Paul Joseph Watson on the Truth about Popular Culture

Warning: the following video contains graphic and obscene images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLUIXWnrC0

Related--on the truth about popular music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI

Repost: "Saving the 'Benedict Option' from Culture War Conservatism"

[...] There is a sense among many conservatives that the Benedict Option is really just a more sophisticated “I’m moving to Canada” lament by those who lost the Culture War. But is this white-flag-waving, defeat-and-retreat “Benedict Option” the same vision we find in the final pages of After Virtue? Or is it—as several interlocutors at Dreher’s blog have begun questioning—a repeat of the “take to the woods” strategy of American Protestant fundamentalism in the early 20th century?

There’s good reason to believe that the popularized Benedict Option diverges from MacIntyre’s understanding in several crucial ways. Take, for instance, the basic timeline. MacIntyre sees our condition as the result of many centuries of development in moral and political thought, while those advocating the popular version pinpoint the origins of the decline within the last decade—in the post-Bush American political landscape. Such a hasty adoption of this “civilizational collapse” mentality should raise several concerns, most centrally whether such culture-despairers might—given the right set of platitude-spouting political candidates in the next election cycle—find themselves drawn back to the seductive hopes of “imperium maintenance.”

A proper understanding of MacIntyre’s larger argument can save After Virtue’s Benedict Option from being reduced to conservative Culture War retreatism. While After Virtue‘s conclusion may stand out for its “Dark Ages” imagery and grim diagnosis, MacIntyre’s body of work reveals a consistent predilection for particular localized forms of shared moral life. This is often confused with contemporary conservatism or communitarianism, two traditions from which he distances himself. Understanding his vision of localized communities requires also a broader engagement with his ongoing interactions with Marxism, his criticism of contemporary communitarianism, and his more recent political thought in the 2011 volume Virtue and Politics.

Briefly stitching together this vision allows us to see that some Benedict Option advocates have diverged from MacIntyre in three crucial ways: conflating contemporary electoral gains and losses with centuries-long conditions of modern culture; endorsing a form of “conservatism liberalism” denounced by MacIntyre; and falsely creating an either/or of engagement and withdrawal efforts that misses the “radical localist” push of MacIntyre’s political project. Briefly exploring each of these points supports a clearer evaluation of how MacIntyre’s work might serve the particular needs of our current political and moral predicament.

[...] Yet neither the growth of the Christian Right nor the rise of Reagan-Thatcher neoliberal economics would do anything to offset MacIntyre’s dark assessment of the “barbarians governing us,” which he reaffirms in the two editions and the 2007 prologue published subsequently. His uninterest in either 2004 presidential candidate confirms the conflict. MacIntyre’s focus has consistently been on sustaining “practice-based communities” amidst cultural conditions that transcend court rulings, electoral cycles, and partisan gains and losses.

Secondly, MacIntyre’s Benedict Option is not a blueprint for piecing together utopian societies built around the modern conservative agenda. He explicitly distances his work from the contemporary “conservative moralist” who imports his “inflated and self-righteous unironic rhetoric” to a set role established for him among the ruling liberal elite. Much of modern social conservatism envisions shoring up particular values—whether personal, patriotic, or sacred—through means of the modern liberal state, displaying a confidence in the modern state not shared by MacIntyre.

What popular Benedict Option accounts also leave out is MacIntyre’s critical view of certain economic configurations in advanced capitalism that are equally culpable for producing our current moral condition. Though MacIntyre left behind organized Marxism over fifty years ago, his work still takes seriously the interrelationship between economic systems and flourishing moral culture. Modern conservatism often fails to connect the two. Contemporary Benedict Option advocates could recover this interrelationship by turning to the careful empirical work of several sociologists attuned to the moral consequences of neoliberal capitalism: thinkers such as Richard Sennett, William Julius Wilson, and even Christian Smith’s wider contextualization of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a frequent subject of Dreher’s work. Such work reinserts into this discussion an examination of economic configurations compatible and incompatible with the pursuit of particular forms of flourishing.

Finally, MacIntyre’s wider work envisions thick moral communities that are as revolutionary as they are retreatist, and that encompass both inward-facing and outward-facing virtues and practices. In Dependent Rational Animals MacIntyre develops from Aquinas the virtue of just generosity, a form of solidarity that extends to those with needs outside one’s immediate community. This openness to and concern for the outsider reflects the practices of Benedictine monasteries themselves.

[...] Such activities work within the niches and cracks of existing structures to build alternative practices and social relations that resist dominant cultural norms—what Erik Olin Wright labels “interstitial” strategies of transformation.

[...] Both MacIntyre and Wright argue that such efforts—in forming people’s imaginations counter to the dominant culture while still spatially located within it—can lay necessary groundwork for wider social transformation.

We are at a time when a growing number of observers have recognized the prevailing political structures are unable to produce particular moral results, whether greater economic justice, a non-racialized policing and justice system, decisive environmental policy, or the preservation of privacy rights. MacIntyre’s work, saved from a retreatist Culture War conservatism, can speak to a variety of efforts and traditions that seek ends of justice and flourishing that counter the dominant social order. [...]

---

Source: Andrew Lynn, "Saving the 'Benedict Option' from Culture War Conservatism," Ethika Politika blog, June 4, 2015, accessed June 12, 2015, http://ethikapolitika.org/2015/06/04/saving-the-benedict-option-from-culture-war-conservatism/.

Repost: "Dogmatism Rightly Understood"

[...] Lewis’s elegant critique of the consequences of what we’ve come to call, somewhat oversimply, “relativism” culminates in this ringing sentence:

“A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not a tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”

One the surface this statement might seem contradictory, if not in a sense shocking.  Why dogmatic?  If moral truths have an objective basis in reason (that is, natural law), why any need for dogmatism?
To give an answer to that question, let’s turn for a moment to a similar “dogmatic” declaration from the canon: Leo Strauss’s remark in his essay “Liberal Education and Responsibility” that “wisdom requires unhesitating loyalty to a decent constitution and even to the cause of constitutionalism.”  So it’s loyalty oaths and dogmatism?

Explaining the reasons why these two seemingly shocking statements are not shocking at all but highly necessary in our time could require a whole book (or a semester in the classroom), though a short version might be found, oddly enough, in an unlikely place: Federalist Paper #31, which is ostensibly just about the taxing power.  But Number 31 begins with a long preface of moral philosophy that boils down to this central point: the objective basis of moral truth is like proofs in geometry: they are grasped intuitively by “antecedent evidence” in Hamilton’s words, and if someone “doesn’t get it,” no amount of rational argument can establish the existence of moral truths.  “Where it produces not this effect,” Hamilton writes, “it must proceed either from some defect or disorder in the organs of perception, or from the influence of some strong interest, passion, or prejudice.” Today the “strong interest, passion, and prejudice” of the liberal mind is the unlimited autonomy or will of the Self, which cannot abide any constraint rooted in human nature. It is but a step from this unarticulated premise to a philosophy of unlimited government.

The trick of democratic politics, Federalist #51 explained, was enabling the government to be powerful enough to control the governed, but able to control (or limit) itself—that is, not so powerful that it threatens the natural rights of the people.  For liberals, rights today aren’t based in nature, but on will: anything you want becomes a “right” that government must secure by taxing and/or coercing your fellow citizens. It is a formula for tyranny; just ask Christian-owned bakeries right now. This is why Lewis says belief in objective value is necessary; the need for it to be “dogmatic” arises from the corruption of the liberal mind that more and more often today rejects reason and objectivity tout court. Against this highly trained incapacity to think, dogmatism is necessary, lest civilization itself slip inexorably away beneath the waves of nihilism.

Likewise in the second half of Lewis’s sentence, the idea of objective value is the only basis on which to answer the first question of political obligation: why should you obey the law? Post-modern liberals cannot answer the “why” of this question, and openly say that law is based only on force. Most of the time I am tempted to respond by saying: “Fine—how many of you are members of the NRA?” That’s how I let my dogma run over their (smart)-karma.

---

Source: Steven Hayward, "Dogmatism Rightly Understood," Powerline blog, May 1, 2015, accessed May 30, 2015, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/dogmatism-rightly-understood.php.

Repost: "Marriage, a History"

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.

Antiquity-Renaissance

What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.

Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.

Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.

6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.

12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

16th-century Europe: Love's a bore—Any man in love with his wife must be so dull that no one else could love him, writes the French essayist Montaigne.

1600s-Victorian Era

It's a family affair: Married love gains currency, but for intimacy and passion, people still turn to family, lovers and friends.

1690s U.S.: Virginia wasn't always for lovers—Passionate love between husband and wife is considered unseemly: One Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as "more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows." Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.

18th-century Europe: Love gains ground—In England and in the salons of Enlightenment thinkers, married love is gaining credibility. Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner.

1840, England: Virgin lace—Queen Victoria starts a trend by wearing virginal white, instead of the traditional jeweled wedding gown. Historically thought of as the lustier sex, women are now considered chaste and pure. As a result, many men find it easier to have sex with prostitutes than with their virtuous wives.

Mid 19th-century U.S.: Honeymoon suite for three—Honeymoons replace the older custom of "bridal tours," in which the newly married couple travel after the wedding to visit family who could not attend the ceremony. Even so, many brides bring girlfriends with them on their honeymoons.

20th Century-Today

We worship the couple. Intimacy shrinks to encompass just two, and love becomes the only reason for marriage.

1920s U.S.: How Saturday night began—Dating is the new craze—in restaurants and cars, away from the oversight of family. Popular culture embraces sex, but critics fear that marriage is on the rocks.

1950s U.S.: Marriage is mandatory—Marriage becomes almost universal, and the nuclear family is triumphant: Four out of five people surveyed in 1957 believe that preferring to remain single is "sick," "neurotic" or "immoral."

1970s U.S.: All you need is love?—Self-sufficient women and changing social rules mean marriage is no longer obligatory. Quarreling couples split up rather than make do, and the divorce rate skyrockets.

Today: Bride pride—Marriage is the ultimate expression of love, leading gays and lesbians to seek the right to marry, but also encouraging couples to cohabit until they're sure about their "soul mate." Marriage rates fall—but the fantasy of the perfect wedding is ubiquitous.

Based on research from Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.

---

Source: PT Staff, "Marriage, a History," Psychology Today, May 1, 2005, accessed May 28, 2015, https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history.

The (Individual) in the Post-Christian, Celebrity Culture

­The Individual in the Post-Christian, Celebrity Culture

Originally published under "Anonymous" in Charter: Gonzaga University’s Journal of Scholarship and Opinion. No. 1 (Spring 2012): 19-24.

I have a close friend who lives in Canada, who was studying to become a music professor. A year ago his father, who worked in South Korea, disappeared without a trace. The mother hired private investigators to search for the missing father but in vain. My friend had to withdraw from his university to help his mother pay the bills. I don’t know how this crisis will turn out, but it raises the interesting questions that particularly press the modern, technological age, steeped in the celebrity culture: how do visible people become suddenly invisible, and how do invisible people become suddenly visible?

I want to look broadly at that question of visibility, invisibility and relate it to what may be called an authentic life of Christian spirituality. Perhaps one may smirk at that quaint phrase, “authentic life of Christian spirituality,” for the concept seems strangely alien. Even in a place like Marin county, Latinos waiting on sidewalks for work is not so alien; it’s what I have grown up seeing, at least. Rather, an authentic life of Christian spirituality strikes us as alien because as Arthur W. Hunt III noted, “The Christian conscience is fast fading.”[1]

The Christian worldview is fast receding, disappearing like the distant echo of a dark and overbearing past. What is replacing it? When Saints today seem seriously doubtful,[2] what gives color to an otherwise mundane life? Jim Carrey, on his regularly-updated Twitter page, put it pithily: “If future historians look bck 2 the blogs of our day 4 reference material it'll be a piss poor account of who we r. Or is that who we r ?;^\”[3] Or as Adorno and Horkheimer put it in the Dialectic of Enlightenment:

Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours [sic] the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it.[4]

That is, our culture would not exist without the “our.” We have produced this culture of superficiality,[5] sexism,[6] and materialist consumerism,[7] this culture that the intellectuals complain about (and the corresponding politicians who promise to do something about it but in fact are just as caught up in it as anyone else[8]), this culture in which every daily event of our lives becomes necessary and useless by oodles of social networking,[9] this culture in which we communicate everything and nothing at once, this culture that, for the sake of profit, abandons the so-called humanitarian values and rights that it supposedly champions,[10] this culture that we participate in to startling degrees, on the one hand criticizing its obvious vanity, but on the other hand participating (zealously) in it without a second’s thought. This situation is our reality, and to that extent it must be understood in order (if one wishes) to transcend it.

Francis Schaeffer, the Christian philosopher, predicted, “When the memory of the Christian consensus which gave us freedom within the biblical form is increasingly forgotten, a manipulating authoritarianism will tend to fill the vacuum.”[11] Politically, one may say that this authoritarianism has taken the form of the modern, secular state. Acknowledging truth to that claim, I wish, however, to go deeper, to the psycho-spiritual level. It’s easy to write about a feeling of mass existential aimlessness when one has had little-to-no direct experience with the hopelessness that suffocates the suicidal’s psyche. When one faces that very real question, “What is my purpose, if I have any at all?”—that question that brings us face-to-face with death—then one suddenly sees the mass illusion that constitutes our modern world, especially the celebrity phenomenon.[12] It is, as Carl Raschke observed, “a collective form of transference.”[13] It is a symptom that expresses itself through a fantasy mechanism, where “[f]antasy designates our ‘impossible’ relationship to the person or thing that we most desire.”[14] Hunt stated it this way: “We pour our own meaning into them [media/electronic images] and receive that meaning back,” and “The image exalts itself not only against words but ultimately against the transcendent Word (Logos)” (emphasis original).[15] Jacques Lacan put this dichotomy between seeing and hearing in this way:

The root of the scopic drive is to be found entirely in the subject, in the fact that the subject sees himself […] in his sexual member [….] Whereas making oneself seen is indicated by an arrow that really comes back towards the subject, making oneself heard goes towards the other.[16]

It is the authoritarianism of the narcissistic fantasy, the domination of ego in a world of atomic meaninglessness, the desperate projection of a “unique” mind where only matter is to be found, to be grasped fleetingly, like the latest intrigue or hit song, a jumble of stuff (meaning?) reducible to…. With the displacement of God, the fundamental fantasy of society becomes focused on the celebrity, promising what cannot be fulfilled, brokenness deified, a repetition through symptoms of that existential aimlessness, passed down in a way described so disconcertingly by Philip Larkin in his 1971 poem “This Be The Verse.”

This is the radical question: how can a human being with real, unique dignity disappear or appear so easily and inconsequentially in a world that raises the self to divine heights, that pursues the celebrity status with such desperate vigor? How can one so simply flicker out like a small star disappearing forever in the vast cosmos? I’m not so much asking how this phenomenon is actually possible but rather drawing attention to the shocking fact that it is happening. Consider the photograph collection of Belgian photographer Mishka Henner called No Man’s Land. Putting together a series of photographs through Google Map’s “Street View,” Henner stumbled upon, all across Europe, images of various lonely women by the roadsides… These women are prostitutes, victims of the European sex trade, utterly exposed all day and stripped of their womanhood and any decent dress, their stories unknown, untold, captured by the automatic recording process of the ubiquitous Google street cars.[17] Their faces, as with all faces in the Street View, have been eerily blurred out, further emphasizing their total isolation and anonymity. This phenomenon is possible with and because of our celebrity culture, which imprints its totalitarian stamp on everything[18] and leaves everything else—i.e. whatever is actually valuable but deemed otherwise by the culture machine—“to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.”[19] The culture that emphasizes the pursuit of fame on a global scale inevitably will and has in fact created and unconsciously (if not consciously) encouraged an entire underworld of hellish slavery, a sub-culture symptomatic of modernity’s gluttonous hedonism and so-called progress. This sub-culture hides behind a very thin veil, and anyone who has eyes to see will indeed see the horrors produced, as a “by-product” (or in other words, as a “waste product”), by this celebrity culture of ours.

Now, obviously the basic cynical response is: “Dude, that’s the world. That’s life. It just happens.” I’m perfectly aware of this type of answer, but obviously that sort of answer is itself a symptom of the terse puerility of the culture machine and lazily encourages the vitality and “virility” of this impotent social state of affairs.[20] It’s the same sort of answer that regards a “facile” musical like Jesus Christ Superstar as “plain-and-simple entertainment,” but the insightful critic, whether approaching the celebrity culture from a political, economic, or psychological angle, never takes the output of the establishment at face value. The self-referential—“joking”—hypocrisy of The Simpsons and the satire of South Park are, similarly, mere cogs that keep the culture machine running while maintaining the passing smug satisfaction of the cynical masses who never go past the superficial.

Even though one must live in the world, there are several ways to be not of it. Perhaps the most repugnant solution to the modern person, even among those who desire to transcend materialist culture, is the authentic life of Christian spirituality mentioned above. Karl Löwith, summarizing Jacob Burckhardt’s view on modern Christianity, wrote,

Primitive and genuine Christianity stands in complete contrast to the standards of the world. […] “The humble surrender of self and the parable of the right and the left cheek are no longer popular.” People want to maintain their social sphere and respectability; they have to work and to make money; hence they cannot but allow the world to interfere in many ways with their traditional religion. “In short, for all their religiosity, people are not disposed to renounce the advantages and benefits of modern culture.[21]

Nietzsche famously had this to say:

You [Christians], however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our [atheists] objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book. (s.98)[22]

And Marx wrote this:

Does not every moment of your practical life give the lie to your religious theory? Do you think it is unjust to appeal to the courts if somebody cheats you? But the apostle says it is wrong. Do you offer your right cheek if somebody slaps your left cheek, or would you rather start a lawsuit? But the gospels forbid it. Do you not […] grumble about the slightest increase of taxes and become excited at the smallest violation of personal liberty? But it is said unto you that the sufferings of this saeculum do not matter in comparison with the future glory.[23]

Indeed, to any moderately perceptive person, the fact that many so-called “pious” Christians seem to have no grasp of true love is as obvious as the sun that shines. The lukewarm, inauthentic Christian, the “modern Christian” who has lost all conception of the eschaton and the existence of objective good and evil, will either experience true conversion or disappear, according to the terrible prophesy of the Jesuit Karl Rahner: “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all.”[24] The Christian conscience, or consciousness, is fast fading, but I propose that it is the development of this consciousness in a person’s psyche that would allow them to transcend the celebrity culture.

The Christian response to the allurements of celebrity culture is quite simple:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live for ever [sic].[25]

St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “But we urge you, beloved, […] to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, […] so that you may behave properly towards outsiders and be dependent on no one,”[26] The authentic Christian life is a quiet one, a humble one. In the eyes of the world, the Christian life is boring; that’s why the Romans made a sport out of killing Christians—it turned Christianity into something exciting.

The constant testimony of the mystics was something like this: I experienced a love in my heart so profound that I thought it would burst. This experience was deemed more valuable than anything else even their very lives. The mystics and martyrs bore witness to this same spiritual reality: it towers above the physical.[27] It is the tough work of mysticism that Christians, and all others, shy away from. They sense its power, its reality, and they are afraid. They balk, gawk, snicker, and cry out, “I can’t do that! That’s stupid. I’ll die if I give up [frivolous entertainments, such as certain TV shows, movies, sports, games, gambling, radio, or secular music, sweets and junk foods, soda, sexual promiscuity, coffee, Facebook and other useless forms of social networking, tobacco, habitual alcohol use, drug use, immodest dress, body piercings, useless reading, such as certain magazines, books, and newspapers not necessary for professional purposes, etc.]. Besides, that all sounds like Dark Age Puritanism!”—as if the accusation of Puritanism somehow reduced real spirituality to something confront-able and hence dismissible.[28] And that’s the point: genuine Christianity is uncomfortable; it dis-comforts. It dis-lodges our common perceptions and assumptions.[29] Forget about magick! Real Christianity is dynamite! Nietzsche mentioned the human tendency to spiritual inertia when he remarked,

At bottom, every human being knows very well that he is in this world just once, as something unique, and that no accident, however strange, will throw together a second time into a unity such a curious and diffuse plurality: he knows it, but hides it like a bad conscience why? From fear of his neighbour [sic] who insists on convention and veils himself with it. […] The human being who does not wish to belong to the mass must merely cease being comfortable with himself.[30]

C.S. Lewis also pointed out the awesome quality of authentic Christianity in a stirring passage on the nature of God from his book Miracles:

It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘it’s alive’. And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back—and I would have done so myself if I could—and proceed no further with Christianity. An ‘impersonal God’—well and good. […] A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap—best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband—that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? […] Supposing we really found [God]? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?[31]

The authentic Christian, who has found herself in God, seeks to disappear while helping everyone around her to find themselves amidst this mass of aimlessness. She no longer needs nor craves to be seen by you or anyone, for she is seen and loved infinitely by God. The authentic Christian’s presence is felt everywhere, yet she is oddly nowhere, just like Christ. The joy radiating from her smile lingers in an empty room somehow, and it affects those present even though she is gone. Her view of the world is refreshing and piercing yet never cynical because it is full of love for those caught up in that world. However, to achieve this sort of spiritual radiance, a transformation so radical must occur that to describe it here would be impossible. All I can say is a short prayer given to me by someone who I believe is an authentic Christian: “Without the grace of your love, Lord, I would have been swept away in the wickedness of this world.” Amen.

---

[1] Arthur W. Hunt III, “The Image,” Christian Research Journal 25, no. 3 (2003), http://www.equip.org/articles/the-image (accessed Nov. 26, 2011).

[2] MsAntitheist, “Mother Fucking Teresa was definitely NOT A SAINT!” YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8A0VsgeuY (accessed Nov. 27, 2011).

[3] Jim Carrey, “Twitter entry for October 5, 2011,” Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/JIMCARREY (accessed Nov. 25, 2011). Regarding the emoticon ?;^\, Carrey explains, “?;^} The question mark represents my hair, my natural curiosity, and my desire to be a curiosity ?B^•” (Twitter entry for October 26, 2011).

[4] Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. Simon During (New York, NY: Routledge, 1999), 33.

[5] Cf. Lucas Cruikshank, “Fred’s YouTube Channel,” YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/user/Fred (accessed Nov. 28, 2011).

[6] Cf. Lisa Belkin, “After Class, Skimpy Equality,” The New York Times, Aug. 26, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/fashion/after-class-skimpy-equality-motherlode.html; cf. also a response to Belkin’s article: Jillian, “Response to After Class: Skimpy Equality. So…what is being taught?” Words of Wisdom from Worldly Young Women, http://ctywlp.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/response-to-after-class-skimpy-equality-so-what-is-being-taught/.

[7] Cf. the endless Black Friday horror stories that the media publishes; e.g. “Black Friday Shoppers Pepper-Sprayed in Calif.,” CBS News, Nov. 25, 2011,  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57331160/black-friday-shoppers-pepper-sprayed-in-calif/ (accessed 28 Nov. 2011).

[8] The most notorious example in our time is perhaps Silvio Berlusconi. Cf. John Hooper, “Silvio Berlusconi: A Story of Unfulfilled Promises,” The Guardian, Nov. 13, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/silvio-berlusconi-story-unfulfilled-promises; cf. also “Profile: Silvio Berlusconi, Ex-Italian Prime Minister,” BBC News Europe, Nov. 12, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11981754.

[9] I.e. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, blogs, vlogs, etc.

[10] E.g. Dove, which a few years ago promoted developing awareness of the negative and oppressive effects of the beauty culture on growing women, and Lynx/Axe, which is notorious for its commercials that promote gender-typing and sexism, are both owned by Unilever. The Dove campaign was, of course, launched in response to criticism towards the Axe commercials, but to me it seems that the entire affair is profit driven regardless of what Unilever says. Even the non-profit Foundation for a Better Life is suspect since it received funding from Philip Anschutz (cf. the Forbes profile of Anschutz: http://www.forbes.com/profile/philip-anschutz/), whose other financial investments are not so philanthropic.

[11] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 23.

[12] Regarding the fact that up until the advent of modernity every Westerner regularly thought about the reality of death—“memento mori”—and whether the individual’s soul was ready to face God, I think a very applicable painting to today’s situation would be Hans Holbein’s The Ambassadors. Spend some time looking at the painting yourself without reading an analysis of it. See if you can find the two peculiar oddities that stand out among the wealth of the ambassadors depicted.

[13] Tom Ryan and Carl Raschke, “On Cultural Neuroses, Primal Screams, and the Psychology of Celebrity: An Interview with Carl Raschke,” The Other Journal, Jan. 25, 2011, http://theotherjournal.com/2011/01/25/1071/.

[14] Andrew Houston, “Views and Reviews: Celebrity as Fantasy Screen,” Canadian Theatre Review 141 (Jan. 2010), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_theatre_review/v141/141.141.houston.html (accessed Nov. 28, 2011).

[15] Hunt, “The Image.”

[16] Jacques Lacan, “The Partial Drive and its Circuit” and “From Love to the Libido” in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981), 194–195.

[17] Mishka Henner, No Man’s Land, Apr. 22, 2011, Mishka Henner / Works website, http://mishka.lockandhenner.com/blog/?p=644 (accessed Nov. 28, 2011). Cf. also Marco Bohr, “Google Street View and the Politics of Exploitation,” Visual Culture Blog, http://visualcultureblog.com/2011/10/google-street-view-and-the-politics-of-exploitation/; and Jesus Diaz, “Murder Captured by Google Street View Car,” Gizmodo, http://gizmodo.com/5656497/murder-captured-by-google-street-view-car (accessed Nov. 30, 2011).

[18] Consider all the young women, especially those who are anorexic or bulimic, who struggle tragically against each other and society because of the demands of the beauty industry.

[19] Adorno and Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” 32.

[20] Fantastic examples of this attitude are related to and encouraged by, for example, the Jackass reality show with accompanying movies or Borat: Cultural Learnings [etc.]; cf. Adorno and Horkheimer’s insightful comment here: “The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed” (Adorno and Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” 32).

[21] Karl Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1949), 29-30.

[22] Friedrich Nietzsche, Assorted Opinions and Maxims, trans. R.J. Hollingdale, http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html (accessed Nov. 28, 2011).

[23] Löwith, Meaning in History, 46-47.

[24] Cf. Karl Rahner, “The Spirituality of the Church of the Future,” Theological Investigations, vol. XX, trans. Edward Quinn (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981), 143-53.

[25] 1 John 2:15-17. Translation is the New Revised Standard Version.

[26] 1 Thessalonians 4:10b-12.

[27] St. John of the Cross wrote: “Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro” (Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2.17.5), which translates roughly to, “Once I taste of the spirit, all carnal things become meaningless” (trans. Raymond L. Richmond, “Entertainment,” ChastitySF, http://www.chastitysf.com/q_entertain.htm (accessed Nov. 28, 2011)).

[28] I suggest that the accusation of Puritanism often comes from those who are themselves too comfortable. Cf. G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch. 6: “The Paradoxes of Christianity” (available online for free; e.g. here: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch6.html): “Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. […] Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre [sic]. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad—in various ways.”

[29] Cf. Peter Kreeft, Jesus-Shock (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008).

[30] Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Challenge of Every Great Philosophy,” in Schopenhauer as Teacher from Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1874/challenge.htm (accessed Nov. 28, 2011).

[31] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1996), 150.