Liberalism and The Age of the Woman

By Jerry Sawyer

Imagine l957 Bee Branch, Arkansas, population 53. The author was raised four miles from there. The environment included the dregs of the tail-end of western-civilization. It was a secure world, unreflective and complacent. Not only was same-sex marriage not even on anyone’s horizon yet, but even homosexuality was something that Big-City Yankees did.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elderberry Press
• Release date: Nov 5, 2010
• ISBN: 9781458016881

Book preview

Liberalism and The Age of the Woman

Copyright © 2006 Jerry Sawyer

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

This book is dedicated to my long-suffering wife, who stood behind and supported me morally and time-wise for the four years that I spent writing this book, sometimes 24/7; and then continued that support as we got it out into the marketplace. Thanks.

Contents

SECTION I:

LIBERALISM

FOREWORD

Priorities:

•Enjoyable Read over Technicality

•Logic over Political Correctness

INTRODUCTION

•Science versus Ideology

•Cause of problem: the Academy

• Why this Book has not been written already

• Philosophy versus Politics

1 WHAT DO YOU DO WITH GOOD OL BOYS LIKE ME

•Definition of Truth vs. truth

• The Individual versus the Group

•Academia and Diversity

• Naked Emperor and this Book

2 LIBERAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE

•What is a Liberal?

•What is a Conservative?

3 HOW WE GOT HERE

•Liberal origins in Sophism

•The Big three

•Augustine and Western Civilization

•Aquinas and the Long Slide

•KANT and Liberalism torqued

•Philosophy and Darwin merge

•And it is All Over except for the shouting

SECTION II

THE AGE OF THE WOMAN

4 THE IDEA HAVING ITS WAY and THE AGE OF THE WOMAN

•Early warnings

• Age of the Woman – defined

•Masculine versus Feminine Principles

•Hollywood and the Feminine Principle

5 MARRIAGE

•What is marriage? •College and Marriage

•Marriage and the Two World Views

•Marriage a Fool’s Errand in Today’s World?

6 EDUCATION

•Education and Truth

•Education and Indoctrination

•Education and War

•Education and Business

7 MEDIA

•Mossy-backs as products

•Meaning of media

•Liberal world-view and two media

•Media bias and Polls

8. POLITICS

The Age and DOMESTIC politics

• Abortion •Immigration

• Credit-cards •Eminent domain

The Age and FOREIGN policy

• The U.N.:

-Latin America

-Islamic countries

9 CONCLUSION

• Summary of the Past

•Predicting the Future: two fortune-tellers

- the zodiac and the gyspsy, or

-Logan’s Run and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

SECTION III

AFTERWORD; or What Can I DO?

•Enlist in the culture War

•Realize that the War is Total

•Keep the enemy clearly identified

•Crash-course in Literary- composition

FOREWORD

I. REWARDING AND ENJOYABLE READING A PRIORITY

AT THE OUTSET I will say here, for the benefit of the reader who fears that we are about to become hopelessly technical, I myself am a hopelessly non-technical person (which is one reason I chose to major in English). Even light technicality is like ice on the bridge of an otherwise clear road: it makes me apprehensive. Accordingly, I reluctantly countenance technicality on a very temporary basis.

Granted, the subject matter here, in a few brief spots,is inherently technical. In the few instances where that is unavoidably so, despite my fervent wishes to the contrary, my own temperament wishes it to clear up and go away! My own temperament is with you! So, if the reader will bear with me during that very occasional moment of discomfort, knowing that I have re-written and re-written to make this reader-friendly, and that my own will and wish is for it to go away soon, for this to be an enjoyable read, then he or she will be amply rewarded in the end.

The few technically-sounding terms, like the masculine principle versus the feminine principle and Propositional Truth versus Intuitive Truth will become as comfortable and familiar to him or her (not them!) as is his or her mom or cat!

II. LOGIC OVER POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ANOTHER PRIOITY

Also here at the outset, I have had to make a decision right off: when logic and political correctness conflict, which takes priority? I have decided to go with logic. The title of the book is Liberalism and the Age of the Woman. Grammar is influenced by that title. For example, the first sentence of the Bible says that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If God is a man, the gold-standard of reality is masculine, and therefore the generic pronoun is he. If God is a woman, it is she, and if one is not sure, it is they. Since God is a man, I will use He, even though it has become politically incorrect in this Age of the Woman to do that. An example might have occurred in the last sentence of the last paragraph, except I wanted to warn you what I am about, before I begin the practice. To use they or them even when the antecedent is singular is, of course, ungrammatical because illogical.

The reader will come to see that there is a world-view just under the surface of even grammar usage! The question of whether God is male or female has enormous implications, as the reader will see, even down to his (or her!) use of pronouns. While I know that the person who advocates the expected and usual is often unthinkingly accepted more easily than is the person who does not automatically run with the herd, both logic and the very thesis of this book dictate that I resort to the usage of the generic he.

Logic also trumps political correctness in my choice of diction, as it does with pronoun usage, as I decline to allow a Liberal world-view to direct my mind via the language I use. The English poet William Blake spoke of mind-forged manacles. An example is the illogical and clumsy term African-Americans. Many have never been within a thousand miles of Africa, but we use this illogical term in order to be politically correct. Liberals seem to have inflicted this clumsy term on us in order ostentatiously to avoid any hint of racism, perhaps giving their own mind-set away. Affirmative Action, a pet Liberal cause, seems to imply the racist assumption that the two races cannot compete on a level playing field. Accordingly, I decline to distinguish between Irish-Americans, Russian-Americans, African-Americans– Americans are …Americans! When a distinction must be made, I prefer the simple, non-politicized blacks and whites.

Another example of a politically correct term, this time with an unarguably definite world-view behind it, is the word gay. A simple choice of words asks our minds to accept what a rival world-view condemns. The Liberal world-view holds that words should be value-neutral, as there are no values inherent in reality. Yet, the word gay gives away the store in implying value. My dictionary defines the word as Showing or characterized by exuberance or mirthful excitement. Image an antonym such as grim, defined as Uninviting or unnerving in aspect; forbidding; terrible. Would so-called gays care to be called grims? I doubt it. So, is gay a term that expresses values? You bet! So seriously so, that it may be why the word gay is flagged as a slang word. When I want to communicate values, I will use words that communicate my world-view, which contains inherent values. I decline to be intimidated by words that sneak in values and an alien mind-set through the back door of politically correct diction.

With that said, I will tell you in the Introduction what I plan to say and accomplish in this book.

INTRODUCTION

An old black preacher gave the best definition of an introduction I have ever seen, when he explained how he structured his sermons: I tells ‘um what ah’m goin’ ta tell um; ah tells ‘em what ah tells um; and thin, ah tells um what ah tole um. That is the strucure I plan to follow in this book: in this Introduction, ah tells um what ah’m goin’ ta tell um.

GENESIS OF BOOK

The genesis of this book was road-work on a freeway in the early seventies. After droning along for miles in the usual freeway traffic, we (my wife and I) topped a bridge and just ahead saw a sea of red brake-lights as traffic backed up. Earth-moving equipment was roaring, dust was swirling, and the flagman had pushed out a flag for us to stop. Except that it was not a flagman, but a flag-woman!

In the early 1970’s, this was a shock! What was a woman doing in this hellish, grimy environment? Could we credibly call ourselves a civilized society, and yet treat our women like this? But we can get used to a lot. Within the relatively short time of a few years the situation had developed. I had become involved legally in a tenure battle with the college at which I was teaching, and taken a part-time job selling real estate to be able to pay my legal expenses. One day I was in the real-estate office when the broker/owner looked out of the window and exclaimed, Here comes a pregnant lawyer! At that time, the statement was jarringly humorous, as female lawyers were uncommon. Shortly, however, females in what had formerly been men’s work became ubiquitous. Construction work, real-estate appraisers, truck-drivers, judges, deputy sheriffs – you name it. And it was not limited to occupations. Females stopped wearing coverings in church, and started wearing pants, instead.

It’s the same with sexual relationships. In the sixties and early seventies, two people living together was not very common. Now, such is the norm. We have gotten used to what had for centuries been called sin. In other words, we have accepted a totally different world-view from that we believed for a couple of thousand years.

What seismic change had occurred in the way we think? This was not merely inevitable change. It was huge! This was new in all history, in cultures everywhere. As this was not mere inevitable change, it was not a mindless accident, either. It had to have a cause. Did it have anything to do with the social upheaval of the Sixties, which we had just endured? Probably, it did. What, then, was that cause? In some course I had taught earlier, I had stumbled across what I identified as the Masculine Principle versus the Feminine Principle, which I will go into later. As I reflected and read more, I realized that the Masculine/Feminine Principle was behind what it was my privilege or fate at this particular time in history to be actually witnessing. There was an idea or philosophy behind the sexual revolution that had begun in earnest in the l960s. The actual physical relationship between the sexes was only the visible tip of the Idea – it may have appeared to begin there, but that was just part of the picture. A change in the very concept of Truth was involved here.

As I reflected on what I was witnessing, and got more information, I realized that the sexual revolution, as huge and historic as it is, was only the tip of the iceberg. The revolution is not confined technically to the relationship between the sexes. I came to see, as I thought more and investigated the subject, that one basic assumption, on the one hand, led to the sexual revolution; and on the other hand, that one assumption has had – I am not exaggerating here – the most radical and revolutionary consequences on all the most basic institutions of our society.

That basic assumption is NATURALISM, or the idea that this world is a closed system of cause-and-effect, with nothing existing outside the natural world to work into it. Every effect has a natural cause, and there is no Person from outside who can deliver us all from the conclusions of cause-and-effect in this machine-like system. What may have seemed to focus on the relationship between the sexes turns out to have been far bigger than that. It is total. All the new books one sees being published on any subject are somewhere down the abstraction-ladder from this one assumption. This assumption, if allowed to continue, will reshape human life radically from the ground up. Even radically is an understatement. Read or reread the futuristic novel Logan’s Run, or at least see the movie based on it and check out the slightly less radical but still in-the-ball-park movie, Soylent Green. They are so radical that you may be tempted to dismiss them as mere literature. Don’t. If you have children, this is probably their future – and perhaps yours, too.

PURPOSE OF BOOK

The reader by now will have recognized that this is not a red-meat man-versus-woman book. Rather, the purpose of the book, like the founding of National Review magazine in l955, is to stand athwart the course of history and yell STOP! To achieve this rather ambitious purpose, in the somewhat autobiographical Chapter One I discuss how academia, behind a pretense of diversity, is an ignorant carrier of the disease of Naturalism. In Chapter Two I provide an extended definition of Liberalism, as the prevailing political force behind the culture war that has been raging under the surface of American society for some time, but which has now surfaced. In Chapter Three I show how we got here, with the politics of Liberalism being based in the philosophy of Naturalism. Then in Part II, we look first at the foundation of the Age of the Woman in Chapter Four; and then we look at the four basic institutions of 1) marriage, 2) education, 3) the media, and 4) politics that Liberal politics has built on the foundation of Naturalism. Academia, the media, and Hollywood are biased? These are secondary causes of the Liberalism that Conservatives are battling in politics. Academia, the primary carrier of this virus of Naturalism/Liberalism, ensures that our entire society will be liberal because of this one basic assumption which it transmits from generation to generation and to other basic institutions, including marriage.

What is the relation between the sexual revolution and The Age of the Woman, built on this foundation of Naturalism? For now, suffice it to say that it has to do with the foundational definition of Truth on which Western Civilization has been based for a couple of millenia. It involves a massive change from the Masculine Principle and propositional truth, to the Feminine Principle and intuitive truth. The shift puts us on Age of the Woman turf. We go into detail in Chapter Four, the opening chapter of Part II and The Age of the Woman.

To repeat for vital emphasis, Naturalism is the assumption that this world is a closed system, with nothing existing outside the created world to work into it, like God. The position of Western Civilization has been, in contrast, that a blueprint existed first in the mind of God; and then He created things according to it in an ordered relationship. That is also the orthodox Christian position. That blueprint existed first in the mind of a self-aware Person, and the cause-and-effect order behind and among the things reflect His character.

NATURALISM VERSUS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE

It is for that reason that science flourishes. Had it not been for the God of order revealed by Christianity, we probably would not be blessed in the first place by the existence of science, and then by its huge benefits. Science can exist because God reveals Himself in an ordered creation; and because He honors that order as He works indirectly into this system through the minds of people, and only very, very occasionally directly, through miracles. Thus, scientists can depend on that order.

The theory of Naturalistic Evolution, on the other hand (as opposed to a weasel- position sometimes called Theistic Evolution), assumes (not proves scientifically, but simply assumes) that all things evolve by chance from a single source. Things came about not because of a conscious decision by a God of order and purpose, but by haphazard evolution. But attend: the conflict here is absolutely not a matter of cause-and-effect versus the absence of such – of modern, intellectual science versus ignorant and old-fashioned religion, but of cause and effect in a closed system. By a closed system is meant one into which an outside influence such as God cannot work. I repeat once more for vital emphasis: this is an assumption as to the nature of things at the dawn of existence, when there was no life of any kind present to witness what happened.

It comes down to this: Christianity declares up front its assumption that a God of order created both things, and the order among and behind them. Naturalism, in direct contrast, assumes that the things and order among and behind them that science depends on, came about through haphazard, orderless, chaotic evolution. In place of this up-front declaration are mere assumptions, many times presented as fact. You say, How does one get order out of chaos? I do not know, either! The point is that both Christianity and Naturalism begin from an assumption. The question is, which assumption is most true to the experience of a mature person? Believers in Naturalism contend that they are being scientific in assuming – not proving, but merely assuming – that it is a closed system. Excuse a little sarcasm when I say that Naturalists must discern a logic here that I can not!

Since this distinction is crucial to our purpose, we distinguish between legitimate science, on the one hand, and ideology on the other. The ideology of Naturalism desperately seeks to portray itself as inevitable, because it pretends to be based in fact. Thus, it tries to blend in with legitimate science. Naturalism is not scientific, but attempts to superimpose itself on science. The truth is, that the ideology of Naturalism (discussed in Chapter Three), which carefully associates with biological evolution, takes its place alongside an identical ideology developing in philosophy at the same time in history. Naturalism is an assumption that is not factually based; and as such is a religion and not science. Not only that, but it goes to fanatical lengths to insinuate its ideology that nothing exists above the thing-world, into legitimate science, and pretend that science that is not naturalistic is not science at all. It is militant and aggressive.

In light of this fanatical attempt, I had better face a key question explicitly now, at this very outset, and not leave anything implicit. In attacking Naturalism, am I, with ultimate chutzpah, challenging science? Again, attend: No! In absolute, emphatic, ultimate contrast, this book advocates the extension of cause-and-effect, the basis of the scientific method, to all of reality as traditionally understood by Western Civilization. The nature of the cause-and-effect reality that we see in the physical realm mirrors the nature of the God and the metaphysical realm that we do not see. Thus, cause-and-effect are the foundation of reality. It took Christianity to enable science to get off the ground in the first place. It may not be an overstatement to say that in the world-view on which Western Civilization is based, Christianity and science are not only friends, but twins!

Metaphysical causality means that the ordered world here below, of predictable tides and seasons is rooted in God’s character and thus mirrors the same order above. The reader may want to re-read the above sentence, as an informal definition of metaphysical causality, a semi-technical concept. In contrast to a mere assumption, then, does anybody care to prove, rather than ingenuously just assume, that metaphysical causality does not exist? For example, the very first sentence of the Bible says that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. No true scientist of whom I have ever heard dares to try to disprove this. Idealogues dispute it, but true scientists do not seek to disprove it. Scientists are concerned with facts, whereas the ideologues of Naturalism are concerned with a theory. The culprit lurks, then, within the ideology of an assumption. Western Civilization confidently states with Genesis 1:l that there is causality in the metaphysical realm. Science has not proved that this position is wrong. Again, would anyone care to challenge this statement with facts, instead of with assumptions or theories?

What was the cause of things, then? God. That is an example of what I mean by causality on the meta-physical level of reality. If some scientist cares to assume a disagreement to fit his ideology, he is not doing so as a scientist, but as a person who has his or her political beliefs just as you and I do. But do not mistake this ideological assumption for scientific proof.

The post-Kant Liberal position (to be defined in Chapter Three) arbitrarily denies causality on the metaphysical level of reality. I emphasize this because it is so very important, as the very backbone of civilization and the heart of this book: Do not mistake this arbitrary assumption for proof.

Because of confusion between this arbitrary assumption and scientific proof, however, many assume that the position taken by Western Civilization has been refuted. Those who make that assumption are – it must be said – ignorant! Such ignorance is rife in academia now. Because of this confusion, however, both the orthodox position of Western Civilization and the very heart of traditional Christianity, is now considered so radical in academia that many readers will come upon this carefully thought-out position as something entirely new, and therefore will understand it only progressively. If that extension of cause-and-effect to metaphysical reality were currently at the center of our culture, there would be no need to write this book. Academia is based in that ignorance.

Analyses I have read address secondary, political causes, such as liberal bias in the media, educational institutions, or Hollywood. But why are key institutions, such as education, the media, and Hollywood, biased? We do have a toxic culture, but why? Conservatives who point to these undeniable biases and try to combat them before they understand their cause, are largely wasting their time. These institutions are inevitably biased by this one root, philosophic assumption; and that assumption is the bedrock assumption of liberalism. The resultant politics of liberalism form the very warp and woof of our culture, giving us this Age of the Woman. These institutions are liberal, and it is essential that conservatives continually point out this flagrant fact. In addition, however, unless and until this one assumption of Naturalism is neutralized or repudiated, liberalism will wax and Western Civilization will continue to wane.

VOLUNTARY NATURE OF NATURALISM

The key is this: the philosophical theory is based in ideology and not in fact; and so we got to The Age of the Woman voluntarily and not by logical necessity. This is the very heart of the matter. While the conflict here between ideology and fact is clear-cut, the Liberal has everything to gain or lose by keeping it fogged-up. Look for this, the question of whether Naturalism is centered in science or ideology, to be the earthquake’s center.

We have gotten here voluntarily, and not by factual or logical necessity! Thus, the issue is ideology, and not science. We adopted this root assumption of naturalism voluntarily, not by logical necessity, in anticipation of benefits that have not been delivered. This theory of Liberal Naturalism was and is appealing to the Liberal mind-set, because it supposedly delivered us from Authority, from the drab, dreary winter of Obedience to Authority, to the high springtime of Freedom, with nothing or no one over us except ourselves. We thought we were getting freedom from any reality above the physical – hence Naturalism. In their giddiness at the prospect of Freedom from any Authiority over them, philosophers did not foresee where the philosophy of Naturalism would lead. In the beginning, we voluntarily embraced this assumption of Naturalism, because it promised glorious Freedom.

Over time, however, what appeared at first to be exhilarating Freedom has led instead to deterministic bondage. It started out small, of course, small as a man’s hand, so that philosophers at the beginning did not realize where the Idea was to lead. When they began dimly to adumbrate what was ahead, they began, like Kant, to gamble and come up with desperate, stop-gap measures. When philosophy reached a dead end, then politics took over and we got The Age of the Woman. That Idea in philosophy that began small has developed into a juggernaut behind all our political institutions. In addition to individual pain, our most basic institutions are crumbling. It is the assumption of Naturalism, transmitted by education on the university level, which inevitably leads to this Age of the Woman reflected in our various institutions, and has very concrete, far-reaching, and devastating consequences on day-to-day living. What appeared at first as ultimate Freedom, has turned out instead to be not only ultimate Bondage, but mounting Pain as well! Behind it all, we must remember, is a voluntary decision.

In contrast to the optimistic beginning, we have been delivered into deterministic bondage of The Age of the Woman. In consequence, the fact that this one root idea, on the philosophical level, is causing our political institutions to crumble is causing such pain about now, on the very physical level of actual living, that we may be ready to hear a rational alternative. It strikes me that language here sounds so … antiseptic! Behind the antiseptic language lurks the gross, harsh reality of a squalid brute on which we never reckoned in that optimistic beginning! Vile language is not only unpleasant but also imprecise; but I hope this necessarily civilized language captures the monster by the time we finish! The reality the language attempts to capture, the reader will discover as he reads, is anything but clean and respectable! I myself am amazed at this: The Age of the Woman, like Hitler’s obscene Holocaust, began with an idea.

Because, in the Thirteenth Century, the decision that led to Naturalism was voluntary and not factually demanded, we can rescind it. This means that instead of submitting meekly to the rape, as to a brute force beyond our power to resist, we can do something about it! The primary preoccupation with secondary causes, such as Liberal bias in institutions such as education, the media, and Hollywood, distracts attention from this root cause of the ideology of Naturalism, and thus probably condemns us to continued failure. By allowing secondary causes to distract us from the root cause, we may have allowed that root problem to develop relatively unchallenged, without its extreme consequences being shown, until it could be too late to do anything significant about it.

THE ACADEMY – PART OF THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION

Why do we not wait for academic historians to sort all this out? For two reasons. First, we do not have time to do that. If we wait for that, the Gulag/Brave New World/l984 will already have closed in. In fact, we may not have time even now, as we shall see in Chapter Three. Throughout the book, we will distinguish between long-range philosophy, in the realm of ideas, and short-range politics, in the realm of actions. One is shocked at how the slightest misstep in the realm of seemingly innocent ideas leads eventually to the most horrific consequences in the realm of politics. That misstep has occurred, one result of which was Stalin’s Gulag. The problem is that a hang-fire exists: the cause of the problem has not been repudiated, but is eating away in the word-work even now.

So, one reason that we cannot wait for help from the academic historians is that we are in the final stages of this horrific problem, which has now grimly and ferociously entered the realm of politics. The philosophic foundation of Naturalism was put in place a long time ago, in the Thirteenth Century. Although having been held back by the opposing world view of Western Civilization, by the l920s the end was near. Intellectuals such as T.S. Eliot and W.B. Yeats were warning us that what had begun so long ago in philosophy had now entered politics. Western society in general had become a Wasteland, T. S. Eliot told us. W. B. Yeats in The Second Coming warned us that we had come to lack a center. In our euphemistic terminology we refer to a lack of community. The result is that now, in a phrase from Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, we are only living and partly living.

Then, in the l960s, there was no longer anything hidden about it. Now we were out of time, as the Idea came to a dead end philosophically, and burst out into the open in politics. In response, basic institutions that I have time to deal with in this book, such as marriage, education, the media, and politics, are crumbling. I get into this in much more detail in Section Two of the book – but over half of marriages now end in divorce, with devastating consequences on families and on this most basic institution of all, marriage; and the 2006 confirmation hearings of Justice Alito to the Supreme Court reveals that the institution of Politics is in the same trouble as Marriage is. As we will see later, so are Education and the Media.

It there is to be a solution in time, therefore, it will come from educated citizens outside academia. Columnist Cal Thomas, in a 4/30/2006 column on the newly-released movie United 93 writes, that the ability to take the initiative without official leadership is a unique character trait of a free people. These [passengers on United Flight # 93] are Americans banding and bonding together in the sudden realization that they are part of an enormous event. There are no politicans leading them, no military officers commanding them. They more than rise to the occasion, they transcend it .... The threat here is not as concrete as that in an airliner on which one is a passenger which is hijacked by 9/11 terrorists; but the stakes are simply ultimate.

The solution will have to begin with people in a democracy being willing, first, to inform themselves. I would urge every college student to know in advance what you are getting into. At a minimum, read Tom Wolfe’s novel, I am Charlotte Simmons and this book. I wish I could have found and read a book like this. Specifically, everybody in education, politics, or religion needs to read it. The bottom line is that this is written for the average, educated citizen.

Second, the other reason we cannot expect help from academia is that it is the source of the problem! If there is to be a solution to the problem I define, it will have to come from educated people in our democracy outside the academy; because the vast majority of students (as I discuss in Chapter One) with whom I went to school unthinkingly absorbed the assumption which they are now trying to inflict on others. We were all infected with the virus, but some of us have been mugged by reality since we left academia, and come out of the ether. Evidence reveals from every angle that the academy itself, however, is in general fatally compromised by this key, monolithic assumption of Naturalism. The appeal must be to Everyman, to those experiencing the pain caused by this liberalism behind The Age of the Woman. We are beginning to pay seriously for the wild joy-ride that began politically in the 1960s. The academy, however, to which we should be able to look for help in our predicament, cannot help with the solution, when they are carriers of the disease.

WHY THIS BOOK HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN

That raises an obvious question: why has this book not already been written? And, come to think of it, why did not the experts warn us of this problem while there was plenty of time? The answer to the first question implies the answer to the second.

Colleges and universities pass on basic assumptions from generation to generation, so that anything that challenges the naturalistic assumption of Liberalism just has to be wrong! It has been that way for decades and longer. Now, however, we have come to a dead-end. Therefore, I and the reader had better be prepared from the outset against ad hominem attacks, as that is the standard Liberal response to those who disagree with them. Any Conservative who disagrees with them is, for example, unintelligent, etc., etc. Not having the needed intellectual firepower to overcome the thinking itself, they attack the person. Many are deterred by this bleak prospect.

Further, liberals and entrenched elitists are enjoying the prestige and benefits of the status quo, refusing to acknowledge that the sinking ship of Western Civilization is granting them the very foundation they depend upon to renounce it. To repeat for emphasis, these facts added together mean that the reader had better be ready and able to think for himself. Liberal attacks are just about guaranteed, because 1) this is not a liberally-oriented or a feel-good book, and 2) the stakes here are high. This will begin with the very first paragraph of Chapter One. Actually, the very title of the book will be provocative to liberals and Feminists who Think!

In addition to the controversial nature of the book, it would be a career-bust for any writer in academia. Before the l960s, some could pretend to believe both world-views; but since then, the split between traditional Western Civilization and Liberalism has become impossibly wide, such that one has had to give way to the other. The western-civilization position has now come to be seen as radical, even heretical, to the status quo advocates on the university level; and that is why it is going to take someone currently outside the academy to write this book. Those from within, I know from experience, are blinded by the status quo and so fearful of the career consequences that they dare not touch the subject.

But here is the strongest reason of all – actual diversity versus the appearance of it. No longer being in the academy, I do not worry much about career implications, but in Chapter One I compare the appearance of diversity versus the real thing that allows one to think outside the box. To write such a book, one must have an independent, The Emperor has No Clothes mentality. I think that my upbringing prepares me with that alien, a stranger from another world, independent mindset. In my nine years as a student, and then in my ten years as a teacher and professor, however, I discovered that what passes for diversity in today’s academia is largely an illusion. The appearances of diversity stay within Naturalistic parameters, with an occasional exception for window-dressing. What happens in Las Vegas stays there? I will do my best to make sure that this pretense of diversity does not stay in academia. I explain this Liberal bias and lack of meaningful diversity in academia, as said, in Chapter One. Because of the scarcity of diversity-that-matters in academia, it is extremely unlikely that someone in that environment would have the requisite mind-set necessary to climb out of the box.

Finally, this has been an extremely hard book to write. Writing an overview in this age of intense specialization which focuses upon the thing as the only objective reality – that makes for a formidable project, indeed! I encroach upon the turfs of many specialists. Extreme danger! I feel as a parachutist must feel, floating slowly to earth, knowing that there are a thousand machine-gun nests below, confidently waiting for him to float down within easy range before they open up. I would vastly prefer to focus on a narrow subject, within which I could solidly nail down each point before going to the next. Then I could