His 1978 speech (in green) continued from the previous post . . .
A Decline in Courage [. . .]
may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?
What does Alexander mean by courage? Courage is the ability to speak the Truth, even when it hurts. Political correctness is a bridle for the tongue and mind that keeps one from so speaking, and then, from even so thinking. It is social control of the kind that denies the Truth. To give into political correctness is to give into fear. It is a lack of courage. In that vein the rise of political correctness is the very lack of courage of which Solzhenitsyn warns.
Which is one reason that he was shunned by this nation’s press after this speech. They lost their courage long ago, and want no one telling them of their wretched state.
I think Ted Koppel might have been touched by Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard 
speech. He never was one for much of the p.c. bit and bridle. When Koppel addressed graduated of Duke University in 1987 he had this to say:
[joined in progress] But let’s focus on our national policies; let’s look at our principles — our ethical and moral standards. How do they fare on television? We’ve learned, for example, that your attention span is brief. We should know; we helped make it that way. Watch Miami Vice some Friday night. You will find that no scene lasts more than ten to fifteen seconds.
Look at MTV or Good Morning America and watch the images and ideas flash past in a blur of impressionistic appetizers. No, there is not much room on TV for complexity. You can partake of our daily banquet without drawing on any intellectual resources; without either physical or moral discipline. We require nothing of you; only that you watch; or say that you were watching if Mr. Nielsen’s representative should call. And gradually, it must be said, we are beginning to make our mark on the American psyche. We have actually convinced ourselves that slogans will save us. “Shoot up if you must; but use a clean needle.” “Enjoy sex whenever with whomever you wish; but wear a condom.”
No. The answer is no. Not no because it isn’t cool or smart or because you might end up in jail or dying in an AIDS ward — but no, because it’s wrong. Because we have spent 5,000 years as a race of rational human being trying to drag ourselves out of the primeval slime by searching for truth and moral absolutes. In the place of Truth we have discovered facts; for moral absolutes we have substituted moral ambiguity. We now communicate with everyone and say absolutely nothing. We have reconstructed the Tower of Babel and it is a television antenna. A thousand voices producing a daily parody of democracy; in which everyone’s opinion is afforded equal weight, regardless of substance or merit. Indeed, it can even be argued that opinions of real weight tend to sink with barely a trace of television’s ocean banalities.
Our society finds Truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form Truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a hallowing reproach.
What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions, they are Commandments. Are, not were.
The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify, in a handful of words, acceptable human behavior. Not just for then or now but for all time. Language evolves, power shifts from nation to nation, messages are transmitted with the speed of light, man erases one frontier after another; and yet we and our behavior, and the Commandments which govern that behavior, remain the same.
{snip}
Jesus summed it up: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So much for our obligations towards our fellow man. That’s what the last five Commandments are all about.
{snip}.
Which brings me to the First and, in this day and age probably the most controversial of the Commandments, since it requires that we believe in the existence of a single and supreme God. And then, in the Second, Third, and Fourth Commandments, prohibits the worship of any other gods, forbids that his name be taken in vain, requires that we set aside one day in seven to rest and worship Him. …
{snip}
There is true majesty in the concept of an unseen power which can neither be measured nor weighed. There is harmony and inner peace to be found in following a moral compass that points in the same direction, regardless of fashion or trend.
****
Well said, Ted. Your showed the courage which Alexander sought. What a shame it is that most of the eltists who rule over us, be it in governance, in academia, in media and even among the clergy are far too cowardly to speak out with such boldness.
Let us all make Alexander proud, shall we?
The above is Koppel’s speech as edited by the Institute. For the whole speech click here.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, August 9th, 2008 at 12:01 am and is filed under Great dissidents.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
