Dear America, 

We’re in a sorry state, culturally, aren’t we? 

For me, the greatest evidence of this is not violent crime or hardball politics but the coarsening of our culture—standards lowered, etiquette lost, and language diminished. I was watching Victor Davis Hanson the other day, and he was expressing concern and distaste over how profane and pornographic Americans’ speech has become, where even elected officials swear crudely on camera. While I have been a lifelong proponent of the mindset that “people who wouldn’t say shit if they had a mouthful are not to be trusted”—and as someone who swears for catharsis, which is a handy crutch and an excuse—I must agree with him. In public discourse, we should aspire to higher standards of conduct. At the very least, we should swear more creatively and with greater discretion. I could get behind our politicians bandying about Shakespearean expressions: “The rump-fed ronyon cries!” 

In this moment, I am reminded also of a particular story from Giovanni Boccaccio’s The Decameron, wherein a lusty abbot, desirous of the wife of a man named Ferondo, enacts a dastardly plot. The abbot poisons Ferondo, convincing everyone that he has died and traveled to purgatory. Later on, after the abbot has sated his lust, Ferondo awakens in his tomb and the abbot continues the sham, persuading Ferondo that he is indeed in purgatory. Their dialog is full of little gems, but the following exchange has always stood out in my mind and seems appropriate now: 

“And are we two the only folk here [in purgatory]?” inquired Ferondo. “Nay, there are thousands besides,” answered the monk; “but thou canst neither see nor hear them, nor they thee.” “And how far,” said Ferondo, “may we be from our country?” “Oh! Ho!” returned the monk, “why, ‘tis some miles clean out of shit-range.” “Faith,” said Ferondo, “that is far indeed: methinks we must be out of the world.” -The Decameron, J.M. Rigg transl., pp. 238 

I feel this quote is appropriate to our times for many reasons. Boccaccio wrote these words in the 14th century during a time when the Black Death was ravaging Europe. Social unrest was high, hope was thin, and many people had lost sight of any truth but nihilistic hedonism. “Eat, drink, and be merry. Enjoy the few days you have left on earth. Tomorrow you could meet God… or Lucifer.” My belief is that people in that era wanted to hold on to a vestige of control over their lives. If they had angered God so, what could one more sin cost? A few more years in purgatory? A few more prayers or an indulgence? Consider the business opportunity that the Bubonic Plague opened for the nefarious elements within the Roman Catholic church at the time. With certainty, their exploitation of the people’s suffering led directly to the Reformation, which itself precipitated a culture war. That movement and its aftermath created the modern West, an idea now undoubtedly fading into history. 

Perhaps most striking in the passage, though, is the medieval view of purgatory as a place where there are thousands of other souls, yet individuals see and hear only themselves. 

And I ask myself: How is today in America any different? As a nation, I think we need to solve the problem of seeing and hearing each other before anything else. 

Collectively, we have lost sight of the truth as well as our greater purpose as We the People. Many on the American left—those who I believe exist in the relativistic “Postmodern realities,” whether they are theists, atheists, or Neopagans—do not believe in truth or a greater purpose. In their collective reality, me complaining about the fallen state of America is probably perceived as a quaint, naïve talking point spouted by those who do not see the flaws, mistakes, and sins of our American forefathers. At least for a segment of the left, the “greater purpose” is to transform this country—which was never that great, they argue—into something they can take pride in. I disagree, but I have no intent to persuade anyone to change their mind. Meanwhile, many on the American right—those who I believe are primarily theists and traditionalists/proponents of ideas I describe as CuRe (i.e., restorationist rather than purely conservative)—believe the truth was never lost and that, finally, the country seems to be headed toward normalcy thanks to the MAGA counterrevolution. It is important to note here that most of the right-wing is not advocating for a return to 1950s cultural norms, laws, and ethics. Most people would find that anachronistic and foolish, if not outright regressive. I will hazard to speak for the American right and say that most of us simply want a return to traditional American principles and beliefs. 

On both sides, right and left, there also seems to be a majority of people who believe our main goal right now is “to win.” 

In my last letter to you, America, I made the following admonishment: “As a right-leaning person, I am a little embarrassed by how much ‘we’re winning’ is being tossed around right now [by the American right]. Because Goddamnit, that was never the point. Winning is only valuable if our wins are moving us culturally forward in the direction of truth.” I meant these words. I also want to explain them. 

America, we are in a hot culture war. One side winning is a necessary outcome for the United States to move forward, but we must be clear about what “winning” means. From a CuRe worldview, winning means: Restoring our political and economic systems; reinvigorating our culture with a renewed emphasis on seeking truth; confirming our greater purpose and goals as We the People and dedicating ourselves to them; and ensuring a future for this republic by clarifying and bolstering our founding principles in the modern context (read: by reviewing the Founders’ intent in context and preserving their intent, not bastardizing Meaning/Truth for the purposes of political maneuvering in the present). 

I believe that reasonable people on the right and left must rally around this cause for us to heal/CuRe our culture. 

Let me reiterate: Having a clear winner of this culture war is necessary. But the winner’s intent and how they win are also important factors, as are the societal preconditions that the reformed government rests on top of. As a simple example, juxtapose the aftermath of the American Revolution and Civil War with that of the French Revolution. In the former examples, the intent was sovereignty (i.e., guiding our own destiny) and unity (i.e., not allowing half of the country to go their own way). In the latter example, the intent was, or at least on the surface seemed to be, to shuck off the oppression and humiliation imposed by the Bourbon overlords. 

That said, in neither of the American revolutions—at least until the assassination of Abraham Lincoln—did the victor seek to humiliate, subjugate, and outright destroy the defeated. In America, there was also a clear dedication to the ideal that We the People maintained familial ties as countrymen. The same cannot be said of the French. In using the pent-up rage of the commoners (proletariat) as a vehicle to depose the monarchists, the rising wealthy class (bourgeoisie) created an uncontrollable monster. This vengeful style of revolutionary action combined with the fact that, "When France sneezes, Europe catches cold," ultimately resulted in the collapse of the monarchial system in Europe. This, of course, contributed to setting the stage for the two World Wars. 

Coincidentally, another outcome of the French Revolution was Modernist thinking (e.g., Marxism, Darwinism) and Postmodernist articulation of power structures as the determiner of truth, morals, and societal norms. 

Now, some of you may be inclined to ask: Is there really a culture war or is Finch Fries just imagining it? Or you might, depending on your political leaning, believe that the culture war started with Donald Trump. But this is simply not the truth. 

Referring to my letter entitled “The Ties That Bind Us,” we need to separate President Trump’s policies into at least two buckets: (1) Those targeting the bottom layers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [i.e., ensuring physiological and safety needs are met]; and (2) those attempting to roll back changes made by the American Progressive movement. I urge my countrymen on the American left to consider whether the first or second policy slice is what they object to, because I believe strongly it is predominantly the second. And for my countrymen on the American right, you need to understand, if you do not already, that the cultural aspects of the MAGA movement are a direct attack on the Postmodern reality—hence it being so polarizing. What one side views as common sense, the other regards as anathema. To nearly half of the country, Donald Trump and all MAGA are an abomination because they truly represent the potential unwinding of the currently accepted Postmodern reality and worldview. In short, Postmodernism only allows for so much relativism until the paradigm is “locked in” for a certain context, historical timebox, or generation. 

So, a big concern for every American should be: What does the next paradigm look like? Can we coexist? Hence the CuRe All Letters. But, returning to the culture war topic… 

Lincoln’s corpse was the seed of the American culture war. 

Lincoln’s aim was to reunify and heal the country. The same cannot be said of those that succeeded him. After his death, Reconstruction unfolded in a way that solved few or none of the Civil War’s root causes. Concurrently, the Indian Wars, the Suffrage Movement, mass immigration from Europe, and the Spanish-American War highlighted an era of expansionism combined with deep social change. All these macro events were occurring against the backdrop of the Industrial Age and the deep wealth disparities exacerbated, if not created, by urbanization. 

It was not until Theodore Roosevelt that a president used the government to address the largescale problems that had manifested after 1865. Perhaps ironically, I doubt many on the American right would criticize Roosevelt for his progressive policies, even though they heralded the massive expansion of our nation’s social welfare system under FDR and LBJ. I think this is because, unlike those that followed, Roosevelt did not institute these systems as a means of aggregating power and controlling the population. I view his support of the Sixteenth Amendment, which instituted the federal income tax, as very similar. Sometimes, as with the Bull Moose Party, the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions. 

Anyway, the end of Roosevelt’s political legacy brings us to what I believe is the major turning point in American history: the election of Woodrow Wilson. 

For any American that does not understand why the culture war exists, this is the truth: Since 1912, the United States’ Founding Documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights) have been under relentless assault. In future letters, I plan to explain my point of view on how these attacks have been carried out and what the deeper underlying theological and philosophical causes are. But for now, let’s assume I’m right (“My letter, my rules,” he scoffed…). 

Especially since 1917, in large part through revisionist history intended to weaken the credibility of the Founding Fathers and those that followed, individuals—primarily on the left but admittedly on both sides—have sought to redefine, reinterpret, and reject the principles and beliefs on which this republic was founded and functioned. This pattern has since stretched both forwards and backwards in time. Further revisionist histories have redefined the origins of Western Civilization ("The West") as well as America’s global role and its internal politics since 1945. It has gotten so bad that the default position of American youth is that our history and all those in it were evil—we must sanitize our past and reset. This is wrong and dangerous thinking. That is the truth. 

This is not to say our history has been—or that we today are—perfect. Humanity is incapable of perfection. All we can do is study our past, remain mindful of where we are going, and keep each other accountable on the journey to that place. To drive this point home, I implore the reader to consider: What golden age in the history of any nation-state can you think of that was marked by a people attempting to burn their past for the sake of a fresh start? I can think of none. Few of those governments and the cultures they had dominion over still exist. 

Even if you interpret revisionism optimistically as reflecting a Postmodern paradigm shift to new power structures/language and a new reality, you cannot deny that from the viewpoint of American traditionalists, it has been used to attack everything they hold dear. In the 20th century, everything changed. The means by which the government funds itself (i.e., Sixteenth Amendment); the operation of our governmental systems (e.g., Seventeenth Amendment, New Deal, Great Society); the way in which we are educated; the content served to us as “ultimate fact” (e.g., Scientism reflected in how verboten it is to question Uniformitarianism and Darwinism); the family’s role in our children’s upbringing; the structure of the family itself; the class system being redefined based solely (and falsely) on race; the erosion of meritocracy; and ever on it went… 

And these sociopolitical changes have been leveraged as vehicles of power and instruments of control. Further, not once in my lifetime has the conservative movement done anything but lose. Sometimes conservatives lose more slowly, as during the Reagan years, but they always lose. And that’s inherent in the name. If you are conserving, then you are naturally in a defensive posture. Your expectation is that the best you can do is to prohibit things from eroding further—limit the damage. 

Ergo, one must conclude that President Trump/MAGA is not a conservative person/movement but a different offshoot of restorationism than CuRe (i.e., I believe the objectives of CuRe are different from those of MAGA). 

So, for the left-wing readers here (I hope reasonable folks have stuck around), know that this era of American politics beginning in 2024 is the first time in over one-hundred years that people with a certain worldview have had any reason to hope that the future resembled anything other than a “lesser version of now” and that they would want their progeny to inherit. 

It is the first time in a long time, and they are a little raucous. I do not—and would hope that, being reasonable, no one does—begrudge them of being hopeful and happy that their reality is no longer at death’s door. Because many on the right, just as on the left, are good sorts. My fear is that we—because every American has grown up on the battlefields of this culture war and all of us have been in some way tainted or scarred by it—devolve into pettiness, rage, unreasonableness, violence, and terror. 

I am not advocating for reconciliation and appeasement, only restraint and rationality. Because, returning to Boccaccio and The Decameron, we are far out of shit-range (sorry, Victor, should you ever read this) of the end of this culture war. As such, we can resolve ourselves to end it peacefully and with the intent to remain a unified nation and move forward as We the People. We the People, who are buoyed by Providence and free to chase our collective dreams—whatever we decide those are. 

Take care of yourself, America, 

Finch Fries