Anti-military types are a particularly repulsive lot. Though inclined by some bizarre delusory self-congratulation to cast themselves as "hippies" (whatever that’s supposed to mean thirty years after the Summer of Love), they’re even worse hypocrites than their predecessors. At least the fools in bell-bottoms had the excuse that nobody had tried this particular tack before, and that they were all whacked out on acid. These fools have no such excuse. We know that the idiocy spawned in 1968, from Flower Power to drug abuse, is just that - idiocy, and cannot work.
But, they cannot allow themselves to see that. They HAVE to try to claim some sort of moral high ground, since their ridiculous assertions on ANY subject cannot function in reality. So, devoid of a moral compass, they seek to claim moral superiority. By shouting loud enough, they hope to sway others.
They seem to divide the world into irreconcilable camps of those whom they think will stroke their own ego, buying into their attempts at emotional blackmail, and those whom they see as fundamentally incomplete in that they forgot to dress in the appropriate SS uniforms. The sad irony is that these despicable twits are the single most close-minded and totalitarian dictators today. Anyone who disagrees with any part of their Manifesto is immediately vilified and shouted down with screams of outrage. They use some odd form of guilt as their primary weapon, which they employ by screeching blatant falsehoods at such volume that they hope to drown facts out.
While the unexamined life might represent something of dubious value, how should we value a life from which all virtues, values, principals, and icons of substance have fled, driven under a blistering cynicism that has moved to the next logical phase - nihilism?
To the extent that these neuveaux-hippies stand in all the right post-modern poses, wear the oh-so-hip fashions, and affect the insufferably suave sneer doubtless born from many, many hours practicing in front of a mirror in order to appear unselfconscious, we may observe that, in spite all of their protestations about the phoniness of the soldier and his ilk, they live for a pose and an image. They may impugn the soldier for the silliness of following the conventions of a forties-model movie hero, but this attack dishonestly attempts to deride us for posturing rather than for striking an unhip posture.
Although their rhetoric-filled propaganda seem more like training films for a kind of Nazi torch-lit rally, and their program reflects a kind of self-assured semi-fascism, they characterize themselves as "hippies." They base this, it would seem, more on superficial things - perhaps a tendency to dabble in sex and intoxicants, to dress a certain way, and a desire to attach themselves to a borrowed hipness through claiming membership in a body that has a considerable image credential that belies its' original diversity. However, the methods of the far-left loonies implicate them not as the kind of folk who eschew the rat race and decide to spend their life selling friendship bracelets at folk art fairs, but instead of the principal figures in conspiracy theories. These clowns are all about appearance, not substance.
And, somehow, they manage to misidentify the "bad guys" on a sociopolitical axis by incredibly superficial traits, like the tendency to wear suits or the tendency to vote for politicians that their own incredibly hip cynical worldviews would never allow them to consider (indeed, the notion of something so bourgeois as voting must send their kind into uncontrolled spasms of laughter). In essence, they use style as a mask for a polluted substance.
In some ways, the culture of the west has allowed a great deal of latitude to those who mouth the appropriate slogans rather than those who practice exemplary principles or lead exemplary lives. Probably we could consider this a consequence of indulging a tendency to self-serving distortion, where wishful thinking inclines us to believe that we can assume a moral high ground without actually doing any work or making sacrifices. We could also consider this a consequence of a pandemic kind of political dogmatism which arbitrarily assigns people a role as "good guys" or "bad guys" based on trivia, then declares as "moral" those folks who repeat the correct political sound bytes at the proper stimuli.
Thus, without irony, granola-munchers can condemn a soldier as some kind of dupe, stooge, puppet, or punk of the vast right-wing military industrial complex conspiracy (the more qualifiers you string on, the less the term seems to mean) even as he practices precisely the vices critics of just such a nebulous body accuse them of. Wanton violence, shameless self-promotion, tremendous arrogation to self of a completely unwarranted moral authority, contempt for the weak, a vacuity of compassion for one's fellow man - one sees more of this in the college-level Leftist activist than the average war criminal drawn from the establishment military.
However, since hippy-boy wears the right clothes, strikes the aloof and ironic poses, and recites American atrocities (real and imagined) on cue, we can see how he places himself among the good guys. Image means all here. Take a Lieutenant Calley - the infamous architect of the My Lai massacre - and we easily recognize him as monstrous, based on his deeds; but to assign a similar moral disopprobrium to someone who wears the right clothes, reflects the right tastes, and comes from a hipper country requires more insight, since his ornamentation has yet to fall into the same kind of disrepute as the garments of a soldier who mistakes his uniform for a kind of ethical blank check.
The second half of the twentieth century could, if one chose to observe it closely, serve as a textbook about the origins, development, and ultimate dead end represented by cynicism. Cynicism either meets frontiers it dare not cross - such as non-negotiable moral underpinnings or deeply-seated taboos that even a rather vehement version of the product dare not cross - or it continues to engulf the whole of a world-view, spawning descendant tendencies like nihilism.
On the other hand, cynicism can resolve itself much the same way that Dante's hell resolved. One can enter it, move through it, and come out the other side after cynicism becomes truly all-encompassing. Many cynics never reach the final sacred cow that this kind of ill-will disguised as world-weary wisdom generally fears to confront. Yet cynicism, taken to its logical conclusion, stops believing in itself, as cynicism disillusions about cynicism itself.
To some extent, portions of western culture have entered a period that much represents this process of abandonment of snide contempt for the ordinary, elitism disguised as skepticism, and irony as a fashion statement. So we might, with some stretch (and perhaps optimism) characterize the present or near future as the Post-Ironical Age, and see in this story something like Mahomet battering down the ironic idols of the generation that came before.