Monday, November 03, 2008
The "Revolutionary" Status Quo. A Rebellion that Isn't
Since the 1970's many, if not most, school teachers, journalists, and entertainment glitter-oracles have become "rebels" -- or, so they'd have themselves (and sometimes others) believe.
They call for "change" in our lifestyles to "save the Earth", "celebrate diversity" and provide "equality" of outcome in all facets of life – a sterile humanity where everyone is constrained to the level of bland sleep.
Is this call to "change" really change when it is now so blatantly common? Can it be taken seriously when most of its mouthpieces live their own lives in such complete bourgeoisie comfort?
American philosopher/historian Hannah Arendt has often been justly quoted for noting that, "Even the most radical revolutionary becomes conservative the day after the revolution." It may be added that today's "revolutionary" is conservative even before the revolution (in the sense that they are very much in favor or maintaining their current lifestyles but rigidly adhering to the dogma of a faux rebellion). Their revolutionary call to change is no revolution at all and certainly not intended to alter their own lifestyles. Calling for radical change (usually demanding, complete with threats) is now as widespread and mundane as a can of Coke, and ultimately has about as much philosophical value in the grand scheme of things.
The real irony in all of this posturing is that those of us who call for a drastic reduction of state authority over personal lives and for excellence, innovation, and achievement to be honored in a free system of economic exchange (not punished in bureaucratic labyrinths), are derided as conservative. By honest and positive definition this would be true but our posing rebels see the above traits as bad and use the "conservative" label as a statement of derision.
Real rebels are suspicious of authority and recoil from imposed schemes. They have no need to force their freedom on others as they see freedom to be an option chosen by one's own volition. In a free society everyone is free to join a commune or "share [their own] wealth" as they choose. If they're sincere in voicing their values, they don't wish to see dogmatic ideals imposed on others anymore than themselves. These attributes hardly define the self-described rebels of today. A t-shirt with a communist autocrat's face across its front doesn’t count when the person wearing it lives high off the fruits of open society and a free economy.
Today's "revolution," when implied to be so by the esoteric cliques' of Hollywood, news wire services, and public school classrooms, is no revolution at all. It's not even a weak attempt to play a role as an agent of change. Taking Lenin's, Mao Zedong's, or Castro's ideas (or FDR's and LBJ's for that matter) and fostering them once more on easily duped victims is not an exercise in promoting "change," it's just another scheme in seeking to rein in the lives of free individuals.
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way [?]"....
...no, just get out of the way.
