The Clare Spark Blog

March 11, 2013

Do House hard-liners want a theocracy?

CabaretAre the culture wars heating up?

Some right-wing websites are calling for a re-energized cultural offensive, one that would dislodge the monopoly that “the Left” has attained in education, particularly in public schools, in the elite universities, and in popular culture. For these warriors (including “moderate” Bill O’Reilly), social democrats (once known as liberal anticommunists) and various Leninists are all under the same statist umbrella, and they must be stopped cold.

The rightist culture warriors will be blocked and court discouragement, for they face opposition from “RINO’s” (a.k.a. the big businessmen who joined the progressive Keynesians in 1942), as well as from the new “Jacobins” out to get them in the Democratic Party. In short, movement conservatives partake of a discourse of degeneration, and I understand their panic, for small businessmen and many medical professionals will take the brunt of Democratic initiatives such as Obama-care.

Underneath the angst is a now explicit belief that Hollywood Jews have created the hyper-sexualized culture, money-worshipping mass culture that flouts religious warnings about the dire effects of pornography, adolescent sexuality, gay marriage, and abortion on demand. Thus conservative novelist Andrew Klavan defended Seth MacFarlane’s performance at the Oscars 2013, for moral laxity should be boldly and freshly confronted. (See, and

Many of my readers are aware that a prime ingredient in contemporary antisemitism is the association of Jewry with a money-mad, materialist culture. But fewer perhaps know about the Nazi trope (shared by both Julius Streicher and Hitler) that Jews were intent on corrupting the pure flesh of Christian women, indeed were the chief white slavers/whoremasters. How should a moral Christian respond to this apparently unstoppable “Jewish” offensive that is engendering hyper-sexualization, single-mother families, illegitimacy, and devil worship? Have we not seen very effective plays, movies, and television series transmitting the notion that “decadence” (i.e. degeneration) is inimical to the (unitary) values of the Christian West? I am thinking of productions such as CABARET, CHICAGO, and perhaps THE GOOD WIFE (also set in Chicago, and suggesting that the legal profession is similarly intent on materialism and sex, in or out of marriage).


What the rightist culture warriors neglect is the plain fact that modern medicine and public health measures have drastically lengthened life expectancy, postponing marriage more than a decade after the onset of puberty. In this technologically advanced world, the old rules are outmoded. Who exactly is resisting sex education in middle school and high school? Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly last Friday, was visibly discomfited when one of her guests suggested that sex education was necessary to teach nubile young girls the difference between sex and a relationship.

The social conservatives seem so intent on taking over the Republican Party, dislodging what they view as an “establishment”, that they may be consigning themselves to permanent irrelevance. Cultural pluralism and the secular state are broadly institutionalized.  Pace Klavan et al, the culture warriors may be too internally uptight to make popular culture artifacts that reach out to a broad public.Chicagoposter

The advice from this scholar and political independent is to focus on fiscal conservatism, to divest oneself and one’s party of embedded and explicit antisemitism, and to cherish the pluralistic society that welcomes all belief systems and all social criticism, under the rule of law. Now remind me who censored the movie version of Streetcar Named Desire and Suddenly Last Summer? (See, and


  1. […] [This is the second blog that mentions Andrew Klavan. See part one of this series here: […]

    Pingback by “Traditionalists” on the culture front | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — March 23, 2013 @ 7:38 pm | Reply

  2. […] bohemianism, early adolescent sexuality and a frightening rise in teen age pregnancy (See . Add these rational fears to the propaganda churned out by social psychologists after World War […]

    Pingback by Obama and the rhetoric of the political “family” | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — March 17, 2013 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  3. Actually, those who are helping the Islamic conquest of the West and the death of freedom, are on the other side, so to speak…
    I found this rather enlightening, besides, of course plenty of other well documented sites like

    Comment by HaDaR — March 17, 2013 @ 12:48 am | Reply

  4. The 2008 election was an anomaly with huge advantage to the black candididate. If you don’t believe me, ask Hillary. Even so, Mccain had a fighting chance, even after picking Palin as his running mate, absent the October financial meltdown which eliminated any chance of anyone branded a Republican to win. In 2012, I am convinced that the ability of the Democrats to paint Romney as an extremist on cultural issues ( e.g. the “war on women”), even more so than on fiscal issues, caused Romney to lose. Romney was also disadvantaged because he could not launch a personal attack on Obama as was launched on him without being smeared as a racist. Even so, Obama won by a much smaller margin than he did in 2008. The Bobby Jindals, who disown cultural issues, are the future of the Republican party are its furture and will be able to win. I see no comparable group of youthful Democrats who have any fresh ideas..

    Comment by Bob Ennis — March 13, 2013 @ 10:12 pm | Reply

  5. “Totally agree. My ideal party affiliation would be nobody to the left of Bill (not Hillary) Clinton and nobody to the right of Mitt Romney, Such a party would garner huge majorities.”


    Did I miss the inauguration of President McCain?
    He fits your bill to a T, but he’s still just the senator from Arizona.

    Keep repeating the same brownie recipe while hoping one day that it will be chocolate-chip cookies that come out of the oven.

    Comment by Bilgeman — March 13, 2013 @ 4:57 pm | Reply

  6. Totally agree. My ideal party affiliation would be nobody to the left of Bill (not Hillary) Clinton and nobody to the right of Mitt Romney, Such a party would garner huge majorities.

    Comment by Bob Ennis — March 12, 2013 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: