He is absolutely right: The moral collapse to which I referred in Post #8 has entirely to do with the loss of virtue in the American body politic — in the (classical) Ciceronian sense. Note that Cicero was not a Christian; but still he knew very well that there is a universal moral law that pertains to man which cannot be avoided, if man is to be "fully human," according to his (divinely-given) nature.
On the basis of this (utterly fraudulent) election, Whittle (correctly it seems to me) points out that about one-half of the American population has no concept of "virtue." They do not see virtue as the very source of genuine human liberation, but as a constraint on behaviors that the lower nature of man actually prefers to engage in.
He gives as a prime example Bill Maher, who is actually working to destroy the very idea of "virtue" (as classically understood, and as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition) for he fears it; it makes him "feel bad," since he totally lacks any sense of it. What he wants is to be able to engage in any act that satisfies the basest drives of his nature, such that he can do whatever it is he wants to do without any need to feel "guilty" about it.
Cicero invokes a universal moral law intended to be a help to humankind. And he bases this law in the will of god. Because it is universal and divine, it cannot be evaded by man.
Bill Maher and Ivan Karamazov have something in common: the conviction that "if God does not exist, then everything is permitted." So if one wants to do the impermissible, then one has to get rid of God.
But God cannot be gotten rid of by man. With or without human faith, still He is Creator of both man and the world, and the Source of the good order of both.
Again, you don't have to be a Christian to believe the truth of that statement; the classical philosophers had already acknowledged its truth, before (and after) the historical Incarnation of Christ.
Whittle's argument rests on the idea that about half the current American population is (and/or has been trained to be) unvirtuous. They are "takers," not "makers." And they expect the "makers" to take care of all their needs.
Unfortunately, the 0bama administration is in the business of making ever-new "takers," while punishing the "makers" that are expected to pay the freight of the totally unfulfillable promises that 0bama has made to the unvirtuous, indolent "takers." (This is the fly in the ointment of every experiment in socialism to date: there aren't enough rich people [i.e., "makers"] to pay for the extravagant promises the government has made to the "takers.") Once you run out of other people's money — the by-product of hard work, dedication, risk-taking, and economic and spiritual capital — there's no way to pay the bill. Unless you start borrowing massive amounts of money from unfriendly governments like China, and passing the bill to Americans who have not even been born yet. Which is the situation in which we Americans find ourselves today.
The great analogy he comes up with is that of the Titanic: a ship so massive that it could not turn fast enough to avoid collision with the iceberg which destroyed it. The federal government has become so "big" that it cannot turn fast enough to avoid the coming fiscal debacle. Its sheer size and weight render it a "government so big it can't be steered anymore," which will soon enough collapse of its own weight.
At which point, according to John Locke, we citizens are back in the "state of nature," and shall have to fend for ourselves....
This government MUST fail, because of its grossly overweening, arrogant pretensions. It's just a matter of time. Then, we shall become Greece redux: civil disorder, rioting in the streets, looting, etc.
On the present course, I don't know how this outcome can be avoided. But, does 0Bama even care?
What I find totally ludicrous is that people speak as if 0Bama's first-term policies have "failed." Oh really???
It seems very clear to me that 0bama's policies have been wildly successful — from his point of view.
The reason I say that: Just consider who his mentors have been: Frank Marshall Davis; Cloward & Pivin; Saul Alinsky; Jeremiah Wright; Bill Ayers, et al.
NONE of these people carry a brief for VIRTUE. Rather, their entire purpose is to destroy public virtue altogether; for then — and only then — can they gain full power over all of us, destroy any notion of our God-given liberty, and turn us all into the slaves of the State.
The beauty of Whittle's argument is that a free, virtuous people can overcome this "playbook." As he puts it, the government is NOT the country; it is an appurtenance imposed on the country. "Government" won last Tuesday. But this does not mean that the country at large LOST. It just means we have to think outside the box, construct parallel institutions, and stop thinking that political parties per se are the answer to all our problems. (I think my dear sister joanie-f has already realized this, and I join with her in her conclusion.)
The answer to the American problem is a virtuous public. Whittle says virtue is something that can and ought to be taught. Just because the education establishment as presently constituted refuses to do this, doesn't mean that other ways cannot be found to advance this objective.
I hope people will take the time to view Whittle's outstanding video. I believe it is accurate in its analysis of our current condition, and full of practical, common sense advice.
I never quite hit the pit of despair, post-election, but was a tad dispirited. I was already feeling better about things when I got up today, realizing that although there's nothing I can do to change past results, that doesn't mean I can't get up and continue to go forward, trusting in God, according to the virtue that derives from aligning myself with His infallible, universal Law.
Even if it were to prove that the "fecal matter" will "hit the rotating device" in due course, the Lord God takes care of his own.
So I am unafraid. I can and will go on without crying or complaint. For I do believe that Whittle is right: We "virtuous people" need to find alternative, parallel structures to what government is offering. And, if we think outside the box, very likely we will do so.
Thank you again, dear brothers in Christ, Diamond and MHGinTN, for posting the link to this wonderful article!
A couple of other great examples of distributed, horizontal and parallel networks he used as contrast to what is increasingly becoming an obsolete vertical style government (a by-product of the industrial revolution) that I liked were of Buckhead's famous post here on FreeRepublic:
as well as his example of Bill W's genius or inspiration or whatever you want to call it, regarding AA's organizational principles.
As he was talking about virtue I thought of “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” (Benjamin Franklin)
and John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Anyway, thanks again for writing!
Cordially,