asiandelight/iStock/Getty Images Plus .ta-paywall-container {position: relative;display: flex;flex-direction: column; min-height:60px;} #ta-paywall-overlay {position: absolute;top: 0;left: 0;right: 0;bottom: 0;display: flex;align-items: center;justify-content: center;z-index: 50;background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5);} #ta-paywall-overlay .trinity-player-iframe-wrapper .fab-view{display:none !important;}

There is a simple, immutable, inescapable, irrefutable rule of life, one we ignore at our own peril. It is this: If you don’t control the culture, the culture will control you.

The Charlie Kirk assassination has saddened and shocked millions; it has also inspired reality checks. “How did we get to this point in America?” many are asking. “And, how can we right the national ship?” One commentator has his prescription:

It’s “time to cancel the Left,” he writes.

Yet there is another, more accurate way of putting this. That is, it’s time to actually start fighting the culture war in the only way culture wars are won. This is by ensuring that your side, and not another, enacts our social laws.

“Doing the Same Thing and Expecting a Different Result”?

Blaine L. Pardoe knows a thing or two about social “cancellation.” After all, as an accomplished author, he says he was subject to it. As he relates:

I went through cancellation by the radical left a few years ago. A man, posing as a lesbian online, threatened my life, forcing me to get several protective orders. This individual rallied other mindless radicals, who pressed my publisher to cancel all my contracts going forward for a sci fi series I had written for over 35 years. I was told it was because my conservative posts, nowhere near as bad as what has been posted about Charlie, were inflammatory.

Pardoe then writes that he initially resisted the temptation to turn the “cancel culture” cudgel on those who’d been wielding it. Witnessing all the burning leftist hate against Kirk even after his death, however, has changed his mind. As he explains:

We have tried to be the good guys for years now. What it has gotten us is thousands of people who have been canceled. We had our presidential candidate arrested. We were labeled by the sitting president as “threats to democracy,” the first time a candidate went after the followers of his opponent. Kamala Harris fed the hate, calling Trump a fascist.

I saw statues of presidents torn down. These people, opposed to cutting a bloated federal workforce, set fire to car dealerships. They tried to rewrite our history to fit their social narrative. The woke told us what words we could and couldn’t use. They forced our wives and daughters to worry about who might be in the bathroom with them. If we opened our mouths in protest, they brought their wrath down on us.

… Taking the high road hasn’t worked.

Turnaround Isn’t “Fair Play,” but a Necessary Responsibility

In reality, though, Pardoe makes a common, very “American” mistake. At issue isn’t leaving the “high road,” but exiting Naive Way. That is, every civilization there has ever been has had social codes, or social “laws.” This is in the same way that every one has had governmental laws. And just as someone or some group will be the one determining the governmental laws, so it is with the social ones. It’s not a matter of if they’ll be created.

It’s only a question of who the creator will be.

Moreover, just as governmental laws are enforced via some mechanism, so it is with the social laws. That mechanism is called social pressure, the most effective examples of which are scorn and ostracism. This, again, always has been and is the world’s universal default. Here are some examples from history and present day:

Questioning the existence of the Olympian gods in ancient Athens was considered impious and a threat to civic order. It could brings ostracism and/or exile — or worse.

Publicly blaspheming Islam in Mughal India or questioning the emperor’s semi-divine authority could result in ostracism — or worse. Of course, prohibitions against blaspheming Islam exist in most Muslim countries today, too.

Engaging in or being accused of witchcraft in Puritan New England invited extreme social condemnation — or worse.

Announcing you were a Nazi or communist or being overtly promiscuous in 1950s America would bring scorn and ostracism.

Showing disrespect to Hindu deities or publicly consuming beef, or promoting its consumption, in contemporary India may bring ostracism — or worse.

Mocking Afro-Brazilian religious rituals, such as Candomblé ceremonies, in public or online may mean ostracism and lost social standing.

Loudly expressing anger or grief in public in Japan can invite extreme social disapproval and even ostracism.

Deadly Culture

To cement the point, ponder a question.

Can you name even one society any time, anywhere that hasn’t had its social codes and consequences for their violation?

Such a place does exist — in fantasy land.

This brings us to what killed Charlie Kirk. Not who; we know that was a young leftist named Tyler Robinson. What killed him was, it could be said, this: the culture.

Had Kirk lived a century ago, or even in the ’50s, espousing the same beliefs, he wouldn’t have been murdered. For little to nothing he said would have been controversial. In fact, he likely would have had a completely different career (or he might have been fighting very different battles). But the culture changed — the social laws changed — radically. This happened over more than a century’s course due to mistakes of commission and omission. The former characterize “liberals” and the latter, conservatives.

The “conservative” mentality is assuredly, too, part of the problem. This is because, yes, conservatives (and libertarians especially) may vote and try to influence the governmental laws. The social laws, however, they tend to view as none of their business. It’s the “Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” notion. And putting it very well was philosopher G.K. Chesterton.

“All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not,” he wrote. “If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.”

Stop Conserving Error

Oh, conservatives may take the political battlefield, every two years, and vote in robust numbers. But as I illustrated in “The Acceptance Con,” they generally don’t show up on the social/cultural battlefield. This ensures that the Left will be creating the social/cultural laws. And with politics being “downstream from culture,” well, you can finish the sentence.

It’s sounds enlightened to say, “I don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” But what people believe, and spread, shapes their and others’ thinking. It influences the molding of young minds. Consider here, too, the old prescription, “Hurt no one in thought, word, or deed.” For deeds begin with thoughts. Wrong beliefs lead to wrong thinking, which can, and will in certain cases, manifest in misdeeds. And when those wrong beliefs circulate for long enough, generation after generation, the degeneration means evil action will metastasize.

Aligning with the historical norm, the leftist civilization destroyers have long cared “what people believe.” And the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for “good” people to care less.