Fundaresentalism (Spengler)

The United States is an intellectual environment like none other in history. No, our icons are not the elite. We Americans proudly worship at the red, white and blue alter of all things average. This is a social genius I don’t think Spengler will ever respect. Here, we establish an achievable benchmark, set at an attainable height. The story doesn’t stop there. When an American separates himself or herself from the herd, it is an internally motivated defection. In Spengler’s world of worship, the respected elites are externally motivated social abnormalities. He looks on individual elites as if they are the benchmark. They cannot be… not for any serious amount of time anyway. I doubt he realizes it, but he’s begging for revolutionary turmoil when he sets individuals on a pedestal.

My estimation is; internally driven intellectual mutations are embraced by societies that worship all things average. That is to say, some Americans drive themselves harder in their individual pursuits than society ever could. Society worshiping them for their advances would ultimately interfere with their righteous cause, whatever it may be. I’ve met more American fanatics than I have of any other group. What’s special about them is that they are fanatic about different things they believe or do. If contained by historical comparison alone, this may appear stupid. If Spengler is correct in his assertion of rampant American stupidity, where did all of the intellectual innovation come from? Is it stupid to expect innovative genius as opposed to worshiping it? Americans do expect and embrace innovation like no other society on the planet. This behavior is stupid? On the contrary, the inverse is true. Americans to not fit on the scale by which Spengler measures us…

A bizarre form of liberal "hate America, blame America".

"If Spengler is correct in his assertion of rampant American stupidity, where did all of the intellectual innovation come from?"

Such as?

Spengler takes those statements of Robinson and Falwell way out of context; mind you, they should do a better job stating the meaning of such things in the first place. This is very difficult to do in a 30 second sound bite which is further edited in the newsroom.

This seems a good opportunity to continue my occasional series, "Why Are Americans So Stupid?"

Personally I'm grateful for an intellectual giant such as Spengler who will set us all straight. This is honestly some of the funniest stuff he's ever written, but he doesn't know that, and that makes it even funnier.

You can, actually, find a wide variety of peawits to quote on the topic of religion but that doesn't mean that all, or even an appreciable number of, Americans buy into their ravings. I would rather have the rich fabric of intellectual life that is offered where nut-cases can thrive than the grim, grey, monotonic political culture that gave rise to an otherwise intelligent fellow such as Spengler who feels compelled to relate a string of painfully trite cliches as received truth.

But it's really perfectly all right, and I'd advise my FRiends to share a laugh at condescension from such a source. In these matters Spengler is unabashedly ignorant, and propounding ignorance from his soapbox pulpit is precisely the sin he accuses the evangelicals of indulging in. He could learn better...but he won't.

humint: where did all of the intellectual innovation come from?"

Nathan Zachary: Such as?

First, my choices are not going to be Spengler's. I lean more toward the technical advances which require an appropriate environment like ours to get off the ground. Second, my comment was not a defense of Robinson or Falwell. Rather, we as Americans do not universally agree on our intellectual talisman. That’s precisely what makes Americans so creative. I assert that our intellectually eclectic nature makes us simultaneously humble and smart. Make note that Spengler is calling Americans stupid through a medium invented and propagated by Americans. Are we as a people not responsible (in part) for Spenger’s successes on Asia Times Online? So what if most users exploit the most powerful tool invented by mankind for exploring such nonsense as porn and or internet gambling? They are blessed with the ability to use it for other, more intellectual things. The genius of the internet is in its potential for greatness. Its potential never matched its general perception derived from its most common exercised functions. I’d say the same thing for American society. To answer your question specifically would take too long. I recomend you look here to find what I would consider intellectual inovation…

Spengler is usually sound, but on this his criticism is actually of the key virtue of American fundamentalism: its adamant, Biblically-based opposition to the worst intellectual trends of the last hundred and fifty years: materialism; atheism; scientism; Darwinism; and Freudianism.

For rank and file American Protestants, Fundamentalism provides a stiffening of resistance to the heresies of the modern world, a resistance that is otherwise lacking in mainline Protestant denominations. The lack of polished intellectual refutations to those trends is unappealing to educated minds like Spengler's and so many others, but the best Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant (and Jewish) theologians provide the necessary supplements for those Fundamentalists seeking them.

In the end, despite the vast differences in temperament and tradition between Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism, on essential issues, they rest on similar core propositions. Fundamentalism has spun out various forms of Creationism that contest modern science to a sometimes ludicrous degree, while Catholic teaching accommodates Evolution without fatal difficulty. Yet the Catholic profession of faith states without equivocation: "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." Take that, Darwin, you bearded atheist.

American Fundamentalism is relatively young as an intellectual and moral force. In the coming decades, it will become more sophisticated as it matures, borrowing and adapting from the best conservative theologians. But I hope American Fundamentalism never abandons its core strength: a potent and sincere faith in the Bible as the revealed Word and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That is essential to Christianity, and keeping the essential clear is at the heart of all worthy things.

There is a well-developed argument that Islam is "a monistic paganism", and that Allah is "the old pagan pantheon rolled up into one", as German Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig wrote some 85 years ago. I reported Rosenzweig's views three years ago in this space. [4] Pope Benedict offered a devastating judgment on Islam's ability to reform, but it was intended only for the ears of his inner circle of students, not for public circulation. [5] A scandal erupted last year over the pope's remarks on Islam to a seminar at his summer residence, as reported by Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, on a Florida radio talk show. My report in this space contributed to the notoriety of the incident. Father Fessio ultimately apologized for making the pope's views public.

I didn't know Fr. Fessio backed off and apologized for offending Islam. But I'm not surprised.

No, our icons are not the elite. We Americans proudly worship at the red, white and blue alter of all things average.

The problems with such pseudo-humility are legion. But just one question: since these middling classes are so complacent, who among them will act on their behalf and challenge the elites who do in fact rule over them?

Our legislators and presidents, not to mention our media, entertainers, and upper-class businessmen, are rarely "just plain folks," though they all invoke the iconography of Joe Average at one time or another. The little guy is an object of their paternalistic benevolence and, let's remember, their disdain.

Those who lecture on the merits of anti-elitism are counseling passivity in the face of predation

The problems with such pseudo-humility are legion. But just one question: since these middling classes are so complacent, who among them will act on their behalf and challenge the elites who do in fact rule over them?

In my humility, I’m anxious to hear what you think the legions of problems with my logic are. Please share them with me. If I were expressing pseudo-humility, I’d be less inclined to read your logical deconstruction of the house of points I’ve built above. Spengler’s assertion that Americans are stupid is easy to refute. Analytically speaking, we see very quickly, the opposite is true. Your loaded question is equally easy to collapse. Before I do that, let’s consider the concept of intelligence. Labeling a society “smart” or “stupid” reveals more about the labeler than the labeled. Consider what the study of Artificial Intelligence suggests. Bloating a neural network with information can retard its function. This is irrefutable evidence that the more we know about something, the dumber we become about that topic. What actually tells us is that any measure of intelligence is subjective. All markers have a scale and every scale has a context. Spengler’s context is demonstratively subjective. Here are graphs that disprove Spengler’s claim.

The large number of citations per U.S. patent held by U.S. nationals in all areas of technologies indicates that the United States produces higher quality innovations. Quality indices also confirm this. Figures 13a–g plot the quality index of patents across all technologies for G–7 countries. They show time trends for average patent quality. Undisputedly, average patent quality for the United States is superior to that of any other G–7 country and has improved over time across all technologies. On average, for all G–7 European countries and Japan, the quality of patents has declined in most industries, except for the U.K. computer and communications industries. The quality of patents in the United Kingdom's computer and communications industry group has increased starting in the 1990s, but registered a decline since 1998. In general, except for the computer and communications industry group, Canada has upgraded the quality of its patents throughout the study period. While the overall quality of Canadian patents displays an upward trend over that period, it has been falling since 1998 across all industry groups, except chemical and other industries. Nevertheless, unlike Japan and all European G–7 nations, Canada has maintained an above average patent quality in each industry group, but has walked behind the United States at a declining pace. The following graphs are for Computer, Electrical, Mechanical and Other - Industries.

Now I’ll consider your points. First, Americans are not complacent. Second, the suggestion that an elite American should act on behalf of other Americans totally contradicts my major premise. American society is intellectually decentralized. Decentralization with a core awareness and respect for “average” is precisely why American society can do what none other before it has done. And finally, Americans do not rule, they manage. You could argue that in the days of slavery, Southerners in America had imperial designs, but those days are long gone. Average Americans with values we hold sacrosanct today, rose up. For a brief moment they intellectually aligned themselves to thwart a clear and present threat. They did so to preserve government for the people, by the people. Americans would intellectually align again to face fascism in WWII. I believe American society will have to align again to face down Islamic Fascism in this recent war, the Global War on Terror. If we as a people do not intellectually align, we may indeed lose this war. Once the terror threat is destroyed, if it can be, Americans will again decentralize and aggressively pursue their individual passions.

Spengler is an antagonist. He’s always provocative. This time he’s wrong.

INTELLIGENCE

capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
the faculty of understanding.
knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
Government.
information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
(often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.

Personally I think you're swatting a fly with a sledge-hammer here. But have at it!

There is a wonderful dynamic tension between foreign "observers" such as Spengler (who actually aren't observing so much as repeating stories that everyone in his circle believes) convinced that America is in the iron grip of evangelical theocracy, and the number of FReepers equally convinced (and not without reason) that America's real problem is an aggressive secularism seeking to root out religion from public life. There is a rather wide spectrum between these two poles inside of which the truth about the country resides. It is a moving target, yes, but it actually exists at neither of these extremes.

To do him justice, I don't think Spengler's case is really that Americans are deficient in cerebral attainment, as the last bit of his piece reluctantly admits. But underlying that case is the assumption, shared by so many of a supposedly enlightened, purportedly intellectual elite, that one must agree with him in matters theological in order to be considered intelligent. That is not the mark of an open mind. IMHO, of course.

If Spengler is correct in his assertion of rampant American stupidity, where did all of the intellectual innovation come from? Is it stupid to expect innovative genius as opposed to worshiping it? Americans do expect and embrace innovation like no other society on the planet. This behavior is stupid?

Insightful comment. More incisive than Spengler's, for sure.

Consider all the climax inventions (or innovations) -- the ones that changed not just the USA, but the world:

1. The telephone
2. The electric light bulb
3. The mass-production automobile.
4. Vulcanized rubber
5. Telegraphy
6. Wireless radio
7. The rotary drill bit
8. The harvester
9. The cotton gin
10. Television
11. The computer
12. Atomic energy

That's a quick list off the top of my head.

Perhaps all of these things were not technically "invented" solely and specifically in the USA, but they were certainly brought to fruition in the USA -- with the free market playing a major role (another vital creation, by the way, of American intellect).

And there can be no doubt that all of them have changed the world, making the lives of people everywhere a little bit better.

I would ask Spengler, "In the same time span, what has Belgium done?"

Actually, the author's description of "fundaresentalism" fits Islamic Fundamentalists rather well.

Spengler is a fantastic writer, but he is ignorant of a few things. He seems to lump Mormonism into mainstream evangelicalism. If he knew evangelicals well, he would know that that few, if any, claim Mormonism as fellow brethren in Christ. He also does not mention that, until the end of the 19th century, virtually all Christians took the Bible literally. It was the intellectually defended position.

Thank you for your very interesting analysis.

"But I hope American Fundamentalism never abandons its core strength: a potent and sincere faith in the Bible as the revealed Word and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."

& the fact that Jesus Christ as the Son of God rose from the dead.

the apostle Paul speaking in 1st Corinthians chapter 15:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

& Acts chapter 17:

30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

This is irrefutable evidence that the more we know about something, the dumber we become about that topic. What actually tells us is that any measure of intelligence is subjective. All markers have a scale and every scale has a context. Spengler’s context is demonstratively subjective. Here are graphs that disprove Spengler’s claim.

You're talking past Spengler. Spengler's approach is qualitative, yours is quantitative. The idea that quality is inherently subjective, and thus can be dismissed without consequence, is a manifestation of the blinded middling mind. Think in terms not of science, which is fine in its own right, but of culture and history, which is the stomping-ground of politics. I'll grant quantitative analysis of information bottlenecks works for quantitative fields, like economic efficiency, but for setting a criterion of the "good society," it is generally the wrong way of looking at things.

And finally, Americans do not rule, they manage

Do managers send their employees into war? Is a vote a managerial task, or an act of sovereignty? The Manager is but one aspect of the sovereign, not the full aspect.

With the benefit of a fine education at name brand universities, and many years of experience in life, I have come to recognize that the most extraordinary thing in the world is the truth of Christianity. It happened, and is, just as the New Testament says.

You're talking past Spengler. Spengler's approach is qualitative, yours is quantitative.

I am talking past Spengler because my approach is both qualitative and quantitative. His approach is singularly qualitative however he isolates a specific group of Americans and then broadly labels all Americans "stupid". Whenever a brilliant mind like Spengler's suggests someone or something is stupid, I'm surprised. Brilliant minds rarely dedicate much attention to subjects they consider stupid.

Personally, I find the study of intelligence fascinating. I've long considered the collective intelligence of American society brighter than any other in history. There is a wealth of data to support my hypothesis. If you're not convinced by a genuine measure of a society's intelligence in the form of patent analysis, I'm doubtful you're interested in a serious discussion. In any case, I recomend that you seriously consider the science of intelligence before joining those who make broad assertions of social stupidity.