“The frivolity of evil” -- that’s the phrase coined by
British author and physician to the poor, Theodore Dalrymple. The words appear in his 2005 book, Our Culture: What’s Left of It. Dalrymple’s analysis of the precipitous
decline of British society provides a salient response to the “motive” question
that currently permeates our media in the wake of the “senseless” murders in Las
Vegas and Sutherland Springs.
Dalrymple’s professional life as a psychiatrist working
almost exclusively with prisoners and England ’s
underclass gave him a perspective miles apart from shrinks who massage the egos
of celebrities and millionaires on New York ’s
Upper East Side . Dalrymple
(nee, Anthony Daniels) actually has
the temerity to focus on the self-destructive actions of his patients and
especially on their abysmal family lives.
Dalrymple
speaks of “the frivolity of evil” (a telling modification of Hannah Arendt’s
“banality of evil”) to fit the self-conscious actions of women whose serial
romantic choices condemn both themselves and their luckless children to neglect,
assault, and rape. The same applies to aimless, drug-addled men
who, without compunction, sire children by various women and thus multiply the
number of souls who’ll endure the same paternal abandonment they themselves curse.
When
considering why such irresponsible behavior has become endemic in Britain , Dalrymple points in two directions --
first, toward a welfare structure that undermines personal responsibility and
even rewards irresponsible choices. In
this system mothers without husbands or employment are set up by the government
with housing, food, and enough money to focus on something that gives their
lives meaning. Often that something revolves
around romance and domestic trauma -- even at the expense of their children.
If one asks
why the government supports this dysfunctional system, that query points in
another direction, toward intellectuals and their cohorts in the media,
including “novelists, playwrights, film directors, journalists, artists, and
even pop singers.” According to this mélange of moral miscreants, the poor must
be viewed as victims who aren’t responsible for their actions. External factors such as poverty, “food
deserts,” and capitalism are seen as the true culprits -- an analysis that
bolsters the ego of nonjudgmental elites and places ever more power in the hands
of government officials, therapists, and social activists “who have themselves
come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.”
Moreover, these
benefits showered on the poor are seen as theirs “by right.” Thus, no moral stigma attends failure to make
personal choices that would secure these basic benefits, and no government is
so callous as to suggest that most folks should care for themselves.
In addition
to these beliefs, intellectuals and their media cohorts have embraced the
notion that the elimination of taboos constitutes the royal road to personal
and social Nirvana. In the world of
entertainment, I note, this process is uncritically hailed as “pushing the
envelope” -- where taboos like cursing, adultery, drug use, and ever-increasing
depictions of violence and sexual perversity fall by the wayside. Dalrymple observes that “the prestige
intellectuals confer upon antinomianism soon communicates itself to
non-intellectuals. What is good for the
bohemian sooner or later becomes good for the unskilled worker, the unemployed,
the welfare recipient -- the very people most in need of boundaries to make
their lives tolerable or allow them hope of improvement.”
Instead of
obligations, especially to one’s children, emotional self-fulfillment becomes
the primary basis for action. After all,
as the popular saying goes, “How can you love others unless you first love
yourself?” Ignored in this
self-destructive psychological calculus is the fact that self-respect derives
precisely from fulfilling one’s obligations.
My conclusion: Who better in contemporary American society
to symbolize the philosophy of taboo-breaking than a member of the media
establishment who embodies the very antinomianism he disseminates constantly to
the general public -- namely, Harvey Weinstein. And lest we dismiss Weinstein as an anomaly, let
us not forget the standing ovation given at the Academy Awards to child rapist Roman
Polanski.
In an
environment where personal responsibility is undermined by Socialist dogma and
where intellectuals and their media groupies constantly tout the elimination of
taboos, is it any wonder that some folks (as in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs) will take
these beliefs and actions to their logical destructive conclusions.
I’m not
responsible. Others are the reason for
my failures and disappointments. Child
rape is now ok. Harvey Weinstein got
away with all kinds of illegal acts. Society
owes me. Now “society” is going to pay
for my misery -- Quentin Tarantino style!
A culture
with over a million abortions each year and illegitimacy rates well north of
70% in some communities shouldn’t have to scratch its head when mass murders
occur. Intellectuals
and media powerbrokers, however, never look at the destruction their ideas and
actions have wrought. If they did, “they
might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior” or give up
the cherished notion of their moral superiority. Consequently, “neither pols nor pundits wish
to look the problem in the face.”
Nuclear
families that eat together and acknowledge legitimate obligations and
reasonable moral boundaries are what hold a society together. Socialism, intellectuals, and Harvey Weinsteins
in the media pull it apart -- sometimes violently.
Richard Kirk is a
freelance writer living in Southern California
11-12-17.
