One of the many sins of Marxism is its demonization of the word “bourgeois“, the French term for the conservative middle class. The bourgeoisie had always been a target of scorn for the nobility, of course, because those worthies always thought (and in many cases were correct in thinking) that bourgeois values, customs and indeed laws didn’t apply to them, the anointed.
But the real problem arose for the bourgeoisie when Marxism became ascendant — because Marxism requires only two classes: the ruling elite and the proletariat working class, because those messy middle-class types refused to sacrifice their conservative values on the altar of the sainted Party.
And needless to say, the idea of a ruling class and worker / peasantry found (and continues to find) great favor with the so-called intelligentsia (another verbal creation of Marxism), because they have always fondly believed that they would be part of the ruling elite.
It’s not just my antipathy towards Marxism which causes me to rage occasionally about falling societal standards; it’s mostly because of my staunch support of and adherence to middle-class values, without which I believe that society descends rapidly into totalitarianism, anarchy and chaos, in no particular order. So you can imagine how much I welcome scholarly opinion which happens to agree with mine.
Apparently, this op-ed article has got its two authors in trouble with The Usual Suspects (race hustlers, the other-gendered, closet Marxists — you get the idea). But in all seriousness, please explain to me how anyone can disagree with the following statement:
“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”
Not only are these precepts pure common sense; history has proven them to be not only that, but that the lack or rejection thereof produces catastrophic results for any society.
And let me say right now that these principles are not just applicable to White First World societies. As Wax and Alexander note, all societies prosper when they maintain those values; the fact remains that the values originated not just in Western culture over the centuries but, at least in part, in other societies as well.
Also needless to say, those elements in our so-called modern society who are up in arms about the Wax-Alexander article are precisely those who are causing the greatest amount of division within it today.
I say: a pox on all of them. We need to reinstate those bourgeois values and principles in general, and not rely on The Remnant to keep that flickering flame alive in only their children and friends. We need to go back, and discard all the laws and customs which have attempted to overturn bourgeois values — indeed, in some cases these excrescences have already succeeded in doing so.
Note, by the way, that the above principles exist outside the Enlightenment and, for example, our own Constitution, for the simple reason that they predated them. In fact, much of today’s societal woes can be attributed to the malapplication of Constitutional precept into such silliness as “gender fluidity” under the (incorrect) aegis of, say, freedom of speech and thought, or equal protection under the law.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that the Constitution is not the wonderful document and institution that it is. But if anything, it has always relied on the good intentions of society — good intentions which have crumbled and disappeared under the weight of Marxism, post-Modernism and all the other cynical and baleful movements which have caused today’s societal ills.
I for one would welcome a return to 1950s values with open arms. I suspect I’m not alone in this sentiment, as deplorable as others may find it.
“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”
I don’t see how anyone could disagree with these sentiments. The only thing I would object to in 1950’s mores is the wearing of skirts and dresses. I find them to be a bit of a discomfort. On the other hand, I’m sure that they are no worse than wearing a suit and tie is. Once you start doing it and have the necessary items it’s not very hard. I really dislike the current fashion of wearing low necklines and high hemlines to work.
Properly fitted and tailored the only problem with a Suit and Tie is that modern offices are too warm all year around because of the way women want to dress.
At one company I worked for (large, but not F500) I was the ONLY one in the building to wear a jacket and tie *EVERY* day. Well, except for once when I rode my bicycle to work and forgot the tie.
And as to the disagreement, the problem is manifold:
* Getting married before children and staying married until they are adults “chains” you to one person. If your main focus in life is sexual gratification this can be problematic.
* For neo-marxists and other postmodernists patriotism is verboten. One’s focus is the party, not the nation-state.
* Education is not about being employable, but about learning the right history.
* Hard work is only important when it supports party goals.
etc.
On the other hand, skirts and dresses are an instant boost to a woman’s looks.
I for one am flummoxed by what passes for business attire these days. Only thing I can come up with is they are wearing what they are hoping that some one who has not got the memo comments on the look and they can then go to human resources and call for the jack pot.
If you dress like a hooker, do not be surprised when we treat you like one.
6″ spike heels indeed.
It’s the current attitude of “All cultures are equally good” BS.
No, no they’re not. Cultures which embody the values you list above are more successful, for EVERYONE involved, than those that don’t. Sure, some people live higher on the hog than others, t’was ever thus, but in the US today the most common health issues encountered among the poor are related either to obesity, substance abuse, or smoking. Hint, in other places poor people don’t get fat, they starve to death, and they don’t spend money on dope or cigarettes because they spend what they have trying to avoid starving to death.
” In fact, much of today’s societal woes can be attributed to the malapplication of Constitutional precept into such silliness as “gender fluidity” under the (incorrect) aegis of, say, freedom of speech and thought, or equal protection under the law.”
I would submit to you that the problem isn’t that freedom of speech is misapplied by allowing people holding such views from expressing them, but that it’s only applied in one direction so it’s forbidden for the rest of us to laugh, point, and express just how asinine we find those views.
I had a co-worker once who insisted that if someone believed the sky was yellow, that was their opinion and it was just as valid as those for whom the sky was blue. I disagreed, we can measure the wavelength of the light coming from the sky, it is measurably in the portion of the spectrum we define as “blue”, it is therefore blue. Even given such a deformity as color-blindness, that affects the perception, but not the reality. Oddly, the co-worker in question was a computer programmer, albeit not a very good one.
“Oddly, the co-worker in question was a computer programmer, albeit not a very good one.”
Not that odd. Computer programming is, for the most part, a strictly logical progression of inputs. Screw up the inputs and it’s not going to work right.
Poor programmers might not grasp that. If they subscribe to progressive idiocy, it might explain a lot.
I am in my mid forties and still live my life by those middle class values my parents and grandparents instilled into me growing up. I have also raised my children with those values. What I have found difficult in this modern age of insanity, is trying to help my college age children find some way to socially deal with the insanity of their peers and academics.
You want your children to succeed and uphold what is right, but you also have to teach them very practical ways of dealing with the way the world is. Some times that seems to be a herculean task with the current insanity.