The driving force--the ongoing motivation--of every true civilization, family, community, tribe, race or nation of sapient beings, is a multi-generational concept & pursuit. It is so recognized in both the civil & religious histories of the earth's peoples. It is sanctified in the Fifth Commandment of Western theology. It is undeniable in pure reason! The development, civilization, material advance & continuity of any people obviously involves a multi-generational concept & pursuit. Why then is there even a need to make the point?
The ultimate tragedy of the Twentieth & early Twenty-First Centuries, in the West, is that in virtually every field of human focus, the concept--even the perception--of multi-generational purpose & intent has been systematically--if not always intentionally--undermined! In the usual Conservative lament over disintegrative processes, the focus is varied by subjects usually addressed separately, with analysis directed at the particulars most relevant to each. Here, we explore the whole panorama of approaching chaos.
The human family is the fundamental building block of any civilization. The family, which results from the mating urges & instincts of normal men & women, provides a generation by generation basis for a stable & functional population; the mechanism for passing on the achievements--both spiritual & material--of each generation to the next; a repository for a hopefully growing cultural heritage. No civilization is likely to survive the breakdown of the family as a social institution. Thus the systematic undermining of family culture in America offers a microcosm of the total onslaught against an American pursuit.
This is not to say that one can not make a verbal argument for some of the changes that have taken place. But the "case" for altering the definition of the family, whether in the form of elevating behavior that has nothing to do with procreational mating & the continuity of life--of the family, tribe, race or nation--as foundation for a new concept of "family"; or for undermining family function, via easy divorce or interference with parental responsibility for child rearing, or by cultural disparagement; has moved only in one direction for decade after decade.
This continued attack on things once sacred, can hardly be justified by rationalizations offered to support increasing societal intervention in cases of real (or only alleged) child or spousal abuse, or by the wish lists of those who seek popular acceptance or equivalence for traditionally scorned substitutes for the natural mating processes of a species. Perhaps the most absurd notion of the most intellectually confused of today's sham intellectuals, is that traditional Western marriage has somehow become less relevant. While expressed in different forms, almost nothing better illustrates confusion in contemporary "thought."
What is totally irrelevant to the multi-generational existence of any family, clan, tribe, nation, race or species, are the rationalizations of those propounding "alternative life styles." They wait only for the advent of a new Dean Swift to be better described.
The entertainment industry, both by ridicule of traditional values & by romanticization of conflicting behavior, has also played an enormous role in the breakdown of the family. It is not that what is sacred can not survive the thrust of attempted humor. That is not the problem. But the humor, here, largely flows in one direction. The "entertainers" seldom find humor in the demands for alternative "life styles." What was once profane, is now increasingly sacred. What was once sacred is seen as the only "game" in vogue.
Further, see Community items 2 & 6, immediately below.
Or consider the systematic destruction of the local community. Again, the thrust of "innovation" has been always in the same direction:
1. The introduction of vicious estate & inheritance taxes in the first half of the Twentieth Century, which in time forced many of the families of successful local entrepreneurs to sell once flourishing businesses--those providing both a source of employment & pride in their communities--to conglomerates, which cared little, if at all, for the qualities & special traits that made each community unique.
2. The subsidization of births out-of-wedlock, without the stigma in traditional "safety nets" for such births, from the inauguration of the ADC in 1938, followed by a tenfold explosion in such births with the growing egalitarian emphasis in education in the late 1950s, through the 1960s & '70s. This was also clearly a factor in undermining the family.
3. Policies adopted by those acquiring conglomerates (Item 1) often resulted in sending key local employees out-of-town, either for training or long-term placement--encouraging a substitution of an acquired corporate identification for that with the local society of their origin. While perhaps not motivated by the Socialistic redistributive intent of the Estate Tax, such policies worked to similar effect. That effect has been now compounded by the rapid rise of American corporate involvement in overseas ventures.
4. The adoption of "Civil Rights" laws in the decades after World War II, making it illegal to hire those with whom one shared a common ancestry, common religious values or common land of origin, further undermining community identification--even placing it in a sometimes negative light.
5. The radical change in American Immigration policy in 1965, which replaced one that clearly favored those with ethnic traits similar to those of the existing population, to one that actually subsidized the entrance of those previously virtually unrepresented in the rooted population. This, in time, significantly altered the demographics of many communities, particularly as to any sense of an ongoing multi-generational purpose. (See Immigration & The American Future.)
This is not a criticism of other peoples. That is not the point! What is clear is that the 180 degree shift in our immigration policy & preferences, has weighed against the continuity of existing communities; has played a significant part in the one-sided assault on the multi-generational purpose of those communities.
6. A bias in American education (particularly as to aspects treated in Chapter XVI of the Debate Handbook, Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education) has also contributed significantly to a loss of multi-generational identity, pride & purpose--even to awareness of what were once fundaments of a unique American culture. This, in itself, stems from three principal facets--the Allport approach, seeking to make Americans ashamed of traditional purpose & identification; the Egalitarian promotion of a fantasy of human interchangeability (a clear insult to all personality types); and a deliberate effort to change the focus of the social sciences, from a study of how each nation is unique, to a dishonestly selective emphasis on what all have in common.
In each of such facets, we observe the influence of those who seek World Government--a hideous nightmare where all peoples surrender control of the cultural achievements of their forebears, to a half-baked, poorly thought out, humanist fantasy, that an ever bigger, ever more remote, centralized power is the answer to all human problems.
7. Many of America's original communities had a religious basis. Founded by specific denominations, their local institutions, attitudes & purpose reflected specific religious beliefs. They intended to reinforce those beliefs, as they progressed over the generations. While many communities have evolved away from such original intent--for a variety of reasons, some touched on here;--the Court forced abandonment of such common, community-wide, identification & purpose, has certainly been a major thrust of the metaphorical dagger, into the heart of multi-generational American purpose. (And note last section, below.)
In a sense, a Nation is itself only a large ethnic community. Yet by virtue of the quite diverse settlement patterns in the 13 original American Colonies, the "National" concept that arose after the Revolution did not include interference with the unique & differing social values of the several States, or with the hosts of diverse communities within each State. Thus the Constitution, as written, gave the Federal Government virtually no role in social policy--left entirely to the States;--thus the First Amendment, adopted two years after the Constitution, specifically forbade Congress from any interference with the religious institutions within those States.
We came together on the basis of mutual respect; mutual tolerance for the diverse development of very different communities, within each State. With such a premise & such a history, could anything be more destructive than an ever increasing proclivity for the Federal Government to dictate social policy for all Americans? (And consider further, in the context below, how ACLU influenced Federal Court decisions, over the past eighty years, have augmented the thrust against multi-generational purpose & intent.)
With an educational system, now more focused on organized agitations against the American heritage in recent generations, than on the actual roots & formulation of that heritage in the beginning; with an immigration policy deliberately changing American ethnicity; with a systematic deconstruction of the family & local community; with honor & respect for individual achievement, being replaced by envy & resentment; the survival of an American people, in any historic sense, becomes daily more difficult. Will many of us remain silent until it becomes impossible?
One may take a cynical view of organized religion, of denominational clerics; even of the level of hypocrisy among those professing belief--just as one can rationalize support for some of the social & political innovations since the early days of the Twentieth Century. Yet there is no question that religious belief has played an enormous role in the development of civilization; in the continuity of culture. Such has certainly, on balance, pushed society in the direction of understanding the multi-generational value & purpose in dedicated & productive, individual & community endeavor.
When one understands that many of the original settlers, whose descendants rallied to the Founding Fathers at America's inception, came here to establish denominational communities; that the First Amendment, far from mandating a "Separation of Church & State," simply denied the Federal Government the right to pass any Law "respecting" a religious establishment, whether existing or yet to be; it becomes very clear that the achievement of the ACLU in restricting the right of local communities to have positive religious identification, is not based upon Constitutional intent, or any basic American principle. It is also clear that the thrust of the relevant Court cases is entirely in the same direction as all other facets of the onslaught against an American future, discussed. In fact, it may be the last straw in the loss of any multi-generational pursuit. With all bases of a culture undermined, there remains little for the individual American to hold onto--little on which to rebuild.
Consider, also, in light of the forced reduction of religious influence in favor of Statist intervention in the family & community, how truly misleading are some of the "benefits," even of programs for which seemingly rational arguments were adduced. Can any of the Legislative enactments of a Feminist agenda possibly benefit American women to a degree that justifies replacement of a Chivalric code, under which men competed, not to take advantage, but to employ both physical & mental strength, to protect, succor & honor women?
The ADC program was inaugurated to provide for children without fathers in their lives, without stigma to their mothers. It was justified as being a kind protection for those children; yet how beneficial was that "safety net" to the women & children of America, when it helped multiply, tenfold, the percentage of children so poorly situated? The reality is that dependence upon a remote & distant central Government has never offered true benefit to any people on earth. What is being systematically dismantled was the one social system that really did work for the benefit of all--a system premised upon individual responsibility, with any "safety-net," locally administered by those able to make moral judgments.
It does not matter that most of those who "carry water," as it were, for the Left, have no long-term ulterior motive; that most merely support particular aspects of the general wave of destruction; that many have been induced to focus on individual "trees," with no sense of the "forest" being destroyed. We have either to confront them with respect to that "forest," or simply resign ourselves to kiss America goodbye. We are very close to being among those things "which were."