RUTHFULLY YOURS

Cops mow down Akram Joudeh, wielding a meat cleaver, near Penn Station.

Scruffy beard, sandals, previously arrested for carrying knives near a synagogue, living out of his car… and then he pulled a meat cleaver from his waistband and attacked a cop after his car was booted:

The man who allegedly hit an off-duty NYPD detective in the head with an 11-inch meat cleaver during a dramatic Midtown Manhattan confrontation has been identified as Akram Joudeh, 32, formerly of Queens. Joudeh was shot multiple times on West 32 Street, near Penn Station, by several officers at around 5pm Wednesday after a dramatic chase that culminated in three officers being injured, cops said.

The detective suffered a six-inch gash from his temple to his jaw, while Joudeh was left in hospital in critical but stable condition. Police were called out at around 5pm after Joudeh was seen trying to prize a boot off his car on West 31 St and Broadway. It’s believed the man, whose last registered address is in Queens, has been sleeping in the car.

The vehicle had reportedly been parked in the middle of the street, which is located in a busy, tourist-heavy area of Midtown. When police approached, however, he went into a rage, pulling out the cleaver and fleeing while ‘waving it around,’ a police spokesman said.

After slashing the cop, detective Brian O’Donnell, Joudeh faced the wrath of the NYPD, who promptly filled him full of lead:

Cops were called to the area just before 5 p.m. when several people saw a man with a scruffy beard and wearing sandals running with a meat cleaver in his hand, according to witnesses and initial reports. “He was running down the street, waving it,” said an MTA worker who asked not to be named. “The cops were chasing him.”

Recently, I was asked by an Italian author and journalist, working on an article for Il Giorno on the subject of “mute liberalism” and political correctness in the U.S., for my impressions of the “decadence” afflicting American culture. He wanted to know what the reasons were for what he saw as a political and cultural wasting disease and, in particular, when the inexorable slide began into self-censorship, pervasive hedonism, the debasement of the social and intellectual elites, the abandonment of republican principles and the reversal of traditional social roles.

This was a question too vanishingly large to answer definitively, but it did get me thinking once again about some of the factors that might have caused—as Québécois producer Denys Arcand put it in the title and story of his sadly amusing film—the The Decline of the American Empire, a film modeled on Edward Gibbons’ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Decadence, of course, is not solely an American phenomenon; no Western country is exempt from the vectors of degeneration at work in the liberal/democratic sphere today. But what happens to the U.S., as the guarantor of Western freedom and prosperity, happens to the rest of us. With America in decline, none of its dependents—and we are all its dependents, however loath we may be to admit it—will be spared. Indeed, most Western countries can survive their moral and political deterioration so long as America is willing and able to support them militarily, fiscally and politically, which is, for example, the story of ungrateful Europe since the Marshall Plan. Such is no longer the case. This is why the preoccupation of non-nationals—Italians like my interviewer, Canadians like me—with the fortunes of the U.S. is an issue of primary concern.

In any event, the “decadence” my interviewer was referring to obviously began a long time ago—when exactly is another question. One thinks of deconstructionist philosopher Jacques Derrida’s theory of receding origins, the elusiveness or “eclipsing structure” of all beginnings. On the American historical scene, one could go back to the slave plantations and the Civil War, to the Salem witch trials, or to the bitter duels inherent in the very founding of the Republic between central-government Federalists and states-rights Republicans, a dispute that remains a political fracture to this day. Differing understandings of the Greek and Roman classics regarding the nature of enlightened rule and the proper relation between the governing and the governed were also a locus of contention. As Ron Chernow writes in Alexander Hamilton, commenting on the discrepancy between intention and result that has never been fully resolved, “Today we cherish the two-party system as a cornerstone of American democracy. The founders, however, viewed parties as monarchical vestiges that had no legitimate place in a true republic.” But why stop there? If one wishes, one can go back to the Mayflower and the Arbella and before. A prior “originary” point of decay can always be found.

To focus on the contemporary, certainly John Dewey’s left-oriented “progressivist” and “child-centered” education program, developed mainly in Democracy and Education, which took root in the 1920s, is a reasonable place to start our investigations. Briefly, Dewey believed the child should never be “forced” to learn but rather encouraged to follow his own natal interests—a theory earlier elaborated in the Romantic school of poetry, for example, William Wordsworth’s Intimations Ode where we read that the youth “trailing clouds of glory” is “nature’s priest,” possessing an innate apprehension of the divine. Wordsworth’s exaltation of the child melded seamlessly with his revolutionary belief as a young man in the re-pristinizing of society. It comes as no surprise that the Movement’s enfant terrible, Percy Bysshe Shelley, who espoused similar sentiments, particularly in poems like Queen Mab and Prometheus Unbound, earned the praise of Karl Marx. Shelley yearned for the day, as he wrote in Mab, when the “hands/which little children stretch in friendly sport” would become the emblem of a renewed social contract. Dewey’s oeuvre was clearly influenced by the rejuvenative assumptions of his nineteenth century Romantic precursors.

Unfortunately, a return to origins or the projection of initial states isn’t how the world works. It escaped Dewey’s proselytizing ardor that prior learning and hard study, guided by erudite masters, are necessary for a young person to discover what it is in the world that genuinely interests him and what his condign aptitudes really are. This is the only route to maturity, competence and achievement. “Nature’s priest” has no future unless he is a prince of learning. Failing to understand the need for pedagogical and curricular discipline, for a wide-ranging and classically imposed syllabus, and opting instead for catering benignity in both the formative and later stages of education is a surefire recipe for producing the moral narcissist who is his only truth. The casualties of this retrograde approach, in Peter Wood’s succinct articulation from his online essay The Architecture of Intellectual Freedom, are “men and women capable of wise and responsible stewardship of a free society.”

Dewey’s ideas percolated slowly through American culture and took off in the incendiary ’60s, with the free speech movement at Berkeley, the psychedelic dumbing down of the youth population, the takeover of the universities by student radicals, and the insidious inroads made by the destabilizing emigré Frankfurt School, especially Herbert Marcuse of “repressive tolerance” fame, who, in essence, popularized the Marxist theories of Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. The world had to be purified by the exploited masses and remade in the image of youthful innocence, a revisionary project that inspired the young, the callow and the doctrinaire. These notions captured the American seminary and poisoned the minds of generations of students. After that, the die was cast, and America was on the road to becoming a European failure. CONTINUE AT SITE

“What do you call a Muslim convert who was active in the Ferguson protests and won’t stand for the Pledge?”

Missouri state senator and Black Lives Matter protestor Jamilah Nasheed refused to stand along with her fellow legislators to recite the pledge of allegiance at the opening of a session of the Missouri senate.

The Muslim convert (she was born Jenise Williams) has been active in the Ferguson riots/protests, and although Ms. Rasheed has supported strict gun control laws, she was found in possession of a loaded firearm when she was arrested in front of the Ferguson city hall in 2014. (Nasheed also refused to take a breathalyzer.)

While there is no law compelling Ms. Rasheed to stand and recite the pledge, one wonders at a public servant (sic) willfully refusing to make a pledge to the country she is ostensibly serving. And one wonders why she is doing this now, when she freely pledged this same allegiance in the past. If she has changed her views and no longer deems America worthy of her allegiance, shouldn’t she be removed from her office?

The Missouri legislature can and should at least censure her, if not remove her from office. And since the GOP has a super majority it can be done.

Nasheed took an oath before assuming office. According to the Missouri Constitution:

Section 15. Every senator or representative elect, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Missouri, and faithfully perform the duties of my office, and that I will not knowingly receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law.” The oath shall be administered in the halls of the respective houses to the members thereof, by a judge of the supreme court or a circuit court, or after the organization by the presiding officer of either house, and shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. Any senator or representative refusing to take said oath or affirmation shall be deemed to have vacated his office, and any member convicted of having violated his oath or affirmation shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and be forever disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit in this state.

While the Pledge of Allegiance is not the oath of office, her refusal to make it brings into question her support for the Constitution of the United States. As such, it can be argued she has vacated her office.