National Defense in a Culture War
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." --HL Mencken
The boundaries of Western political rhetoric have long been breached. Themes such as free speech, private property, freedom of association and expression; these were developed within a socio-political framework that had developed organically over centuries. They were earned by a type of political struggle that comes about not by the extremities of war and conquest, but by political conflict within an overarching cosmic framework that determined the acceptable boundaries of meaning and application.
For instance, no defenders of freedom of speech in seventeenth or eighteenth century Anglican Britain would have applied such doctrine to pornographic material; such perversions would have not been considered a legitimate freedom. They more probably would have been considered a weaponization of political themes, a turning of a political tool into a sword of destruction. Free speech is not an absolute, discovered as a universal political ideal; it was a phrase that came out of a particular culture, engaged in a particular struggle.
In the West at present it must be understood that the very doctrines that were used to create the postwar liberal hegemony over against first fascism, and then communism, have by now been absolutized in a cunning way so as to undermine the strength of the Western nations. It is well understood that an armed invasion of a nation by a foreign power must be responded to with force, because absolutizing peace is a political decision of suicide.
So too, when in the situation of an internal culture war, there comes a time when national state of emergency must be declared, the state must take back its role as the socio-political sovereign, and exercise forceful intervention.
RT News reports:
In a bid to become “the most inclusive airline in the skies,” British Virgin Atlantic scrapped rules on Wednesday requiring its staff to wear gender-specific uniforms. This means male personnel may now wear red skirt suits to work.
The company, which is owned by billionaire Richard Branson, announced that it would update its gender identity policies to “champion individuality,” enabling its employees to wear clothing that “expresses how they identify.”
This is not the fulfillment of some Western tradition; this is a stepping stone in a Western Revolution that has been 60 years in the making. It is part of a much larger Meta-revolution that goes back to the Enlightenment of course, but the long train of historical revolution has within it micro revolutions, each revolutionizing the achievements of its revolutionary parent. The culture war is a postwar phenomenon and it must be responded to politically.
The idea that it is the right of a private company to undermine the most basic Western cultural signifiers (such as gender distinctions) presumes that private companies cannot be treated as enemies of the social order. This is false, and a novelty in the Western tradition. In the regime of the Administrative State, under which we presently suffer, the state itself is a tool of these very non-political entities. Nevertheless, it remains true that a strategy of defense must have a political aspect to it. The state ought to crush these agents of international cultural upheaval, as a matter of national defense.
Defense cannot have merely a character of pure bodily and material protection. A national defense, especially in our political context (for all political contexts are unique and situation in a given moment), must be aware of the boundaries of its political principles. A political community with no cultural boundaries is no political community at all.
Seize the assets of Virgin Airlines and jail the executives— we would act similarly if there was a terrorist threat to the homeland, which this is.
_______________
Addendum: this is pretty based:
