group in America. Far from being skeptical of power, they embrace the ability of power to influence and control others. Whereas “right-wingers” such as Adam Smith have viewed corporations as a necessary aspect of a healthy economy, leftists view corporations as another outlet to increase their political power.

Since the age of Andrew Jackson many Presidents have sought to be affiliated with the “common man.” Jackson, a fiery populist, sought to resonate with everyday Americans by attacking the federal government and praising working class people. This was an extremely successful method which made Jackson one of the most famous Presidents in American history. Although a member of the opposing party, Abraham Lincoln attempted to emulate Jackson’s kinship with ordinary Americans in order to increase his own political appeal. In fact, Andrew Jackson’s picture was the only Presidential portrait that Lincoln had in the Oval Office throughout his Presidency.

Another more recent President who has taken up the cause of the “common man” was former President Donald Trump. President Trump railed against the deep state, criticized elites, and used foul language that wasn’t always becoming of a politician. However, he galvanized working class voters and created a strong coalition of Americans, leading to Hillary Clinton’s upset in 2016.

Trump’s status as a “common man” has been criticized by those on the left who often point to his privileged childhood. For example, not many people can say that their father gave them “a small loan of one million dollars.” However, although he did not begin with much money, Andrew Jackson was an extremely wealthy slave owner. This was not a position that was occupied by many people during that time period, but he was still able to gain clout as a representative of the “common man.”

Although this idea of the “common man” is seemingly paradoxical, and very confusing to opponents of President Trump, it is actually a predictable development for two reasons 1.) Trump is open about his vices 2.) Trump’s elitism is not exclusionary.

As for the first point, it is clearly preferable for our leaders to be as devoid of vices as possible. Unfortunately, money and power are typically not conducive to good conduct. However, President Trump’s vices were different from those of his opponents because he was open about them. He had a filthy mouth and was gross in his conduct towards women. By contrast, other elites attempted to hide their indiscretions behind the guise of moral superiority. Take President Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about his relations with Monica Lewinsky and has since regained his fame. Or perhaps his wife Hillary Clinton who said that those who didn’t vote for her were “excrables,” because of her supposed superiority.

Andrew Jackson was similarly incendiary in his rhetoric, but he still resonated with the “common man.” Perhaps the voters thought that although he was crass, the well-spoken Washington power brokers weren’t any more pure than he was.

A second reason why President Trump was seen as the “common man” is because his form of elitism is attainable to Americans. Many citizens still believe in the American Dream and strive to attain the success that President Trump has had. One need not be of a particular background to be rich. It is certainly easier if you have “a small loan of one million dollars” but being wealthy is not an exclusive class in American society.

By contrast, the elitism of President Trump’s opponents was much less accessible to the general population. For example, it is much more difficult to get rich from government connections like the Bidens, than to start a business in the free market. 

Ultimately, the people who are running for office will always have elite status in American society. However, it is the individuals who don’t exude supposed moral superiority and whose position is open to any industrious American who will claim the mantle of the “common man.” Almost all of the most successful Presidents have sought to assert the rights and dignity of everyday people. Hopefully the upcoming politicians will be as eloquent as they are sincere, and thus offer up a truly powerful defense of the “common man”.

It is not an overstatement to say that the Virginia gubernatorial race could decide the future of this country. Incumbent Democrat Terry McAuliffe and his Republican challenger Glenn Youngkin are neck and neck in a state that went to President Joe Biden by over ten percentage points.

The issue that is sparking the Youngkin movement is not the economy or the Biden administration’s foreign policy failures (although these have helped). Rather, what has brought the Republicans to the forefront is the culture war and the battle over critical race theory. The Virginia education department has pushed this ideology within schools resulting in a widespread backlash among parents. 

Initially, Democrats chose to lie, claiming that it was not being taught at all. Terry McAuliffe even claimed that he had never promoted critical race theory in the classroom. Journalist Chris Rufo then uncovered documents showing that McAuliffe’s office had, in fact, promoted critical race theory.

Since this revelation, the media has now pivoted to the narrative that the reaction against critical race theory is nothing but a covert white backlash. Media personality Charlamagne Tha god claimed that CRT is nothing more than a “great white hype.” Additionally University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato claimed that CRT is nothing more than vile white backlash.

This tactic is characteristic of leftists who believe that their moral superiority raises them above the level of debating the actual merits of a position. Rather than defend their logic, they attempt to castigate their opponents as racist while presenting themselves as the moral arbiters of truth and justice. It is telling that one of the proponents of this doctrine labels himself “Tha god” with a capital G.

The situation in Virginia is not as simple as political hacks make it out to be. The truth is that critical race theory is a terrible ideology that seeks to topple traditional structures of government in favor of more comprehensive control.

Although there is a great deal wrong with the CRT doctrine, there are two tenets that are the most objectionable. The first is that it promotes racial discrimination. Critical race theory popularizer Ibram X Kendi wrote that the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. Rather than move forward in a post-racial manner, Kendi would like us to continue discriminating against people on the basis of race. This would be continued until a complete equality of results was effectuated (which is to say it would continue forever).

 Kendi has expressed support for an anti-racist bureau which would examine disparate racial outcomes and then be given the authority to correct those disparities. This means that bureaucrats such as himself would be given complete control to run social experiments so as to cram equality upon American people. Because each of us has different histories, backgrounds, and experiences the quest for complete equality among groups will be endless. Rather than give people equal opportunities to achieve greatness, bureaucrats would like to provide shallow guarantees that they will provide happiness to all people.

The second problem with critical race theory is that it is unAmerican because of its attempt to fundamentally change our value judgements. Although they were rightly critical of specific policies, all previous civil rights movements have been extremely friendly to American values. It was the words of the Declaration of Independence that were used by both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. to promote the rights of African Americans in this country. In their righteous fight against segregation, African Americans were commonly seen holding American flags in order to demonstrate their desire to participate in the system of liberty that had been denied to them.

Rather than make an argument that is similar to these calls for American liberty, the current civil rights movements have been infected by an ideology which claims that a free society must be eliminated. The Black Lives Matter group argues that free market capitalism must be destroyed, the nuclear family must be dismantled, and the police must be defunded. Their argument is not that America in its current state is not living up to its values. Rather, their argument is that the American system is evil.

Despite their smug proclamations, most of the people defending critical race theory are just ignorant of reality. They see pretty sounding slogans and language about racial justice and immediately jump on the bandwagon. Rather than critically evaluate their positions and defend them with intellectual honesty, they attack the morality of their opponents without making a single logical argument. The CRT doctrine is racist, anti-American, and is a fundamental attempt to destroy the values upon which a free society is built.

As the culture war rages on, the number of heroes that have fallen by the wayside continues to grow. Superman is the latest casualty of wokeism. He is now a climate change-fighting bisexual. Gone are the days of his manly destruction of bad guys and noble fight for “truth, justice, and the American way.” Instead, he attends climate rallies where he supports obnoxious blue-haired social outcasts in their quest for a better world.

Scientific American took a similar stance on classic heroes by cancelling Jedi Knights. The publication ran a piece titled “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.” The authors go on to state that “the name JEDI can inadvertently associate our justice work with stories and stereotypes that are a galaxy far, far away from the values of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.” This begs the question; why would you not want to be associated with the stereotype of a Jedi? If a person of any age watched Star Wars and said that they didn’t like the Jedi, we would rightly think that they were crazy.

The destruction of Superman and other heroes demonstrates something much more devastating than the idiotic alteration of classic characters. It represents the systematic destruction of our value systems. 

Superman’s fight against climate change illustrates a shift away from the traditional fight against good and evil. After all, climate change is not evil, it is merely an ecological phenomenon. By shifting our depictions of evil away from classic villains like the Joker or Doomsday we are signalling that everyday humans are the only evil that remains. 

Family life is now something to be ashamed of. In fact, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently won an award for their decision to limit their family to two children. I wonder what this makes a loving mother who decides to have four or more children? Immoral and destructive, perhaps. Also, if two is better than four, then why don’t we sterilize the planet and cease to exist? This doesn’t make for a very just or inspiring ideology.

And as we cast a disparaging gaze on those who are undeserving of it, we ignore the real evil that exists. Who cares if Anakin Skywalker walks into the Jedi Temple and kills the younglings who are destined to become great Jedi? We already have Planned Parenthood temples built for this purpose. We allow the killing of babies for the benefit of the mother, why not allow it for those who will be affected by the spectre of climate change? According to the cynics we are all damned because we contribute to global warming and participate in a society that  is nothing more than a sexist, racist, homophobic hellhole.

A community cannot sustain itself if it does not attempt to uphold a moral code and celebrate the people who work hard to uphold that code (whether they be real or fictionalized). When upholding a moral code goes by the wayside, a society slowly crumbles as people refuse to maintain it. What is worse, perhaps, is the fact that the Jokers and Doomsdays of the world still exist as we wallow in our self pity and turn a blind eye to their victims.

The stories that are told by books and movies are more than just entertaining time fillers. The Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote that “One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again.” Fairy tales and superheroes inform our sense of right and wrong. When these are destroyed they leave us bereft of a moral compass. Falling prey to cynicism and despair is something that should be reserved for teenagers. However, because society has been so stripped of moral values, adults are falling prey to this tendency. Many are too bereft of a moral code to transmit values to their children and opt for the replacement of religion with tolerance. 

The culture warriors came for the spiritual heroes by removing religion from public life. They came for the political heroes by tearing down statues. And now they are coming for the remnant of moral teaching that still exists: fiction stories. Superman must be castrated, the Jedi must be cast aside, and we must all bow to the woke.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

In an era where there is a short supply of virtue and a high demand for meaning, the liberal ideal of unending tolerance has sought to fill the void. Gay pride flags adorn embassies, American flags are desecrated with shallow one-liners, and there is a general “do what you like” attitude that pervades American life. 

Signs that say “coexist” in fonts that display various religious symbols (the c is a Muslim moon, the o is a peace symbol, the e is a gender symbol, etc.) are proudly put up as if it is somehow virtuous to abstain from choosing a moral code.

None of this is good for society as a whole. G.K. Chesterton stated that “tolerance is the virtue of those who believe nothing.” In order to live a good life one must have a conception of what the good is. And to determine what the good is, one must discriminate against various ways of living, and thereby judge those other ways of living as wrong or even evil.

Tolerance is only adequate insofar as it prevents the excessive imposition of one person’s will upon another person’s. When tolerance seeks to take the place of morality, it necessarily destroys morality because morality is by definition, intolerant of immorality. 

In order to transmit values from one generation to another, parents must instill certain standards in their children, thereby implicitly judging other standards. If tolerance takes the place of morality then no standard can be put forth, leading to indecisive people who are unable to stand up for the good.

Tolerance as morality manifested itself in France after The Great War in the form of pacifism. Teacher unions and intellectuals promoted pacifist school policies that constantly denounced the evils of war. In his book Intellectuals and Society Thomas Sowell wrote about how soldiers were reduced to mere victims rather than heroes who gave up their lives to defend their civilization.

By the outbreak of the Second World War France was sufficiently sedated to mount only a mild resistance, rapidly surrendering to the Nazis. Pacifism was so tolerant of evil that it preached nonviolence, even in the face of tyranny and conquest.

Perhaps extreme tolerance would be able to replace morality if men were inclined to be angels. If this were the case, no moral code would be necessary. Utopia would only require that we go about living our lives.

But history is a constant struggle between good and evil. When tolerance replaces virtue it sedates the population, making them unable to stand up for the good, leaving room for the forces of evil to take control. Rioting is excused, destruction of statues is excused, obesity is celebrated, and self-expression is hailed as the paramount of human success. And as society rots from the inside the barbarians come. China came for Hong Kong, the Taliban came for Kabul, Hezbollah came for Israel, and the tyrants continue to play. Most of history has seen humanity languish under tyranny. Tyrants are always hungry and vicious and can only be defeated by the righteous rage that is only possible with a moral code.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

I recently had the pleasure of watching the Disney film Cruella, about an anti-hero Cruella Deville who was featured in the classic 101 Dalmatians. The movie began with an orphaned girl named Estella who eventually worked her way to the top of the fashion industry while unseating her evil rival.

Although the film was quite good, I must say that I was not exactly impressed by the outfits that were supposedly fashionable. Perhaps I don’t have a critical eye but most of the gowns worn by Cruella looked quite atrocious. Also, one of the male protagonists named Artie wore weird makeup and a strange shirt that were deemed fabulous.

All of this wouldn’t be noteworthy if the odd fashion was reserved for theatrical value, but it isn’t. Scrolling through Vogue’s fashion section one will see an agglomeration of outfits that are either extremely ugly or designed to show as much skin as possible. Not quite what I would call the height of an industry that has a profound impact on civilization.

It seems that much of what fashion has become is the desire to break social customs by creating what are often quite hideous outfits. Alternatively, it is the desire to sexualize those wearing certain outfits in the name of “empowerment” or some other ill-thought concept.

If fashion is merely the breaking of social customs then fashion gurus should certainly not receive much credit. I could go to school in boxer-briefs and a tank top and break social customs (and still look more fashionable than some of the models out there). Additionally, if it is the attempt to sexualize its subjects then all fashion is an impediment. Why not just walk around naked all the time?

Fashion used to be quite unique and interesting. For women in Victorian England the desire to “look good” had to be reconciled with the morals of the time, posing a challenge for fashion designers. The sexual had to be combined with the tasteful discipline of the era. Quite a contradiction that could only be reconciled with the intelligence of a true artist.

In the case of men, the problem of fashion has been related more to the willful breaking of social customs than their sexualization. Thus, Harry Styles and others don dresses or wear their pants around their knees. This trend of men breaking social customs is actively promoted by fashionistas who are clearly destroying their own profession. The term fashion is meant to denote a socially acceptable code of dress that is considered tasteful. However, the only thing that is fashionable now is everything that is unfashionable. This is a symptom of undisciplined postmodernism. A truly communist position that makes fashion a “wear whatever the hell you want” construct.

I believe that fashion serves a very important purpose that has been completely degraded by those who attempt to call themselves fashion designers. In the case of women, fashion designers have the difficult task of making a woman pleased with the way she looks while reconciling this with the necessary moral demands that are placed upon society. 

In the case of men a code of dress is meant to instill the discipline necessary for success. The job of the fashion designers is to create outfits that maintain that discipline while also making the wearer of the outfit outstanding in a way that does not make him seem obnoxious and stupid.

Fashion is a combination of both self expression and societal expression. To claim that it is self expression is to engage in needless arrogance, indiscipline, and immorality. To claim that it is societal expression is to become a fashion Nazi who polices dress codes with the utmost rigor. Fashion designers must reconcile these two concepts to create something truly beautiful.