The Secret Knowledge

It happens that you have just received a bottle of rare scotch, and it sits, unopened, on your sideboard. “I’m not a big scotch drinker,” you say. “I wouldn’t know one from another, but I just received this as a gift. It’s just going to sit there; please, why don’t you take it?”

The guest may accept or decline the gift. Should he accept he is likely to say: “Thank you, but only on the condition that you share it with me.” You open the bottle and the guest pours you both a shot, which you both enjoy with the appropriate comments. When the evening is over, it is not unlikely that the guest will leave without reference to the now-opened bottle. At this point you, the host, are likely to suggest that he take “his” bottle with him. He, again, may accept with thanks, or refuse gracefully. No social norms have been violated.

But consider a similar situation.

The guest arrives, and notes the rare bottle of scotch. You open it, and pour two drinks, and you both remark on its excellence. At the close of dinner you suggest that, as you are not a big scotch drinker, the guest should take the bottle home with him. This is now a gross breach of manners; the guest cannot accept without the taint of greed, he cannot decline without the risk of offense, and, indeed, he has been offended, for he has, now, not been offered a gift, but scraps from your table.

12

See the presumption of courts to award custody of small children to mothers; and California’s community property law, which, however much it presents itself as gender neutral, is, effectively, an acknowledgment that a woman’s period of nubility is limited and irreplaceable. In the above cases the cultural understanding that women and infants must be protected is so deep and ineradicable that even in a climate of supposed “gender neutrality” (see the absurdity of women paying alimony to men), the law assumes the coloration of gender-blindness in order to serve the underlying goal, which is the viability of the culture irrespective of those laws enacted for its supposed betterment.

13

Why is the MA in English literature, film, gender studies, and so on, bagging groceries? Because he is just too old to begin an apprenticeship. That door has closed, and his college career has ensured his fittedness only for the position it was advertised as obviating: a menial job.

14

Those on the Left, generally, do not understand that they are endorsing a position. They understand what, to the Right, would be arguable assumptions, as “beyond question,” or, to use a blunter but more accurate term, “taboo.”

15

Is it “a racist country,” because some television show was hawking as news a group of deranged skinheads posturing? Let’s note the fact that the broadcasters considered it a sufficient novelty to display it as newsworthy. And let us note further that there is no position closed to any African American because of his race. Our laws and our culture as a whole have conclusively rejected racism. Why does it delight the Left to claim the contrary?

16

The Liberal child, unexposed to the concept of self-support, is discouraged from, and indeed will not anticipate, the day of its necessity. And see the assumption underlying the Liberal’s consignment of his child to a wash in the gentle pool of doctrine: What is it? That “something will turn up”—he, as an adult participant in a sick economy, knows it will not—or that Society will take care of his child. Putting aside the question of “Why should it?” or “Who will pay?” let us ask “With what monies?” The third, unexamined, and, I fear, more prevalent method of dealing with the child’s economic future is not to. “Rabbi Judah said, ‘He who does not teach his son a craft teaches him brigandage.’ ” (Gemara Kiddushin 29A, with thanks to Rabbi Mordecai Finley.)

17

Note that these endeavors are easily mastered, in a short intensive course of study or of laying-on-of-hands. They are, in this, much like, and indeed are the progeny of, those leisure activities once known as Adult Education, and tagged generically, by wits at the time of its emergence just post-war, as “underwater basket weaving.” They are not learned but imbibed, either through the short-course indoctrination or through the individual’s magical discovery of his “gift.”

18

So much for the family.

19

“The wealthy and the powerful no longer have the monopoly of violence they had in the past, and it’s driving them up the wall.” (Noam Chomsky, A Hated Political Enemy.)

20

In the opinion of Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor.

21

The problem, at the end, is that there must be governments, as Moyo says, to pay for things everyone uses but no one wants to fund, like her lamppost. But governments, as they grow, grow corrupt, and aid, as it has corrupted Africa, has corrupted America. We call it taxes.

To make government responsible to the citizens it was originally designed to serve, its size must be reduced, for the invitation to corruption and waste, for personal gain, or from “good intentions” is so great as to be evidently insurmountable. Government must be reduced, not abolished, which is the all-purpose canard of the Left. “Do you then vote for anarchy or laissez faire?” But reduced to the point at which the harm it inevitably does can be controlled or reversed. This potentiality is the true worth of the system of free enterprise— the alternative being periodic revolution, where governments are overthrown; which is, as Moyo says, the problem with Africa. We elect the worst, on both sides, and then marvel that they steal, subvert, waffle, and do every last thing but obey their oath to defend the Constitution. They are not elected to “do well, “ or to “transform” but to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And we will only stand a chance of finding those actually dedicated to doing so when we take the money out of it—both theirs to spend and squander, and that accruing to them, on their golden retirement, for all the favors they have done.

22