An Architectural Fisk

Dipping a little into politics with this one. Kind of.

I recently learned that President Trump has drafted an executive order entitled Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again. Basically, it orders that “classical and traditional architectural styles” should be the default for constructing new Federal Buildings in the future, specifically saying that styles like ‘brutalism’ and ‘deconstructionism’ should not be used.

You know, I think that if I weren’t already, this alone would be enough to make me want to vote for Trump.

Predictably (you know, since it was a conscious action attributed to the Orange Wonder and all), it’s been met with outrage from some quarters. In particular, the American Institute of Architects issued a statement condemning the order.

I was going to do a quick article about this, but I found I had so much to say about the AIA’s tone-deaf and self-satisfied take that it turned into a full-on fisk.

Here is the link to the article, which is reproduced below; their comments are in italics, mine are in bold.

The American Institute of Architects has called on members to sign an open letter to the Trump Administration after a plan to introduce an order that all federal buildings should be built in the “classical architectural style” was discovered.

That sounds to me rather like the AIA is dictating to its members what their views on architecture should be. A rather odd note to start an argument couched in terms of artistic freedom. But that might be reading too much into it: we’ll see.

The AIA released the statement and online petition for the White House yesterday, shortly after the Architectural Record revealed it had obtained a draft of the order, called Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.

If approved, it would update the 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture to make classical architecture the required style for any US federal courthouse.

Thank God!

A friend of mine, when I mentioned this, said this may be one of the most significant things Trump has done. He’s quite right. The thing about architecture is that it lasts; it’s not like a painting where, when it goes out of style you can stick it in a back room or quietly burn it in the dead of night with certain ceremonies. The building cost $70 million dollars to build and you can’t replace it until you have a very, very good reason to. Worse than that, you have to keep using it. A bad painting you look at and look away. A bad book you put back on the shelf after the third nonsensical chapter and never touch again. A bad building sits there for decades and forces you and everyone in the vicinity to notice it day after day.

Moreover, since buildings last so long, we are in effect giving them to our children; telling them, through architecture, who we are and what we value.

The Middle Ages left us Cathedrals, proclaiming the glory of God. The 19th century left us the US Capital proclaiming its belief in Republican government. We are going to be leaving a series of grey cubes proclaiming that we don’t care a straw about either the past or the future.  

That is why this is so significant; if Trump carries his point, he could ensure at least a partial uplifting of the American landscape for decades to come. Imagine beautiful new buildings actually being constructed all across the nation, buildings that people would enjoy going to work at, that we would be glad to show to our children, which have real character, and which we can picture growing old and venerable without ever going out of style.

We did that once, you know. In fact, we did it for most of our history. No reason we can’t do it again.

Also, as you’ll see from reading the order, it doesn’t say that classical architecture is “required” but that it or some other traditional and publicly preferred architectural style should be the “default” and only be deviated from for a good reason and after due consideration.  

The AIA said that it “strongly and unequivocally” opposed the change, which would also affect federal public buildings costing over $50 million (£38 million).

“A top-down directive on architectural style”

“The AIA strongly condemns the move to enforce a top-down directive on architectural style,” the organisation (sic) wrote in the open letter.

“Design decisions should be left to the designer and the community, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC,” it added. “All architectural styles have value and all communities have the right to weigh in on the government buildings meant to serve them.”

Okay, lots to unpack there. First, if you’re designing a building for the Federal Government, then the government very clearly should have a say in this matter. As the order lays out: how people see federal buildings affects how they view the Federal Government. Now, I have no love for the US Government as it currently exists, but surely the government is within its rights to set guidelines on how it is represented and ought to be allowed to at least attempt to clean up its image.

It’s funny that they add “and the community” and that “all communities have the right to weigh in on the buildings meant to serve them.” In the first place, I doubt any community, when asked, would knowingly choose a brutalist or deconstructionist style over classical ones. When (as we shall see) the present guidelines say to adhere to “the finest contemporary architectural thought,” it recommends adhering to something that just about everyone who isn’t an architect thinks is boring, ugly, depressing, or faintly ridiculous. In fact, the new order specifically points out the simple fact that most of the public do not like the kinds of designs that the AIA are promoting and much prefer more traditional designs.

In the name of the community, we disregard the community’s opinions (this is a common tactic of Progressives, by the way; as long as you claim to be representing the collective, any individual who disagrees with you can be disregarded, even if his views represent those of the majority of common people and yours are held only by a tiny cadre of elites). 

And besides, what is “the finest contemporary architectural thought” but a top-down directive on architectural style from an insular, select group of artists, architects, and critics? Because if you try to tell me that the distorted grey rectangle design arose organically from the community, I will laugh at you.

Also, in the order, it recommends that some proposed designs be reviewed by a public committee, specifically not made of engineers, architects, artists, or anything of the kind, so that, you know, the actual community should have a say in what they work in and have to stare at for the next few decades.

In short, when you read what is actually being said, the White House specifically calls for the local community to have a say in the kind of buildings they want, while the AIA is tacitly in favor of ignoring this in favor of what they think the community should want. 

According to the AIA, “classical architecture” as defined by the White House is derived from classical Greek and Roman architecture. There are some “allowances for ‘traditional architectural style'”, which include Gothic, Romanesque, and Spanish colonial.

 ‘Allowances’ seems to imply that the order sets stringent conditions for allowing other traditional styles. In fact, they’re pretty much just broadly encouraged, provided they are aesthetically pleasing and (where applicable) fit the local heritage. What is properly said to be ‘allowed’ is “experimentation with new, alternative styles”, with the proviso that “care must be taken to fully ensure that such alternative designs command respect by the public for their beauty and visual embodiment of America’s ideals.”

That is really the whole point of this order; when you make federal buildings, make sure they command respect and admiration rather than disgust and ridicule, and that they are suitable expressions of American ideals.

Is that seriously so much to ask?

Any references to Brutalism, the controversial style that only dates back to the 1950s, would be banned entirely.

Again, thank God.

“High bar” of new order would limit exceptions

‘Limit expectations’? What exactly do you think people’s expectations for modern architecture are now? Are you aware that it is considered, at best, a joke?

While the guidelines for Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again allow for the inclusion of some other architectural styles, the AIA said that the rules are so stringent they would limit creativity.

Yep, the styles that gave us the Parthenon, St. Peter’s Basilica, Hagia Sophia, Buckingham Palace, the Hofburg, Notre Dame Cathedral, Versailles, the whole city of Florence, and the US Capital Building are so limiting that they’ve only been in vogue for two-and-a-half millennia or so. They pale in comparison to the chance of making a box or another box or a distorted box. 

“The high bar required to satisfy the process described within the executive order would all but restrict the ability to design the federal buildings under this order in anything but the preferred style,” the added AIA.

Yes, that is kind of the point, and God forbid that a high bar be set for buildings representing the nation. And, again, this really isn’t that high a bar: make something people actually want to look at and work in rather than yet-another monument to your own inflated egos.

The existing Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture were written for President Kennedy by New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who architecture critic Paul Goldberger described as “the most architecturally sophisticated Federal official since Thomas Jefferson”.

I wonder what the designer of Monticello would have to say about your Goldberger’s idea of good architecture. In any case, I’m sure that if the senator promoted the kind of architecture that Goldberger liked, he would say anything and everything in his praise.

All I hear from this paragraph is “we are the smart people, you’re the stupid ones, so shut up and do as you’re told.”  

The new order – which is named after Trump’s campaign slogan Make America Great Again – comes in contrast to Moynihan’s guidelines, which call for the “finest contemporary American architectural thought”.

For illustration purposes, here are some examples of “the finest contemporary American architectural thought.”

 

File:Frances Perkins Building.JPG - Wikimedia Commons

Seems to me they’re already having trouble thinking outside the box, as it were.

Now here are some examples of designs that ‘stifle creativity’


40 Plantation Home Designs - Historical & Contemporary

Please get this through your head, AIA; we, the American people, have had half a century of what you consider “the finest contemporary American architectural thought,” AND WE HATE IT.

“Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government”

As far as I can tell, the Government isn’t dictating what kind of designs you can make; only which ones it will pay to have represent it to future generations. You can design any kind of building you like there, Mr. Roark; just don’t go thinking you have an unalienable right to have someone drop a hundred million dollars to let you build it.

“The development of an official style must be avoided,” the guidelines read.

Why? Why should an ‘official style’ be avoided? In fact, seeing as how this is to represent the American government, and to an extent the American nation, doesn’t that mean there absolutely should be an ‘official style’ to convey the message “this is who we are” or “this is what the government looks like and aspires to be”? Again, the order makes this very point: that the classical style was chosen for Washington DC (by Washington and Jefferson themselves) specifically to make a statement of what they hoped the country would be. Unless you are suggesting that there should be no common ideal or no common identity for the United States (which is the same as saying that there should be no United States: an opinion that you can’t really expect the Federal Government to share), then on what possible grounds do you say that an official style should be avoided?  

“Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government and not vice versa.”

Again, one, the ‘architectural profession’ as you define it has largely shown itself to be incompetent in this regard, and two, when the Government is the one footing the bill and will be represented by the final result, it really, really ought to be the one picking the design. The way you put it sounds like an elaborate way of saying, “shut up and like what your betters give to you.”

Also, to paraphrase someone whom I suspect is a rather more astute critic than Mr. Goldberger (namely Pinkie Pie), what kind of artist doesn’t like beauty? That’s insane!

The order is among a number of political issues that the AIA and the Trump Administration have locked heads over, including the climate treaty withdrawal and his immigration policies.

Those certainly sound like topics on which architects would have special knowledge and interest in.

In particular, the two have been at loggerheads over climate change after the president revealed his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017. The following year, AIA called on its members to sign an open letter to Trump as a means of voicing its opposition to his climate change policies.

Again, why is the American Institute of Architects directing its members on what they should think about climate change? While complaining that being set guidelines of what kinds of designs will be accepted by a particular client is a top-down imposition? I have no idea how the organization works, but it honestly sounds much more autocratic to tell your members – who no doubt derive professional benefit from being part of your organization and would suffer if that membership were lost – what you expect them to say on given political issues than that the government would set broad style guidelines for its official buildings.

Late last year, it called for Trump to reverse his “shortsighted decision” to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement amid the global climate crisis.

Gottta love the institution that champions things like Brutalism over classical architecture having the gall to call anyone ‘shortsighted.’

Quoth Rifftrax: “And you can burn in Hell if you think this problem can’t be solved with a rectangle. In Hell.”

Read the full statement from the AIA below:

What follows is mostly what we just read. Which kind of makes me wonder why they bothered with the above article rather than just posting the statement. I suppose it was a word count issue (which would also explain the odd digressions into climate change and immigration).  

The AIA learned several months ago that there is a draft executive order being circulated by the Trump Administration for consideration by agency officials that would officially designate “classical” architecture as the preferred style of all U.S. federal courthouses.

We have voiced our fervent opposition directly to the White House and officials in the relevant agencies. Additionally, all federal public buildings in the Capital region would be required to adhere to the same “classical” style (and all other federal public buildings whose costs exceed $50 million in modern dollars). The AIA strongly and unequivocally opposes this change in policy to promote any one style of architecture over another for federal buildings across the country.

The draft executive order defines “classical architectural style” to mean architectural features derived from classical Greek and Roman architecture. There are some allowances for “traditional architectural style” which is defined to mean classical architecture along with Gothic, Romanesque, and Spanish colonial. The draft executive order specifically prohibits the use of Brutalist architecture, or its derivatives, in any circumstance.

Except for Brutalism, there is some language in the draft executive order that would allow for other architectural styles to be used. However, the high bar required to satisfy the process described within the executive order would all but restrict the ability to design the federal buildings under this order in anything but the preferred style.

Again, this narrow ‘preferred style’ being “anything used in the civilized world up until about 1950,” or basically anything that is actually pleasing to look at, with allowances for experimentation provided you come up with something actually good that doesn’t trample on the local community.  

The AIA strongly condemns the move to enforce a top-down directive on architectural style. Design decisions should be left to the designer and the community, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. All architectural styles have value…

You’ve pretty much disproved that over the past few years.

…and all communities have the right to weigh in on the government buildings meant to serve them.

What strikes me most about this statement is the way it is framed as though the architects who can command multi-million dollar projects and the socially-connected art critics who set the standards of “high-brow taste” are the victims here and the people who prefer beautiful buildings over ugly ones are the ones out of line. I noticed something similar in the entertainment world, where some people get furious if ever ordinary viewers dare to criticize or fail to support a multimillion-dollar corporation’s bad product (e.g. some people actually were angry that Sonic’s design was changed, since it was ‘catering to the fanboys’). This usually comes from those most apt to express their solidarity with the common man and hatred for large corporations and the like. Go figure.

 In any case, the situation, as I see it, is this. For the past half-a-century or more the AIA and its ilk have simply been creating bad work. They have been permitted to do so because of a transitory accident of taste and ideology among those with decision making powers. Now Trump is issuing an order that the Federal Government should no longer accept this kind of work.

Because when you design a multi-million-dollar building that represents the United States of America and will do so for at least the next several decades, it is just possible that your personal artistic vision is not the most important factor.  

A Reminder of What We Are Thanking Them For

Today is Memorial Day in the United States, where we honor the memory of the soldiers who gave their lives for our country. In the land that once was England, meanwhile, we are given an object lesson in what they laid down their lives to defend us from.

Activist Tommy Robinson, who is known to be a critic of Islam and British immigration policies and who the press describe as a “far-right activist,” was arrested on Friday for ‘disturbing the peace’ because he was filming outside of a courthouse where several Muslim men were being tried for child rape. He was covering the outcome of the trial. You can watch his arrest here and judge whether he’s disturbing the peace (they flat out say he’s being arrested of the content of his stream):

He was then tried, convicted, and sentenced within hours to thirteen months in jail. Not only that, but the judge who sentenced him ordered a complete media blackout (which should not even be an option in a civilian trial in a free nation). Again, because the guy was reporting on accused child rapists.

In England, a man was arrested, then secretly tried and sentenced within hourfor the crime of filming the outcome of a trial, apparently because it would be offensive to a certain minority group.

Nor is this the first time that’s happened: last year activist Kevin Crehan was arrested and imprisoned for leaving a bacon sandwich on the steps of a Mosque. For that he was sentenced to a year in prison along with thousands of Muslim extremists who knew about his prank and with no protective custody. Predictably, he was murdered.

In England. People are being arrested, imprisoned, and quietly murdered for their political stance in the country of Burke, Churchill, and Disraeli. The country that gave us the Magna Carta and English common law.

For perspective, Communist Poland, when it arrested Lech Walesa, did not arrest, try, and sentence him all in one day. Lech Walesa, in Soviet Poland received less of a sentence (eleven months) for his actions in the Solidarity movement than Robinson has received for reporting on a public trial in England.

If you want to know the difference between freedom and tyranny, this is it. This is what tyranny looks like. This is what those men laid down their lives to save us from. The land that once was England has descended into tyranny before our very eyes. Many in the United States are eager to follow suit. On this Memorial Day, as we recall the sacrifice of our soldiers, we should also take inspiration from their example and resolve to fight to the end against the tyranny that now threatens the west.

The Two Thieves

1220030a

All four Gospels note that Christ was crucified along with two others. These two are described as ‘thieve’ or ‘robbers,’ though this is sometimes rendered ‘revolutionaries’ or simply ‘criminals.’ One was crucified on His right, the other on His left.

Viewed from a modern perspective, the designation of right and left is a little interesting, especially if we take the interpretation that they were revolutionaries. If we follow it out, it could be taken as an interesting perspective on Our Lord’s relation to politics.

First of all, the linking of the terms ‘revolutionary’ with ‘robber.’ Apparently, the same Greek word ‘Iestes’ was used for both. I’ve heard several reasons for this, from the idea that revolutionaries were attempting to steal from the Romans to the notion that it was a way to avoid letting the Emperor know of revolutions. For our purposes, the background doesn’t really matter, provided the two terms were linked.

It is a quality of both a thief and a revolutionary that his focus is on the here and now. The thief wants a certain object so much that he takes it regardless of the law, the revolutionary wants a certain social or political state so much that he fights for it. Either one may or may not be justified by circumstance, but both have the quality that their aim is a change in the material world.

This is also a quality of politics: that its focus is entirely upon the here and now, or at the very least what the future here and now may be made to be. It is the science of organizing human society in the way thought best. Even if this is done for the purpose of establishing justice, liberty, or other abstract values, it is still establishing them in the present world and by the means of social organization. Politics, thus, is a fundamentally earthly practice.

Now, let us take the two criminals as revolutionaries (this interpretation is supported by the fact that crucifixion was generally associated with acts of sedition rather than more typical crimes). Again, the fact that one is on the right, the other on the left is interesting, though obviously it carries a significance to us that it wouldn’t have for St. Luke. We needn’t fear reading it thus for that reason, though; there are no coincidences in revelation.

The right and left revolutionary, therefore, may be taken as images of political movements in general. One on this side, the other on that. If we take it thus, what does the image imply?

First that politics ultimately comes to nothing. These revolutionaries fought for their particular cause and ended up crucified. In the end, their efforts were futile and led to nothing but death and disgrace. Politics, though it may be important in the short term, is ultimately a dead end. The promise that this or that political system will solve the ills of mankind is a lie.

Note that they are being crucified along with Christ, who is bearing the sins of the world. They suffer the same fate, but without the salvific character. It is Christ who can save them, if they will allow it, not the other way around. Politics, thus, always must be subordinate to Christ.

Now, the reactions of the revolutionaries to Christ are instructive. One of the two blasphemes Christ, demanding that He save their lives if His is the Christ. The other – traditionally called St. Dismas – rebukes him and begs that Jesus remember him when He comes into His Kingdom.

Again we see the focus on the here and now. The one revolutionary, even in the process of dying, still has his mind fixed upon earthly things. He is, in effect, standing in judgment over Jesus, setting his material well being as a condition for belief. One recalls how certain political movements have done similar things: from Communists taunting Christians to pray to God for bread to moderns attacking prayers offered in the wake of national tragedies. Politics of a certain sort has always claimed the right to stand in judgment of God over the material state of the world.

St. Dismas’s rebuke shows another approach. Though he’s given his life in a political cause, he yet retains a perspective on where politics stands relative to God. He admits that his punishment and that of his companion is a just one; they have indeed committed the crimes they are accused of and must suffer for it. Upon the cross, he lets go of his political motivations and speaks only of justice and fear of God. He subordinates his political concerns to his piety, merely begging Jesus to have mercy on him.

Thus we have the place of politics relative to God: the evils done in its name are done on all sides, whether for a good cause or an ill. The righteous politician or revolutionary is the one who sees that God is beyond all such things and places himself under the mercy of Christ. The unrighteous is the one who tries to subordinate God to his own interests.

In summary, politics cannot save but itself needs salvation, politics leads men to do evil, for which they are justly condemned, and all politics is subordinate to the claims of Christ.

 

One Year On

I don’t talk politics very much because it depresses me. Besides which, my own political ideas are pretty fringe at the moment and I’m not seeing anything good coming in the next few years. I typically vote Republican because the Democratic Party is absurdly evil (they literally have ‘kill babies’ as a major part of their platform), though I don’t like the Republicans that much and think they’re generally a lot of spineless cowards with little to no actual convictions and couldn’t lead a horse to a salt lick. The two political parties are like having a choice between Neville Chamberlain and Mao Zedong.

Nor do I like Trump. I think he’s a repulsive human being and an embarrassing leader. The really sad thing, though, is that I don’t see many politicians on the field I think would be much better (though one of them is actually Mike Pence, so if Trump gets impeached I think it’d be a trade up). Although I will say that I generally find the reactions people have to have to him to be much more alarming than anything he’s actually done, but that’s another story.

All that said, I was pretty sure he was going to win.

A few things made me think that. First of all was when I saw that Michigan was actually in play. The last time Michigan went blue was to vote for the first Bush, so when I realized Trump might actually win Michigan, I knew Hillary was in trouble. That’s actually why I decided at the last minute to cast my vote his way: I had been planning to vote third party, but realizing that it actually might make a difference, I gritted my teeth and signed for Trump.

Second was the mere fact that Hillary was going out of her way to alienate most of the country. Open borders, racist rhetoric about white people, doubling down on hatred of Christians and so on. You can only directly insult people for so long before they turn on you.

Then, of course, there was the whole ‘she broke the law’ thing. The more I heard people talking about it, the more that one song from ‘Hamilton’ was playing in my head: “Never gonna be President now.”

So, yeah, I knew Trump had a good chance of winning, and I was chuckling all the way as he did. Schadenfreude may be a sin, but I’m willing to indulge in it anyway. Again, going back to the ‘you can’t keep insulting people and expect them to be nice to you’ thing.

The Passion and the Fall of Humanism:

At the Passion of the Lord, we see the true futility of humanistic hopes. Here is assembled representatives of the best humanity has to offer: Roman Law, Greek Philosophy, Jewish Faith, and they all utterly fail.

The Law that was the bedrock of the Roman Empire, and indeed of all human institutions, proves impotent. Pilate knows Jesus is innocent; he declares him innocent. Yet he has him crucified anyway. Why? Because “a riot was breaking out.” The Law only works when people obey it; in the face of mob violence, it becomes impotent. This is a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again, from Jerusalem and Alexandria to Ferguson and Berkley; however strong the law is, a mob of angry and ignorant people is always stronger.

There is no hope in the law.

Greek Philosophy breathed into Roman life and created the sophisticated society that now ruled the known world. It had begun as a search for truth…but now, with Truth staring him in the face, Pilate, the representative of that society, can only ask, “what is truth?” The very idea of discovering the truth simply doesn’t make sense to him, at least compared with the need to deal with the political situation facing him.

No hope in Philosophy.

Jewish religion was the most advanced and developed faith in the ancient world; the one true faith that worship the one true God. Yet here are its chief representatives utterly failing to abide by their own religion. Not only do they fail to recognize the Messiah, but they then proceed to prostitute their faith to political convenience with a sham trial and the shameful declaration “We have no king but Caesar.” Nor does pagan faith fair any better. Pilate is warned by his wife not to have anything to do with Jesus, for she’d had a dream portending great evil. But he dismisses this omen and proceeds on cold political calculation.

And right there is the common thread; the reason why humanism fails. Because anything that is not focused on God ultimately will be focused on the self, or on some extension of the self. Humanism will always boil down to mere politics, politics to the will of the mob, and the mob to unreasoning emotions. Humanism fails because humans are not what they would be. We aren’t as clever or as rational as we would like to think ourselves. As St. Paul says, “What I would do, I do not, and what I would not do, I do.”

That is the true horror of our situation, which Christ came to rescue us from; we are rational beings that cannot behave rationally. We see what we ought to be, but cannot be it. Even if certain individuals achieve a rough approximation, they remain outliers unable to do anything to save the larger community from itself.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the result of original sin.

 

Where We Go From Here: The Reconquest of America.

If I have learned anything during this election cycle, it’s not to make any predictions involving Donald Trump. So I’m going to say that I don’t know what he plans to do, or what kind of President he’s going to make. Only thing I can say for sure is that we’re probably in for an interesting time.

Meanwhile, conservatives need to seize the moment. The Left has received a major upset; we need to follow up on that. We might not get another chance.

Politics is downstream of culture. The government responds to the people, and the people act on ideas. If the ideas are bad or false, then the result is bad politicians pushing bad policies. If they ideas are true and good, the result is good politicians pushing good policies. Culture might be defined as the general field of ideas that are popular among a given people.

Every culture is a mix of good and bad, true and false ideas. Just which ones are which is very difficult to determine from inside the culture, though in ours we can form a pretty good notion of the bad ones based on the state of our civilization: the ones that go under the names of Multiculturalism, Diversity, Sexual Liberation, Feminism, Political Correctness and so on. These ideas form a large part of the culture of modern America, and they are, objectively, really terrible ideas.

The thing is, nothing Donald Trump could do as President would eradicate these poisonous ideas. His victory is a setback for them and the larger worldview known as Liberalism that embraces them, but only a setback. They still dominate the news media, the entertainment industry, the schools, and much of the political landscape. They reign supreme in almost every major city, and they are in the atmosphere throughout the country.

Now, no matter what happens in the next four years, the culture will remain steeped in Liberal ideas unless we the people do something about it. Yes, the direction of government has to change, and hopefully will, but that would only be a temporary, ultimately futile solution if the culture does not change even more drastically. This election has given us breathing space and momentum, but it’s up to us to take advantage of it.

Another thing it has done is to show us the weakness of our enemy. Trump had almost every news media outlet, all of academia, the entertainment industry, and the political establishment against him…yet he still won. They threw everything they had against him and it still wasn’t enough to stop him.

This supports something I have long suspected; that the Left, for all its formidable arsenal, is a paper tiger. Its primary weapon is emotional blackmail: “support this or you are a bigot.” The power it has is largely the power that we give it. Take that away and it crumbles.

So what do we do now? Here’s a summary of a few suggestions.

First we need to recognize that it is up to us, the people, to make the real change and take back the culture: no politician can or will do it for us (least of all Donald Trump, who is the last person in the world to overturn the central problem of our culture, which is the sexual revolution, but that’s a topic in itself), and no law will ultimately matter unless we do.

We also need to recognize that we can do it; we have seen the consequences of Liberal ideas and know that they don’t work. Reality is on our side and we have nothing to fear from open debate. Their ideas have had power for a relatively short time; perhaps a century or so at best, while our ideas are ancient and proven by experience. Their ideas are temporary fashions: ours are eternal truths. Besides which, if the other side can enact such sweeping societal change as they have over the past few decades, there is no reason why we can’t push it back: they have shown that what is unimaginable one year can become a basic assumption in the next. There’s nothing they can destroy that we can’t rebuild.

To believe that we can, and that we ought, is the first step to doing.

Next we need to start making out case publicly. We should stand up and celebrate Western Civilization, Masculinity, the Family, Religion, and so on. When someone denigrates these things, we should hit back at once, attacking their position both with reason and mockery. This is an important point: ideas are born from emotional responses as much as intellectual ones. Dissecting the illogic of Liberal positions won’t be enough; we need to make their ideas feel as ridiculous and wrong and immoral as we know them to be. Both reason and mockery are necessary for social change.

We need to reduce our concern for the feelings of others. I know how bad that sounds, but again, emotional blackmail is the Left’s greatest weapon: we won’t win unless we neutralize it. Their standard refrain has been, “if you don’t agree with this, you’re a racist or a sexist or homophobic or just a bigot.” Our answer to such accusations should be, “Call it what you like; it’s the truth.” If people get angry or hate us for it, so be it: we don’t have the luxury of caring anymore.

We ought to become more active in pushing our views. Mostly I find Conservatives are far less willing to proselytize than Liberals, and that needs to change. With the world as it is, people are more likely to be receptive to what we have to say than they have been in the past and we ought to be making a concentrated effort to persuade people of our ideas.

Those who are able to should create works of fiction, music, art, or even advertisements that reflect a conservative worldview. ‘Pop culture’ is far more powerful than it is usually given credit for in terms of inculcating ideas and emotional reactions in people, and we need to start taking advantage of that. The entertainment industry is overwhelmingly Liberal, but it is also going through a transition: the internet has opened the world of entertainment to anyone who is willing to put in the work and the old gatekeepers in publishing, music, and the film world are less and less powerful. We must seize this opportunity to establish a foothold on the field of entertainment.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to stop sending our children to be educated by the Left. We raise our children to be moral, sensible, upright citizens, then we send them to universities controlled by the most radical Liberals in the country, where they spend four years being indoctrinated and pressured into accepting Leftist ideas and then we wonder why they defect to the other side (yet another reason to avoid college altogether if you can). Since at least the sixties, American universities have largely been the enemies of American ideas and it’s long past time we realize that.

We should be thoroughly vetting every school our children attend, up to and including college. If we find a school functioning as a reeducation facility for the Left, we need to avoid it like the plague. If our children are already attending one, we should pull them out as soon as possible and either send them to a different school or teach them at home. I realize this won’t be practical for many, perhaps most people. If it isn’t, then we at least need to monitor what the school is trying to teach and point out the lies and propaganda, reassuring our children that it’s okay if they get in trouble or lose points because they don’t follow the party line. Whatever we do, we have to always keep in mind that we Cannot. Trust. The schools.

These are just a few suggestions: maybe they will work, maybe they won’t. The question of what specifically we need to do to reconquer American culture is at present less important than awareness of the fact that it needs to be conquered. Our present culture is a poisonous sewer, and unless we can do something to create a more sober and rational society, America will die no matter whom we elect.

The election of Donald Trump is not a victory; it is an opportunity. Politics are symptoms: not the real disease. The real illness is the culture. It’s up to us to take advantage of it. Make no mistake; if there is not a serious change in the direction of this culture, this election will ultimately not change a thing.

Let the reconquest begin!