Gutspeak

Un-American?

2004-05-06T22:51:00.000-04:00

Dear Americans,

Well, at least we know now when they think we think they've gone too far. This would be the point when they initiate damage control, get smirk-face in front of the friendliest cameras, and begin another Operation Fall Guy to finger one or more expendable order-followers. If this works for them, it will probably start a trend, and we'll all learn just how expendable most of the order-followers really are. In any event, the world is not going to forget about the photos. I was tempted to facetiously call them "shocking" were it not for the fact that they are just too disgusting and tragic to exploit the easy analogy. Besides the fact that anybody really paying attention to all this, and certainly anybody who has an understanding of American military organizational behavior, should have expected what we now know was and probably still is going on in what we now know were and probably still are Iraqi torture and death camps. War crime is just part of the American-military-corporate culture now, so why should we be surprised? Instead what surprises me is that we are now supposed to believe that the torture is "un-American", as if we were still living in the days of 'Father Knows Best'. ...As if this were still Kansas. Yeah, right. In case you've slept through it, that type of father stopped knowing best when post-modernism pinched the jumper cables onto his manhood sometime late last century. And "un-American"? Hmmm, that's a conundrum these days. Or does the word even have any meaning anymore? It certainly no longer means what it did when it actually meant something you wanted to do something about. Sorry, smirk-face, but I can only imagine the term "un-American" today in a Homer Simpson context. After all, Homer is the Sunday icon on arguably the most "American" (except in ownership) network, Fox. Let's let ole Homer tell us what "un-American" really is. No wait, even better, let's back up one to Fox's Saturday night programming and get the straight scoop from arguably the most American show of shows, Cops. Hoouhh, (everybody now) bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come for you. Yep, Cops is sadly the best representation for the America we have today. Nothing un-American about getting entertainment from watching real police give the Iraqi treatment to a rag-tag assortment of American unfortunates (some real criminals, some just in the wrong place at the wrong time -- ring a bell?). America doesn't seem to be to disgusted when our own get a little beaten, bloodied, and shackled before any rights are even read. I bet that pretty young gal giving thumbs up in front of that pyramid of naked 'rag-heads' watches Cops, religiously. I mean Religiously. Yep, she'll teach those scumbags a thing or two about American justice, for sure. I will even give you odds that her superiors have even arranged to have the Cops theme song on the playlist for the Iraqi sleeping pleasure, set on repeat, mega-bass on. Yep, Americans are taking it to the house for the red, white and blue. Okay, not pretty. Not pretty at all.

So of course we get the damage control, and suddenly we are all supposed to think that the pitiful thumbs-up gal, this military-cultured, neo-con programmed, quintessential American is actually un-American? Can you smell what big brother smirkface is cooking? Do you want some fries or Orwelian surrealism with that?

But this may be a new level. We have known for a while that they are complete liars. But now their bit has become completely irrational on top of it. Now we are supposed to believe that a nation that invades an Iraq for the purpose of stealing oil, that bombs cities to ruins, that lays siege to the ruins for the purpose of subjugated the population that it hasn't already killed, that indiscriminately rounds up and imprisons all young men, killing those who resist; we are to expect this nation to treat its prisoners ala Sergeant Schultz? Also recall that this nation also put the faces of Iraqi officials on playing cards so they could be rounded up or killed as if it were a fun game. Can't you just imagine miss thumbs-up using that deck for a little poker with the boys? For smokes of course. Strip poker is a non-starter with that one.

But the other truth here is that now we are certain that there are no checks and balances left in the American military, to prevent this type of thing. Having spent over 20 years observing this military from inside the beast, one of those years at the Navy War College (supposedly the source of future leaders, but certainly a source of income for more than a few neo-con agents), I have seen it evolve first hand into the brutal, mindless organization it is today. Its leaders are now no more than career machines, driving a bunch of homogenous mil-spec cogs that comprise the lower ranks. It's left-brain to the extreme, completely devoid of soul. Lets hope that the fact of the torture being photographed, and those photos distributed, was due to an exception with a soul and not an exception without a brain.

The final revelation in this sad turn is that we now know that the neo-con mind doesn't think too well on the strategic level. Sure, they pretend to teach strategy at the war colleges, and preach it on the talk shows, but judging by results, we know their focus is purely on their greedy little operation, or in other words on how to fulfill their sick desires regardless of how insane the military mission may be. By focusing only on how to get what they want, and not on the morality of the war that facilitates it, they give us a military that faces perpetual war, war that cannot be ever really won, and war that only produces conditions for more war and all the evil products and sad consequences that come with it. We hear you now, Smedley. Be assured that the people behind this strategy are the same people who ultimately ordered the torture of those unlucky young Iraqi men. But here’s the kicker: they did it without even understanding the nature of the double-edged sword they were poking them with. Torturing prisoners, while seemingly operationally effective, is a strategic error every time. If the world realizes this, it will also realize that the neo-con strategic weakness is their limited minds, minds that cannot understand the highest conceptual level of war, minds that are not fit to dictate strategy, and certainly not fit to lead.

Because of this reality, expect the neo-cons to continue with their operational focus -- secure oil and subjugate at all costs, and expect more damage control when things continue to go wrong. That's what happens when you fight a war for operational objectives, against an enemy who may or may not have read Sun Tzu, but thinks on the strategic level no less. Master Sun tells us that it is always best to attack the enemy’s plans, and this is especially effective when those plans are rigid and clear, as evil plans tend to be. The Iraqis are winning, and will win this war because they are fighting against a neo-con force that is un-American.

Pete Wagner
http://gutspeak.blogspot.com/

The Last Taboo By Pete Wagner

2004-03-10T09:01:00.000-05:00

Despite the mystery of its underlying cause, the effects of this thing we call popular culture are -- often like silver nipple rings -- plain to see. Chief among these effects is the deterioration of our sense of dignity, our loss of self-respect. Bear with me; this gets more interesting.

It is no secret that we (just pretend I am generalizing here) behave in ways today that would have been totally unacceptable forty, twenty, or perhaps even ten years ago. Excepting things that cannot be said (includes anything bad about certain groups and anything good about certain others), society condones just about any behavior or display not technically criminal. If there were a bell curve representing civilized behavior, we would see it getting a lot shorter and fatter in these hip-hop times. But this should come as no surprise; after all, we have been accelerating in this direction since the sixties, with each decade thereafter taking us faster and farther. Each year it seems we get enticing new ways to fall and compromise what is left of our dignity.

Notwithstanding the natural twists and turns, it has been a relatively clean downhill run. So clean that today at least half of us -- being born in the 60's and later -- only know the downhill view. Most don't even feel the speed or acceleration of the slide due to what might as well be called social-Newtonianism. As we haven't figured out how to read the instrumentation, we have no way of knowing we are in near free-fall, unless of course we notice the coffee no longer in the cup, but instead hovering around the cockpit. Fortunately logic dictates that we just can't slide or fall forever; unfortunately, however, this deduction comes with the assumption of a rock bottom and all its somber implications.

While the savvy, if not selfish, older generation has found a way to insulate themselves from the societal effects by establishing secure senior-living enclaves -- themselves another effect (which in this case feeds back into the cause), the young are not so fortunate. Aside from the very few who may live in the proverbial cultural bubble, the kids are in the thick of the mess every day of their lives, with no way to escape it, and no way to fend it off. While they all get their flu vaccinations like they are told, there is no such protection against the more dangerous cultural pathogens. They do, however, get lots of attention from the usual liberal types with the lingo, fancy titles and multiple degrees -- touting new theories on how oppressive parents are ultimately the cause of all problems. While this is a solid strategy for creating a lucrative practice, that's all it is.

Is it not mind-boggling? It is almost as if the culture has moved completely outside that old bell curve, and now lies at the relatively uncivilized edges rather than the civilized middle. The kids, being the most impressionable and thus most vulnerable, would naturally be most concentrated at the far edges. The right edge would represent unadulterated greed and lust, coming in both urban and corporate flavors. The left edge would represent the collective forms of dysfunctional and nihilistic bohemianism. The funny (as in not funny) part is how both are packaged to represent coolness and intelligence, which completely masks the underlying sinful nature of the corresponding behavior. It's brilliant marketing.

While we can say that adults always get what they deserve, the kids in this case are just innocent victims; they don't choose the parents, village, or society that rears them. Unlike the old folks who benefit from having lived in earlier, more civilized times, and thus have a basis for comparison and judgment, kids cannot be expected to understand the nature of their times. They thus cannot judge or see their treatment for what it actually is: an immoral sacrifice to the dark gods (whoever they are) of postmodernism. The kids only have what they have been taught/tricked into believing (I see no distinction there anymore). Adding to their dilemma is the fact that they are constantly fed the message that edgy (i.e., bad) is cool (i.e., good), which on their level means bad is good and visa versa. While perhaps a new "new math" can find logic in this, we should not be surprised when the kids, who are never very good in math anyway, end up with a convoluted and largely amoral belief structure. The resulting moral vacuum will then be inevitably filled, by default, by an unsophisticated understanding of a politically correct (i.e., biased) social system, and a politically corrupt (i.e., unfair) legal system. Naturally their role models then become the savvy young "pop culture" personalities who best walk the razor edge of stardom separating "not cool enough" and "too far", with the latter characterized by at least two Jackson's, a few young corpses and numerous inmates. Now, do you finally get the Eminem thing? In other words, he ain't Vanilla Ice, and he has yet to be convicted of blowing away a rival.

Parents mostly just throw their hands up, ...that is if they even care enough anymore to expend even that effort. Many of them are too busy being good little corporate monkeys or grubbing for money otherwise. Of course they do not want their kids to become edgy (i.e., bad) or even hang around with those types. Unfortunately their mere hint of this is just enough to greatly confound matters by creating a perfect opportunity for their kids to play out their cherished rebel roles. After all, rebelling against a confused, powerless, spiritually sold-out authority is every kid's dream. It's the stuff of Disney.

But unfortunately at this stage of the slide the whole dismal game (it's only a science if you understand it) is critically dependant upon the perpetuation of the fall and visa versa. Like incest between porn stars, once started it's likely to continue until one or both are physically (or metaphysically) incapable. Call it spiritual consumption disease -- obviously not something easily sold to those who have yet to contract it, regardless of the glossy photos, nipples or Neo-con desires. The good news, then, is that it may not be pandemic. The bad news, however, is that is has already killed Americana.

The institutions have had their opportunity to treat our disease but they have all failed. At this stage there does not seem to be a conventional cure. The political parties are always quick to propose new therapies, but they all turn out to be just easy-to-swallow sugar pills that only make us feel like we're not getting sicker. Pretty soon they'll need to prop us up just so we can swallow them. We're all still breathing but the ward is starting get that bad smell, and the grim one is smirking in the corridor.

What to do? The American Indian shamans had a cure for their forms of spiritual consumption disease. They would tell the inflicted to stop the intake of everything except water (pure hydrogen oxide -- sans chlorine, fluorides and all other dubious additives) for as long as it took for the body to sufficiently purge itself of all impurities and corruption. Only this result would allow the spirit to breath again. They knew that adding good stuff on top of the bad (i.e., the way of modern medicine) would just trap the bad stuff in deeper. The bad stuff has to have a way out, and deprivation of everything expect the purest substance would be the only way to create the flow and conduit necessary to facilitate it. The shamans also had a strategy to ensure that the malaise did not return. They would establish strict taboos on whatever they determined was responsible for the condition.

Shamans are a lot like good parents. Using their mystical powers, they lead the naive and innocent to the proper path, steering them away from life's abundant pitfalls. Explanations of their mystical powers and insights are neither necessary nor usually comprehensible. Noncompliance to their instruction becomes its own punishment; compliance becomes its own reward.

Unfortunately the shamans seem to have left us. Perhaps they know better than to work within a culture where just about everything should be taboo. Or perhaps they have not left us but just have their own taboo against lecturing parents about how they are failing their children. Indians do seem to have a refined respect for human dignity -- at least they did in the old shows. But they never did understand the white man. Now it turns out they had good reason not to.

2004-02-20T12:50:00.000-05:00

Postmodernism's Final Truth
By Pete Wagner

The history of philosophy today is often modeled as an evolution in steps from the earliest primitive beliefs, through the modern classics, finally to what is referred to as postmodern philosophy, currently topping the model. The model is usually laid out to show how subsequent philosophies address problems inherent to earlier ones, while inevitably creating new more complex ones inherent to themselves, with the unenlightened implication being that this evolution naturally leads to superior philosophies, and possibly one day to an ultimate philosophy supreme.

We all know that philosophy gets no respect these days. But this is just a reflection of the postmodern influence, and simply proves that 1) philosophical movements still do shape our thinking, and 2) postmodernism has a hard time seeing beyond itself. None of this should cause much surprise because, after all, postmodernism is based largely upon the concept of relativism, which of course holds that values and truths are relative and thus dependent upon one's perspective, or one's personal philosophy. As such things can be very fickle, philosophy today probably deserves its reputation, particularly in light of the considerable number of liberals who proceed, knowingly or unknowingly, as if postmodernism is in fact the philosophy supreme. Granted, postmodernism does have a natural ability to defeat a conservative argument -- particularly as it was designed to do just this, but it will not be the ultimate philosophy supreme.

A few true (as opposed to the other type) conservatives continue to counter that postmodernism is inherently flawed because it destroys standards (e.g., their own standards) and is essentially, simply put, too liberal. They obviously do not recognize or seem to care that the ideological fight for conservative standards has basically already been fought and lost. Their old arguments are not going to get the liberals to defer to any concepts antagonistic to liberalism, despite whatever empirical evidence may be available to support the conservative cause in these deteriorating postmodern times.

But what should really be noticed is that most of those who call themselves "conservatives" have resigned themselves to the current postmodern reality and have all but abandoned the old philosophy for a new politics that somehow undeservedly manages to hang on to the conservative label. They have apparently recognized the futility of using conservative arguments in a liberal age, and rarely get seriously philosophical about anything anymore. The fight for universal truth, morality, and the nature of God has been largely abandoned, despite the political banter that may occasionally and deceitfully have us believe otherwise.

Despite a last ditch thrust by the few true philosophical conservatives that remain, the postmodern genie will never be coaxed back into its bottle with the old arguments. We know postmodernism can address those old arguments because it has already done so to achieve its current prominence. That fight has already been fought and decided, and the philosophical evolution that has led to this outcome cannot now be undone merely by greater desire. The conservative appeal to the conservative heart is not likely to change many liberal minds in postmodern times. But it is very amusing nevertheless.

On the other hand, we can certainly marvel, but not necessarily happily, at the completeness of the postmodern revolution. It confronts us in a broad range of manifestations, from the radical to the subtle, from the bizarre to the politically expedient. Any time our instincts tell us that any one of these manifestations is not "the right thing", we are inevitably reminded of the futility of our judgments. In this regard postmodernism has destroyed our ethos and given us only personal "expression" in return -- which lately has morphed into something synonymous with behavior just not quite bad enough to be outlawed. When we see what has become of our institutions, not to mention that cultural line that used to separate the sublime from the ridiculous, we realize that our complaints are probably best kept private. Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore.

Thus while we cannot blame those few conservatives for gallantly charging the postmodern lines, we are not encouraged by their old tactics, weaponry, and angles of attack. Postmodernism already tells us that the human mind is a fickle gray biological mass, far short of any universal measure of value, especially since it tends toward irreconcilable disagreement. Still the conservatives cannot seem to get away from the frontal assault on the postmodern mind as if it is the philosophical center of gravity. They apparently do not understand the nature of today's philosophical battlefield, where an attack on the nature of the mind is an attack on all minds, conservative ones as well. We are left to wonder if the conservatives have run out of bullets or feet in which to shoot themselves.

Some scholars have characterized the unsuccessful conservative counter to postmodernism as "the end of philosophy". Scholars do tend to rush in with an arrogant pleasure to be the first to write death certificates for ideas and disciplines that have lost their edge. Of course, in response we are not surprised to hear the "not so fast" chorus chime in on cue, fulfilling their lucrative academic roles as ripple makers in the otherwise stagnating academic ponds. Never mind that it is clearly whimsical, if not illogical, for the human mind to declare itself fully understood, which is what the "end of philosophy" really means. A declaration like that is certainly likely to add to tomorrow's hangover.

As a testimony to the postmodern age, the bookstore shelves are awash in proclamations not just of the end of philosophy but the end of just about everything. Liberals generally relish in such things, often financially, just as much as true conservatives do not, leaving the scholars to scratch holes in what are left of their sore heads, staring blankly, mouth agape. The college tuition costs will, however, naturally continue to rise, defying the final logical deduction that knowledge itself has lost its ultimate value. But we can relish in the irony that the liberals, who have always claimed to know better than the rest of us, must now admit that it provides them no advantage, moral or otherwise, in the end. Maybe that was why they invented the Frisbee.

While postmodernism has already turned out to be more than just king or queen for a day, the future is thankfully likely to outlive him or her. Moreover the people do still get to choose their own philosophy, and the day postmodernism is philosophically bettered, or just plain bettered, is the day it will be replaced. This merely follows the philosophical evolution -- the endless evolution toward a mythical philosophy supreme. As we must acknowledge it is indeed an evolution, we must assume it does give us the fittest ideology for the times. The previous times were no doubt suited for postmodernism. But the times do change, and ideologies do grow obsolete, especially as they succeed and thus destroy, at least to some degree, the original purpose for their existence. When this happens ideologies lose luster and people begin to look away toward that which has more vibrancy and urgency. Eventually we find successful ideologies in the history books, with the lessons of their times, and hopefully some wisdom for the ages.

We can only assume, hopefully, that the postmodern evolution is mostly behind us now. The ideology has secured victory and matured to a point where it no longer views modern conservatism as a threat. Its mission has been accomplished and thus its original purpose has been destroyed. But as the philosophical evolution cannot be halted or reversed, forward it continues, fueled now with the lessons and issues of the postmodern victory. Forward, too, is an unknown ideological battlefield, where unknown lessons and issues lurk.

Postmodernism was able to destroy modern conservatism by turning it back upon itself. Because the conservative ideology essentially forced the justice and morality of the powerful upon the weak, postmodernism proved it to be a contradiction in itself -- and actually unjust and immoral. Conservatism could not counter this argument without destroying its own tenets, so it collapsed upon its own foundation. The key lesson of the postmodern triumph is this: Ideologies become vulnerable to their own inherent contradictions when they become firmly established and inflexible; they are particularly vulnerable when empirical evidence does not correspond to the primary tenets of the ideology.

The passage of time will always give us a new philosophical landscape. With this we are given cause to reevaluate postmodernism, both logically and empirically. When we do this, we see how tenuous its position really is. Logically, we realize that no ideology, not even postmodernism itself, can claim philosophical superiority in light of postmodern relativism; the reason is that our perspective changes with the changing times, and what is true or good at one time may not be as true or good later. Additionally, we can now also recognize empirically that postmodernism is not what we thought it would be by merely looking at the results is has produced. Just like modern conservatism before it, it is only when we turn postmodernism back upon itself can we defeat it philosophically, as any postmodern counter to this would be an attack upon its own tenets. The caveat with this approach, however, it that if postmodernism suddenly decides it is not a philosophy anymore, but merely a political expedient it now appears to be, it may get ugly in more ways than one.

Despite the political ramifications, a new philosophy suddenly appears for the sole purpose of acknowledging the only truth left standing in these postmodern times: Ideologies are also subject to a Darwinist evolution, driven by natural selection and our desire for the fittest ideology for the times. Using the tenets of a waning postmodern philosophy, we are able to justify any ideology we can logically or empirically prove would better serve us. Finding a better ideology to replace one that has lost its luster then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the final truth of postmodernism, and what kills it.

GutcheckBy Pete Wagner

2004-02-20T12:47:00.000-05:00

Sometimes we just have to trust our gut on things. We have to do it despite knowing that our guts may be a lot different than those of others. There are certainly cases where some of us just can't seem to digest what the others find very palatable. Sometimes we are made to feel like a fool over these differences. But still we go on trusting our gut because that is how we are, how our biology just happens to work.

We could, of course, choose to ignore our gut, as is not uncommon in this age, but that is bound to lead to serious digestion problems at some point. No doubt there are many today who experience the occasional gut rumblings as they follow the mainstream news. Often what we choose to consume does not always sit right when it's down there, and in these cases the gut may eventually try to violently purge itself of those contents despite our other intentions.

The gut of course is our intuition -- that thing that we ultimately trust when our frontal lobes are having trouble with the information at hand. The intuition serves us in this way whether we think it does or not. Sometimes we may think that our gut is not serving us very well so we try to ignore it, but this is really just our gut telling us to ignore that thing we have been thinking is our gut. Only our gut knows what our gut really is. But certainly it is the thing responsible for our urge to reevaluate what is in our minds when what we have consumed is not sitting well; just as it is also responsible for that satisfied feeling we get when we are sure of what we believe, the "facts" be damned.

America was a nation founded on the guts of men. Those men came up with the system they did largely because the idea of a powerful government did not sit well in their guts. Their guts kept telling them that mixing power with government was a formula for tyranny. Thus their guts led them to the premise that their new government was to have no more power than required to adequately serve the function intended of it. A few rumblings here and there and they decided their new government should be divided into pieces, each with explicit restrictions (such as that inhibiting a permanent standing Army), and a systems of checks and balances to ensure that no part of government could grow too powerful. A few more rumblings and they decided to create a bill of rights, just to ensure their new government would not forget that it had no real power over the people. I imagine they all took some additional rumblings to the graves in which they are all now spinning.

We live today in what could be called the Post-911 era. The giant sucking sound resulting from the manufacturing jobs that have left the country over the last 20 years has been replaced by a giant rumbling sound in our guts when we realize America's new direction. Those doing gut checks now might be noting that the queasiness is greatly intensifying. Those with any geo-political sense at all would be buckled over in pain right now. Those who understand the intents and purposes of the constitution would surely be displaying a pale hue of late. If Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain or Smedley Butler were still alive today, they would almost surely be spending their time in or near certain facilities.

But it is truly strange that we have allowed conditions to continually worsen over the years. Those who are not the least bit queasy about our current state must have gotten so used to the canned botulism that has been part of the American diet of late that a total transition to fascism might seem no worse than a leftover McFish sandwich with cheese. The guts of these people are now probably just like inert PVC lines, where whatever goes in the one end comes out the other completely unchanged. No longer do they have the organisms designed to break up and slowly digest the input. The gut no longer has a use for that when its owners are merely supposed to believe and even repeat just what they are told. I call these people dead-guts, and there are a lot of them.

But don't blame the dead-guts; there is only so much Post-Modern American "education", "entertainment" and "culture" most guts can take before they just up and die on their owners. Besides, functional guts are no longer even needed to do quite well in the world today. Just watch any reality television show. The fact that "reality" shows even exist should tell us something. Here we have a cross-section of American pretending they are not pretending and for the purposes of our entertainment. Gut check anyone?

But the ultimate reality show is the Bush Administration and their "war on terror". Unfortunately the worse part is that we are all trapped in the show, so I guess we are all supposed to pretend we are not pretending and actually believe that their colorful threat levels have some basis other than in the minds of those trying to control us through fear and uncertainty; or that motivation to commit an act of terror is based upon a hatred for freedom; or that we have been told the truth about 911. Excuse me while I quickly shuffle to the bathroom.

But even a dead gut can only take so many orders of olestra-soaked biggee lies before it realizes it too needs at least some nutrition. At some point when we are trying to explain to our children why their world is nothing like the carefree and happy one we grew up in, we might find ourselves craving a good old-fashioned home-cooked meal of simple truth. We could call it soul food.

2004-02-15T12:50:00.000-05:00

Postmodernism's Final Truth
By Pete Wagner

The history of philosophy today is often modeled as an evolution in steps from the earliest primitive beliefs, through the modern classics, finally to what is referred to as postmodern philosophy, currently topping the model. The model is usually laid out to show how subsequent philosophies address problems inherent to earlier ones, while inevitably creating new more complex ones inherent to themselves, with the unenlightened implication being that this evolution naturally leads to superior philosophies, and possibly one day to an ultimate philosophy supreme.

We all know that philosophy gets no respect these days. But this is just a reflection of the postmodern influence, and simply proves that 1) philosophical movements still do shape our thinking, and 2) postmodernism has a hard time seeing beyond itself. None of this should cause much surprise because, after all, postmodernism is based largely upon the concept of relativism, which of course holds that values and truths are relative and thus dependent upon one's perspective, or oneÃ¢ÂÂs personal philosophy. As such things can be very fickle, philosophy today probably deserves its reputation, particularly in light of the considerable number of liberals who proceed, knowingly or unknowingly, as if postmodernism is in fact the philosophy supreme. Granted, postmodernism does have a natural ability to defeat a conservative argument -- particularly as it was designed to do just this, but it will not be the ultimate philosophy supreme.

A few true (as opposed to the other type) conservatives continue to counter that postmodernism is inherently flawed because it destroys standards (e.g., their own standards) and is essentially, simply put, too liberal. They obviously do not recognize or seem to care that the ideological fight for conservative standards has basically already been fought and lost. Their old arguments are not going to get the liberals to defer to any concepts antagonistic to liberalism, despite whatever empirical evidence may be available to support the conservative cause in these deteriorating postmodern times.

But what should really be noticed is that most of those who call themselves Ã¢ÂÂconservativesÃ¢ÂÂ have resigned themselves to the current postmodern reality and have all but abandoned the old philosophy for a new politics that somehow undeservedly manages to hang on to the conservative label. They have apparently recognized the futility of using conservative arguments in a liberal age, and rarely get seriously philosophical about anything anymore. The fight for universal truth, morality, and the nature of God has been largely abandoned, despite the political banter that may occasionally and deceitfully have us believe otherwise.

Despite a last ditch thrust by the few true philosophical conservatives that remain, the postmodern genie will never be coaxed back into its bottle with the old arguments. We know postmodernism can address those old arguments because it has already done so to achieve its current prominence. That fight has already been fought and decided, and the philosophical evolution that has led to this outcome cannot now be undone merely by greater desire. The conservative appeal to the conservative heart is not likely to change many liberal minds in postmodern times. But it is very amusing nevertheless.

On the other hand, we can certainly marvel, but not necessarily happily, at the completeness of the postmodern revolution. It confronts us in a broad range of manifestations, from the radical to the subtle, from the bizarre to the politically expedient. Any time our instincts tell us that any one of these manifestations is not "the right thing", we are inevitably reminded of the futility of our judgments. In this regard postmodernism has destroyed our ethos and given us only personal "expression" in return Ã¢ÂÂ which lately has morphed into something synonymous with behavior just not quite bad enough to be outlawed. When we see what has become of our institutions, not to mention that cultural line that used to separate the sublime from the ridiculous, we realize that our complaints are probably best kept private. Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore.

Thus while we cannot blame those few conservatives for gallantly charging the postmodern lines, we are not encouraged by their old tactics, weaponry, and angles of attack. Postmodernism already tells us that the human mind is a fickle gray biological mass, far short of any universal measure of value, especially since it tends toward irreconcilable disagreement. Still the conservatives cannot seem to get away from the frontal assault on the postmodern mind as if it is the philosophical center of gravity. They apparently do not understand the nature of todayÃ¢ÂÂs philosophical battlefield, where an attack on the nature of the mind is an attack on all minds, conservative ones as well. We are left to wonder if the conservatives have run out of bullets or feet in which to shoot themselves.

Some scholars have characterized the unsuccessful conservative counter to postmodernism as Ã¢ÂÂthe end of philosophyÃ¢ÂÂ. Scholars do tend to rush in with an arrogant pleasure to be the first to write death certificates for ideas and disciplines that have lost their edge. Of course, in response we are not surprised to hear the Ã¢ÂÂnot so fast" chorus chime in on cue, fulfilling their lucrative academic roles as ripple makers in the otherwise stagnating academic ponds. Never mind that it is clearly whimsical, if not illogical, for the human mind to declare itself fully understood, which is what the "end of philosophy" really means. A declaration like that is certainly likely to add to tomorrow's hangover.

As a testimony to the postmodern age, the bookstore shelves are awash in proclamations not just of the end of philosophy but the end of just about everything. Liberals generally relish in such things, often financially, just as much as true conservatives do not, leaving the scholars to scratch holes in what are left of their sore heads, staring blankly, mouth agape. The college tuition costs will, however, naturally continue to rise, defying the final logical deduction that knowledge itself has lost its ultimate value. But we can relish in the irony that the liberals, who have always claimed to know better than the rest of us, must now admit that it provides them no advantage, moral or otherwise, in the end. Maybe that was why they invented the Frisbee.

While postmodernism has already turned out to be more than just king or queen for a day, the future is thankfully likely to outlive him or her. Moreover the people do still get to choose their own philosophy, and the day postmodernism is philosophically bettered, or just plain bettered, is the day it will be replaced. This merely follows the philosophical evolution -- the endless evolution toward a mythical philosophy supreme. As we must acknowledge it is indeed an evolution, we must assume it does give us the fittest ideology for the times. The previous times were no doubt suited for postmodernism. But the times do change, and ideologies do grow obsolete, especially as they succeed and thus destroy, at least to some degree, the original purpose for their existence. When this happens ideologies lose luster and people begin to look away toward that which has more vibrancy and urgency. Eventually we find successful ideologies in the history books, with the lessons of their times, and hopefully some wisdom for the ages.

We can only assume, hopefully, that the postmodern evolution is mostly behind us now. The ideology has secured victory and matured to a point where it no longer views modern conservatism as a threat. Its mission has been accomplished and thus its original purpose has been destroyed. But as the philosophical evolution cannot be halted or reversed, forward it continues, fueled now with the lessons and issues of the postmodern victory. Forward, too, is an unknown ideological battlefield, where unknown lessons and issues lurk.

Postmodernism was able to destroy modern conservatism by turning it back upon itself. Because the conservative ideology essentially forced the justice and morality of the powerful upon the weak, postmodernism proved it to be a contradiction in itself Ã¢ÂÂ and actually unjust and immoral. Conservatism could not counter this argument without destroying its own tenets, so it collapsed upon its own foundation. The key lesson of the postmodern triumph is this: Ideologies become vulnerable to their own inherent contradictions when they become firmly established and inflexible; they are particularly vulnerable when empirical evidence does not correspond to the primary tenets of the ideology.

The passage of time will always give us a new philosophical landscape. With this we are given cause to reevaluate postmodernism, both logically and empirically. When we do this, we see how tenuous its position really is. Logically, we realize that no ideology, not even postmodernism itself, can claim philosophical superiority in light of postmodern relativism; the reason is that our perspective changes with the changing times, and what is true or good at one time may not be as true or good later. Additionally, we can now also recognize empirically that postmodernism is not what we thought it would be by merely looking at the results is has produced. Just like modern conservatism before it, it is only when we turn postmodernism back upon itself can we defeat it philosophically, as any postmodern counter to this would be an attack upon its own tenets. The caveat with this approach, however, it that if postmodernism suddenly decides it is not a philosophy anymore, but merely a political expedient it now appears to be, it may get ugly in more ways than one.

Despite the political ramifications, a new philosophy suddenly appears for the sole purpose of acknowledging the only truth left standing in these postmodern times: Ideologies are also subject to a Darwinist evolution, driven by natural selection and our desire for the fittest ideology for the times. Using the tenets of a waning postmodern philosophy, we are able to justify any ideology we can logically or empirically prove would better serve us. Finding a better ideology to replace one that has lost its luster then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the final truth of postmodernism, and what kills it.

2004-01-15T12:47:00.000-05:00

GUT CHECK
By Pete Wagner

Sometimes we just have to trust our gut on things. We have to do it despite knowing that our guts may be a lot different than those of others. There are certainly cases where some of us just can't seem to digest what the others find very palatable. Sometimes we are made to feel like a fool over these differences. But still we go on trusting our gut because that is how we are, how our biology just happens to work.

We could, of course, choose to ignore our gut, as is not uncommon in this age, but that is bound to lead to serious digestion problems at some point. No doubt there are many today who experience the occasional gut rumblings as they follow the mainstream news. Often what we choose to consume does not always sit right when it's down there, and in these cases the gut may eventually try to violently purge itself of those contents despite our other intentions.

The gut of course is our intuition -- that thing that we ultimately trust when our frontal lobes are having trouble with the information at hand. The intuition serves us in this way whether we think it does or not. Sometimes we may think that our gut is not serving us very well so we try to ignore it, but this is really just our gut telling us to ignore that thing we have been thinking is our gut. Only our gut knows what our gut really is. But certainly it is the thing responsible for our urge to reevaluate what is in our minds when what we have consumed is not sitting well; just as it is also responsible for that satisfied feeling we get when we are sure of what we believe, the "facts" be damned.

America was a nation founded on the guts of men. Those men came up with the system they did largely because the idea of a powerful government did not sit well in their guts. Their guts kept telling them that mixing power with government was a formula for tyranny. Thus their guts led them to the premise that their new government was to have no more power than required to adequately serve the function intended of it. A few rumblings here and there and they decided their new government should be divided into pieces, each with explicit restrictions (such as that inhibiting a permanent standing Army), and a systems of checks and balances to ensure that no part of government could grow too powerful. A few more rumblings and they decided to create a bill of rights, just to ensure their new government would not forget that it had no real power over the people. I imagine they all took some additional rumblings to the graves in which they are all now spinning.

We live today in what could be called the Post-911 era. The giant sucking sound resulting from the manufacturing jobs that have left the country over the last 20 years has been replaced by a giant rumbling sound in our guts when we realize America's new direction. Those doing gut checks now might be noting that the queasiness is greatly intensifying. Those with any geo-political sense at all would be buckled over in pain right now. Those who understand the intents and purposes of the constitution would surely be displaying a pale hue of late. If Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain or Smedley Butler were still alive today, they would almost surely be spending their time in or near certain facilities.

But it is truly strange that we have allowed conditions to continually worsen over the years. Those who are not the least bit queasy about our current state must have gotten so used to the canned botulism that has been part of the American diet of late that a total transition to fascism might seem no worse than a leftover McFish sandwich with cheese. The guts of these people are now probably just like inert PVC lines, where whatever goes in the one end comes out the other completely unchanged. No longer do they have the organisms designed to break up and slowly digest the input. The gut no longer has a use for that when its owners are merely supposed to believe and even repeat just what they are told. I call these people dead-guts, and there are a lot of them.

But don't blame the dead-guts; there is only so much Post-Modern American "education", "entertainment" and "culture" most guts can take before they just up and die on their owners. Besides, functional guts are no longer even needed to do quite well in the world today. Just watch any reality television show. The fact that "reality" shows even exist should tell us something. Here we have a cross-section of American pretending they are not pretending and for the purposes of our entertainment. Gut check anyone?

But the ultimate reality show is the Bush Administration and their "war on terror". Unfortunately the worse part is that we are all trapped in the show, so I guess we are all supposed to pretend we are not pretending and actually believe that their colorful threat levels have some basis other than in the minds of those trying to control us through fear and uncertainty; or that motivation to commit an act of terror is based upon a hatred for freedom; or that we have been told the truth about 911. Excuse me while I quickly shuffle to the bathroom.

But even a dead gut can only take so many orders of olestra-soaked biggee lies before it realizes it too needs at least some nutrition. At some point when we are trying to explain to our children why their world is nothing like the carefree and happy one we grew up in, we might find ourselves craving a good old-fashioned home-cooked meal of simple truth. We could call it soul food.