Of course they do, Buckhead! As you correctly note, "They are the churches, private schools, and voluntary personal and civic associations that fill the interstices of community life." They care for the needy, give a helping hand "up" to persons who are "down"; they try to help those who are helpless and in despair (e.g., the Salvation Army) — folks the federal government could not care a whit about.
If I'm hearing him right, what Whittle is saying is that the "third great revolution" of the human race — the Information Revolution, and specifically the Internet — provides a means for people to organize across communities in order to achieve goals they desire that the federal government is no longer interested in achieving, or is incompetent to achieve.
The beauty of the Internet is that it doesn't matter where you live; the Internet erases all constraints of physical distance between like-minded folks.
Whittle gives two prime examples of goals the government has either walked away from, or is not in a position to achieve, that NEW types of parallel organizations could achieve, PRIVATELY: (1) the space program; and (2) quality (read: non-publicly funded) education.
I am a life-long lover and supporter of the space program. But now NASA seemingly has been retasked to stroking the vanities of people who want to kill us, and our civilization. Not much new intellectual capital is created under such conditions, to put it mildly.
We already know public education is designed to make young people stupid and ignorant, incapable of exercising their constitutional role as rational citizens in a constitutional republic. Public schools are only interested in turning out future taxpayers, by training students up in "job skills" so that they might one day be gainfully employed, and subsequently fleeced to feed the insatiable maw of an overweening, illegitimate government. Period.
But who in his right mind would want to feed this beast, whose proper name is LEVIATHAN???
Hey, I'm open to new ideas.
You wrote "I’m not quite sure how the Rather episode fits into the argument either." Well, I was simply impressed by the fact that an "obscure" individual could smell a rat, investigate a claim of an elite media type, and show it to be untruthful (to say the least) — and then be able to disseminate the correction to the world, via the Internet. I score it this way: Truth, 1; and the elite, thoroughly corrupt media, 0. Thank you from my heart, Buckhead!
We live in a lying culture, where truth-tellers are scarce.... Personally, I honor and esteem truth-tellers. It seems to me they are the only persons who keep our civilization afloat these days.
I agree that the "old media" are on the brink of collapse, simply because Internet communications are ever so much more economical, with universal reach. The Internet overcomes the limitations of "locality."
You wrote, "Weakening the enemy is certainly part of the strategy, but they’ll never be finished off. The inculcation of virtue is a continuous struggle between the forces of good and not so good that will never end. Entropy is only staved off by work."
Well, of course the inculcation of virtue is "a continuous struggle...." Or at least it used to be, when people had some appreciation of what "virtue" and (heaven forfend!) "Truth" actually mean.
But today, post-election, does it seem at all likely to you that the people who returned to office the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States for a second term have even a clue about what virtue and Truth actually mean???
You and I have both been around here since early 1998, but I don't recall we have ever directly communicated before. So probably neither of us knows where the other "is coming from."
So let me just say that I was troubled by this statement: "The inculcation of virtue is a continuous struggle between the forces of good and not so good that will never end."
I agree that the inculcation of virtue is a prime concern, believing that, in the long run, the survival and well-being of human beings absolutely depends on it.
But what are these weasel words: "the forces of good and not so good?"
What is this business, this "not so good?" Can you not say the word, EVIL???
"Good" is not opposed to "not so good." Good is opposed to Evil. Why can't we use that word???
If people are squeamish about "calling a spade, a spade" like this, eschewing to use the proper word, then how can anybody have a good-faith conversation about the forces that are tearing our society apart?
BTW, I certainly agree with this statement: "Entropy is only staved off by work."
So, how do we "get to work," do you think?
I'll stop for now.
Thank you for your kind words, dear Buckhead. Truly, joanie-f is an exceptionally fine thinker and writer, and I feel blessed to call her my friend.
I do not need an assurance or probability of success to participate in our right cause. The work is satisfying enough. So, as long as God is willing, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with all of you - waking people up, reminding them, warning them, informing them.
As Travis said in his letter from the Alamo: I shall never surrender or retreat.
On the inculcation of virtue and the good v. not so good, I had in mind the struggle between secular and clerical education and inculcation of virtue in the young. The clerical v. secular struggle is more formalized in French history than our own, see, e.g. Auguste Comte’s Catechism of Positive Religion, http://books.google.com/books/about/The_catechism_of_positive_religion.html?id=FaMNAAAAYAAJ. Nevertheless, it has echoes in our own history from the earliest days into John Dewey, the birth of the public school movement, the Blaine Amendment, the mini-Blaine Amendments in the states, and the contemporary fight over school vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, etc. I used the phrase “not good” w/r/t the secularists because even though I think they are wrong and that a lot bad, bad things have ensued from their efforts, I credit their good intentions. Perhaps that is too generous, but that is what I had in mind.
Best,