The Diminishment of Christmas

 As I gaze on the scene depicted above, presumably a painting of Victoria and Albert and a gaggle of children arrayed around what seems to be a large Norfolk Island Pine festooned (my word of the day) with ornaments, I find myself inclined to wonder whether Christmas has, or should, become unimportant.

Soon Albert would be dead, and the children parented, if one can call it that, by the grim Queen who it seems wasn't at all fond of them or of children generally.  Some or for all I know all of the children shown or their cousins would soon enough hurl the world into a horrific war.  And each year they would gather around some other tree to celebrate Christmas, as we do still, wars or no wars.  Usually wars, as they've been fairly constant since the First World War, which was supposed to end them.

If this post is noted by anyone Christian and conservative in the vulgar sense the word now has in our Great Republic, they would likely consider it part of the fabled "War on Christmas."  But it isn't.  The celebration of Christmas is perfectly fine with me.  Nor do I have any problem with those who wish to do so keeping Christ in it.  It's interesting that Christians themselves may have waged war on Christmas more effectively than non-Christians.  I refer to the Puritans, or Roundheads, who banned the celebration of Christmas (along with other things) during Oliver Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector of England, and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who made celebrating Christmas punishable by fine.

Of course, Christmas as celebrated has little to do with Jesus.  But for the manger scenes one sees in homes or rather ostentatiously in public, there's nothing in the appearance of Christmas celebrations which evokes him.  The Christmas tree, the Yule log, the laurels, all are pagan in origin.  There's nothing whatsoever even suggesting Jesus was born on December 25th, though we know that date was associated with pagan deities who were said to be born at that time or around the winter solstice, and born by a virgin mother.  The date was selected as his birthday several centuries after he is said to have lived, to coincide with pagan celebrations of the birth of Sol Invictus, to name one such god, and the season of celebrations connected with the winter solstice by pagans, such as the Roman Saturnalia to name one of them.

There's also nothing of substance supporting the claim he was born in Bethlehem.  Two of the canonical Gospels say nothing regarding his birth.  The claim that that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem for purposes of a census ordered by Augustus also lacks credibility.  There's no record of such a census, and the Romans were prodigious record-keepers.  And why the Imperial government would have required people to travel to their birthplaces to be counted, with the resulting chaos in travel, housing and administration, is unexplained.  Though it may be explained because Bethlehem is where David was born, and it was necessary for Joseph to be among the House of David.

All this is well-known, though not very often noted.  Perhaps then, following Aristotelian or Thomist metaphysics, the claim is that keeping Christ in Christmas refers to the substance of Christmas rather than its appearances.  

But in what sense are the teachings of Jesus followed or celebrated, even on Christmas day or during the holiday season, let alone the rest of the year?  There's a good amount of lip service to that affect, but even that seems to be declining.  Maudlin Christmas movies, TV shows or stories continue to be shown or read, but this seems to be due to a sense of obligation rather than due to any popularity, and those seem to be declining as well.  It may be because of the fact Christmas this year fell on a Sunday, but I saw far more football than I did dramatisations of Dickens and even of Capra's work we all know far too well.

The fact that families are more widespread than in the past has led to a decline in familial celebrations; traveling home for Christmas seems onerous in many respects, now more than ever.

Finally, let me put my (Christmas?) cards on the table.  I suggest that there is less Christmas cheer or spirit than there has been in the past because people have become less and less likable.  Our public figures in politics, the media, entertainment (name them) are craven and selfish, crabbed, mean, angry, rude, boorish, hypocritical, self-righteous...one runs out of derogatory words when trying to describe them.  So are most of us if social media is any guide.  There is less and less good will being given.  There's less and less comfort and joy available. 

One has to wonder whether there will come a time when Christmas will seem surreal to most of us.  Perhaps Christmas in time will seem so different from our reality that we'll be unable to accept it anymore.

One Little Hitler

I haven't been able to determine who drew the editorial cartoon gracing this post, but it was apparently made in 1942.  I think we're safe in believing that it isn't, in fact, a self-portrait.

It presents an interesting take on Hitler's popularity with the German people at that time.  The slavish figure genuflecting to Der Fuhrer gives thanks that Hitler has saved him from democracy, which is called a scourge.

The belief that democracy is if not a scourge then a decadent failure as a form of government which should be discarded was a popular one among the intelligentsia of the time, including that disgusting Nazi toady, Heidegger.  It continues to be the belief of various right-wing intellectuals in Europe currently, for much the same reasons.  Those reasons seem to have their bases in nationalism, the preservation of cultural if not biological purity, resentment and the desire to be safe and secure followers of a national or cultural hero-figure.  Democracy is seen as chaotic and too favorable to opposing and unusual views and people.

One can't help but wonder if that's how many feel about it here and now.  Not that our Great Republic has ever been a democracy, properly speaking.  But such as it is, it may be that we have come to a point where a significant number of us are not comfortable with it, for reasons similar to those supporters of fascism in the past.  

Others have already wondered whether our Glorious Union is becoming similar to the version of America in Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, published in 1936.  Comparisons have been made between current political figures (one in particular) and Buzz Windrip, the American dictator in the novel.  Buzz was probably modeled on Huey Long, but his personality traits are similar to those of other men better known now than the Kingfish, a Louisiana populist.  Buzz incarcerated political opponents, denigrated women and minorities, was anti-immigrant; he was vulgar, vain, outlandish, and a prolific liar, and very popular.  The American fascism described in the novel was a great friend to big business.  It had more in common with Mussolini's version of corporate fascism than with Hitler's Nazis.  Hitler wasn't all that well known in America at that time.

In these times when political figures declaim, to acclaim, that immigrants are poisoning our blood and are vermin, as are political opponents, the assertion that what took place a hundred years or so ago in Europe can't take place here is less than credible.  It's apparent that elections and the rule of law mean nothing to many here in God's Favorite Country.  What's next?

It's interesting that in Lewis' novel, the opponents of Windrip and his regime took refuge in Canada.  We hear Canada being praised often in these dark times, for a number of reasons.  Was Lewis prescient in that respect as well?

The Dangers of Free Expression

Ah, the halcyon days of the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC").  See the giants of HUAC above, Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, hard at work.  Have those days returned, or are they returning?

The People's House, as it is called by some without apparent irony, or at least certain of its members, recently took the opportunity to posture for us by interrogating high officials of certain Ivy League schools regarding anti-semitic speech and conduct if not in the halls of academia then on campus.  As a result, certain of them have resigned or are on the cusp of doing so, and the professionally outraged and great donating individuals and corporations are gunning for their jobs.

It's always amusing when politicians strike attitudes for the cameras and exercise their relatively limited powers of expression on most any topic.  But this is particularly the case when self-righteousness is what is on display.  To be frank, the very idea of members of Congress inquiring into free expression isn't merely amusing; it's alarming.  Their tendency is to regulate, as regulation involves the exercise of powers that, unfortunately, are given them, and except for the acquisition of money it is the exercise of power which gives them the most joy.

So, any meeting of a committee of Congress for the purpose of exploring issues which may be impacted by First Amendment concerns, or questions of morals, is prima facie disturbing.  What seems to be motivating the head hunting now taking place, though, is itself disturbing, as it seems that the sad recipients of Congressional attention had difficulty affirming that advocating the extermination of the Jewish people would violate the codes of their institutions relating to bullying and harassment. 

Calling for genocide would seem objectionable per se.  Ambivalence on whether it is in the case of Jews in particular is especially objectionable at this time, given increasing instances of anti-semitism, which is what evidently led to this latest salle by Congress into higher education.  One would think that it would only make sense to confirm that calling for genocide of a people is bullying and harassment even in Ivy League schools.

Just what caused the hesitance and equivocation isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be motivated by the belief that, at least in the academy, there should be few if any limits on expression.  Just why this would be believed is also unclear, to me at least.  To a certain extent, I tend to blame John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty.  On the question of freedom of speech, he remains something of an idol.  Mill is thought by today's version of conservatives to be a liberal, and therefore evil, but the truth is he was very much a Classical Liberal, which is what conservatives were in many instances in the days when conservatism was a legitimate point of view.  He is perhaps more accurately called a Libertarian.

Regardless, though, when it comes to free expression Mill was unfortunately something of an absolutist.  Thus, according to him--"if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

There is danger in absolutism.  In the case of free expression, claiming that all expression must be free requires the suspension of intelligent judgment.  It requires that we accept the view that all speech be treated as equal in value and merit.  That simply is not the case, and no appeal to a mythical "marketplace of ideas" justifies such an irresponsible position.  In fact, as we should know to an increasingly reasonable degree of certainty, people will believe anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how insensible, no matter how irrational, and once believing won't be persuaded not to believe.

This is not to say that there's anything seemly or worthy in the histrionics being engaged in by certain politicians and the wealthy as they seek to outdo each other in their self-righteous demands for academic blood.  But it is to say that free expression can be dangerous, and isn't always to be allowed.

The "Me" Century

The late, great and (by me at least) lamented Tom Wolfe wrote a book, or perhaps more properly an essay, called The "Me" Decade and the Third Great Awakening.  The decade he referred to was that of the 1970s.  The "Third Great Awakening" he proclaimed was a jest he was making based on the (first) Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening, sadly real episodes in American history of Christian revivals led by Protestant Evangelical leaders.  Besides the preaching of hellfire and brimstone, our sinful nature and the need for redemption, the fear of divine retribution and protestations of piety, the Awakenings resulted in the creation of new sects and denominations and social movements and, in the case of the second one, the YMCA, later to be lauded so vigorously by the Village People.

As the quote at the head of this post reveals, Wolfe claimed that in the Third Great Awakening "Me" took the place of Jesus, and we became fervent in the worship our ourselves.  He provided various examples of our religious self-love.  

The argument can be made that we continue to worship ourselves, and in fact that we've always done so.  Since the 1970s, though, our ability to engage in self-worship has increased spectacularly.  Even more importantly, we now each possess the means to serve as our own missionaries, proclaiming our godhood and spreading our good news throughout the world.  We may expect that our technology will allow us to do these things more and more effectively.  

Each of us may transmit our thoughts, and expose our bodies and even souls to the view of all, and many of us do so.  Such is our self-regard that there is no practical limit to what we're willing to do or say, though we know in the back of our minds that all can be seen regardless of the fact that we seem alone in our room.  And it appears we don't care.  We feel neither shame nor concern; we have no responsibility, we're not answerable to anyone or anything when it comes to our opinions or our actions which we incessantly broadcast--or at least that seems to be the case.  There's no one to question our conclusions or rebut our claims unless we allow them to do so, except in the relatively few cases where law enforcement or those interested in shaming have reason to take notice of us.  The number of those of us interested in shaming is no doubt increasing, however.  It will be interesting to see whether this will lessen our exhibitionism.

That this is the result of our self-love, and even self-imposed godly status, is established by the fact that our unfailing efforts to expose and expound our every thought, opinion or feeling on any subject to everyone and anyone can only be explained by our sense of our own importance.  What reasonable person would assume that these must be made available to the world at large?  A god might do so; also a lunatic, or egomaniac.  

Or can this be explained by another kind of religious or quasi-religious feeling?  Might we sons and daughters (or whatever we might think ourselves to be) of Adam and Eve, knowing that we're tainted by Original Sin, aware of our sinfulness, wretchedness and insignificance, be desperately seeking validation and redemption through use of the vast confessional of the Internet?  Are we Tommies, like the hero of The Who's rock opera, crying "See me, feel me, touch me, heal me" in the World-Wide Web?  Our PCs become pin-ball machines.  Do we think ourselves saviors of ourselves or others?

If we're not gods, we possess the tools to act as gods.  We're capable of making proclamations and expressing opinions on every subject, regardless of our abilities, education, experience and knowledge.  In a very real sense it doesn't matter whether our beliefs have been critiqued, verified, or made subject to peer review in order for them to be made available (so much more efficaciously than through publication) by use of a keyboard or camera.  We don't need such review of or limitations on our expression to be read, seen or heard, and therefore believe them unneeded.  

We can appear to be all-knowing, and act as if we're omniscient, always and with ease.  One doesn't have to be a god in order to act like one.

The Curious Conflict of the Church and Masonry

 We're told the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has now reaffirmed that the Church forbids its members from joining the Freemasons, and that for them to become Masons is a "grave sin."  This has been the Church's position regarding Freemasonry for centuries, since Freemasonry was founded in the 18th century.  The reaffirmation was approved by the Pontifex Maximus himself.  Interestingly, this continued condemnation of Freemasonry was issued contemporaneously with a determination by the Dicastery that transgender people may be baptized, may be godparents and may serve as witnesses at a wedding.  Better transgender than Mason, it seems.

Why does the Church persist in forbidding joining the Masons, while seemingly becoming more inclusive of those once thought sinful or unnatural?

The Church's prohibition of membership in the Masons is interesting in several respects.  Because both institutions prominently feature men (for the most part) dressed up in silly costumes, uttering pretentious phrases and performing peculiar rituals, one would think that they would have much in common.  It appears that this was the opinion of Joseph Keppler, who drew the cartoon gracing the top of this post for Puck magazine in 1884.  The cartoon is called "Two of the Same Kind" and features absurdly dressed Catholic clergy, one of whom seems to be a bishop or perhaps a pope, in battle with absurdly dressed Freemasons.

Perhaps their similarity is the basis for the conflict.  They're rivals, in a sense.  We humans have a taste for gaudy, garish costumes and impressive ritual, particularly in matters of religion.  The Church's condemnation of Masonry appears founded on the belief that Masonry is a religion.  There's some basis for this belief, according to the sometimes invaluable Internet.  I know very little about the Freemasons, but it seems that they extol a supreme being they call the "Divine Architect" (they're supposed to be the successors of medieval masons, after all), and see themselves as servants of that being in the pursuit of a divine plan of sorts, or at least are pleased to say they are in their rituals.  One of the reason past popes have condemned it is that they've considered it to espouse a religion of "naturalism" as opposed, it seems to "supernaturalism."  That would be a point in its favor to some.

They have a fairly complicated system of initiation into several levels of Masonry, regarding which they're sworn to secrecy.  This is similar to the practice of the ancient mystery cults, from which some say they're also derived or intend to mimic.  

What distinguishes Freemasonry from modern religions, particularly those of the Abrahamic tradition, is the fact that it welcomes members of any other religion into its fold.  This may make it particularly dangerous from the perspective of the Church.  At least according to Freemasonry, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others are free to become Masons.  There's no need for an initiate to disavow the religion in which they were born or have practiced in order to be a Mason.  Thus the need for the Church to affirmatively forbid Catholics from joining the Masons.

The Church may also see danger in the fact that membership in the Freemasons is said to be beneficial to its members in various secular ways.  It may satisfy the religious yearnings of those who are deists and others, but by all accounts does satisfy the ambition of those hoping to make their way in business or become wealthy.  Masons are said to take care of each other, to grant each other favor or favors in life.  A religion which isn't at all unworldly, then.  Masons may have a reward in heaven because of their beliefs, but in the meantime will be rewarded in this life by other Masons. 

It's not all that surprising, then, that the Church persists in condemning such an attractive religion.

Zombie Apocalypse: Coming November, 2024

Perhaps it won't happen, but we should be prepared for the possibility.  There are political and social zombies.  It seems they have no will, nor it seems do they have much in the way of brains, being hungry for them and resentful of those that possess them.  They seem incapable of reason, are easily led, and have no thought of the consequences of their fantastically limited view of reality, of the world, of the universe for that matter, being eager to consume the source of intelligence itself.  They stagger towards the future, voracious and fierce in the pursuit of sameness.  

The Walking Dead aren't creatures of fiction.  They walk among us.  They haven't died physically, but spiritually and mentally, to be regenerated in the service of dark magic.  They vote.  They run for office.  They're elected.  They have no agenda to speak of; they don't like agendas, thinking them to be what they're pleased to call "liberal."  They merely wish to be zombies, answering to the voodoo that created them, unquestioning, unthinking, remorseless, relentless.  It's not surprising that the Nazis were associated with zombies, even during WWII.  They are of a type, just following orders embedded in them by something, a leader for political zombies, aliens or some kind of plague for others.

They've shown that they pay no attention to what has been said or done in the past, especially if it's contrary to and critical of what and who they are zombies for.  While they may be lacking in brains, those they possess have been thoroughly washed.  What they believe they believe without question.  What they are willing to do they will do without conscience.  They're true believers in what is demonstrably untrue, the worst kind of fanatics.

Does their existence have anything to do with the popularity of zombie movies, books, graphic novels and TV?  It's an interesting question.  But generally, the zombies are the enemy in those media.  They're fought against, and they must be killed.  One of my favorite zombie movies is an older one--The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price.  It might be argued that those raised from the dead by a plague in that movie were more vampires than zombies, loving blood and coming out at night, but I think they have most of the characteristics of fictional zombies so many, it seems, know and love.  Vincent Price as Dr. Morgan travels about the city in the day, gathering corpses while they're inert and burning them.  At night they assail him in his house while he drinks and plays records.  The zombies I write of are deplored by some, enjoyed and exploited by others.

Those who deplore them are amazed, as they should be, by their dull wits and gullibility but have no plan to combat them.  There is something novel about them.  Our Great Republic has always had its share of suckers and snake oil salesmen gracing its elections.  But in general the salesmen have been merely venal.  Now it seems they have something more dire in mind than the acquisition of money needed to retain power; at least their chief spokesman does.

Let's hope Sinclair Lewis wasn't prescient.

Ecclesiastes and (Holy?) War

 

I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture.  But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world.  There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.

Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war.  The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however.  It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state.  A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others.  

If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned.  Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition.  The Crusades were launched by the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!").  Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels.  That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews.  The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.

It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose.  Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire.  The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians.  

Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed.  It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.

From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza.  I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact.  Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas.  That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.

Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social.  Outrage generates outrage.  Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response.  Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism.  What other outrages await us?  Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme.  The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.

From Their Cold, Dead Hands

I have a fondness for Charlton Heston, the actor.  Not because of the parts he played in epic, blockbuster films like Ben Hur and The Greatest Story Ever Told, but because of his roles in "smaller" films.  I particularly enjoyed his portrayal of Cardinal Richelieu in Richard Lester's Musketeer movies.  I'm a fan of his work in Soylent Green.  I like what he did in Touch of Evil.

I've never been impressed by the statement he made at a meeting of the NRA in 2000, from which the title to this post is derived. to the effect that "the government" (Al Gore was mentioned specifically) could take his gun, but only "from his cold, dead hands."  

The gun-taking government that certain of us gun owners fear so viscerally does not exist, and it isn't likely it ever will in our Great Republic.  It is in the nature of a boogeyman.  Realistically speaking the most the government may do, depending on who makes the law, is restrict the sale of certain guns and amounts of ammunition, at least to certain persons.  If we want to reasonably assess the claims of those who fear the Second Amendment is at risk, then, it's more appropriate that we acknowledge that guns will not be taken away.  Guns won't be confiscated.  There's no reason to think that is threatened.

I don't think that's even suggested by anyone likely to exercise any kind of political influence or power.  What is actually feared, and what may actually be possible if not probable, is that "the government" will prevent people from acquiring certain guns (assault rifles, AR-15s) and magazines which allow one to shoot those guns many times without reloading.  That is hardly a ban on firearms.

This is what should be considered as the latest mass shooting/killing in our Glorious Union, which took place in Lewiston, Maine, brings the issue of gun control, however briefly, to mind once more (then to be ignored until the next one).  Apparently, the shooter used the mass shooter's weapon of choice, the AR-15.  Regulating such weapons doesn't entail the wholesale confiscation of firearms, and wouldn't impose significant limitations on who may own and acquire guns, but would amount only to the regulation of the sale of firearms which were made to inflict death and harm on a large scale and are being used for that purpose on people who pose no threat as they go about their lives.

The "cold, dead hands" we should be concerned about aren't those of a hypothetical gun owner whose gun is being taken away by the government, but the hands of those men, women and children who are killed by guns.  It's clear enough that the cold, dead hands of those killed by people wielding guns outnumber the hands of those, dead or alive, who are not criminals and have suffered the confiscation of their guns by government.  The argument that honoring the Second Amendment means guns cannot be regulated perpetuates a false dichotomy, and presumes that the right to bear arms is absolute, which no sensible person can maintain.

What we must decide is how willing we are to tolerate the violence, harm and death which takes place when the acquisition of such weapons is allowed.

Caveat Scriptor: The Harvard Student Statement and the Backlash

 "Let the writer beware."  That, I think and hope, is the English translation of Caveat Scriptor.  I have a disturbing feeling that it may mean "Beware of the Writer" which isn't what I intend to say in this case, though I might in other cases.

"The Statement" being referred to is, as you might suspect, that issued, jointly we're told, by certain Harvard students and student organizations in response to the attacks made by Hamas earlier this month against Israel, targeting civilians primarily if not exclusively.  

That statement is relatively short, or at least versions of it I've seen which purport to be accurate are short.  It doesn't refer to Hamas.  It does, however, assert that Israel is solely responsible for the violence perpetrated by Hamas, refers to the government of Israel as an apartheid regime, and claims that the Palestinians have been repressed by Israel and compelled to live in an open-air prison for two decades.  It states that the violence Israel will perpetuate in responding to the attacks will be the responsibility of Israel alone.

Some of Harvard's corporate donors have responded to the statement and what they consider the insufficiently outraged response to it by its administrators by demanding that the names of those students making or joining in the statements and, presumably, what lawyers may call their personal identifying information, be disclosed.  The donors are concerned that unless they are disclosed they may, inadvertently, hire them.  Presumably, they'll refuse to do so if they learn who they are and may be inclined to vilify them as well.  Given the virulence of their response to the statement, they may hope that others will also refuse to hire them as well and join in blacklisting them.  Not surprisingly, some students have expressed regret at their temerity.

The Statement is clearly wrong, and even reprehensibly so, in ascribing sole responsibility for the attacks by Hamas on Israel and attributing no responsibility to Hamas.  One may sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people without supporting the murderous and brutal actions of a terrorist organization, which is all Hamas appears to be.   As far as I'm aware, Hamas itself has taken no action to benefit the Palestinians; it has merely committed itself to the destruction of Israel--which is not likely to ever take place.  While it's true The Statement makes no mention of Hamas, it's clearly intended to refer to the recent attacks by Hamas, and absolves it of any guilt for its atrocities, which is deplorable.

Nevertheless, I have to admit I find the reactions of the donors in question to be rather surprising, for a number of reasons.  Let me note, first, that many people of my age and slightly older than me said and did things while college students not all that different from what those who wrote or joined in The Statement have said and done.  It happens that at that time, the U.S. itself was being blamed for violence perpetrated by others, some of whom were student activists, some of whom were from North Vietnam, some of whom were black, some of whom were South African, some of whom were communists--I could go on.

We Boomers while in college and (for a time) afterwards were rabid political and social critics and protesters, and quite ready to blame those we perceived as the oppressors for the violence of those we thought were oppressed by them.  Some of us were violent in the cause of the oppressed, or so we thought.  The Statement considered in that context isn't unique or uniquely reprehensible.  I wonder whether those who now condemn The Statement are Boomers who regret or have forgotten their own youthful conduct.

Let me note also that college students are often naive, foolish, immature, thoughtless, subject to peer-pressure and privileged, and may act stupidly and irresponsibly.  I, personally, do not think or have reason to believe that students at Harvard are more intelligent, sophisticated, reasonable and discerning than students at other colleges.  I think they can be just as stupid and callous as their less favored brothers and sisters.

It therefore isn't apparent to me that condemning Harvard for failing to condemn the students in question with sufficient ferocity, ceasing donations to that institution, and seeking to expose and blacklist the students in question in a way which may negatively impact their careers and future lives, is appropriate or even sensible.  It serves to call attention to The Statement, in fact.  When the financially High and Mighty among us begin to throw their weight around to get their way and seek vengeance against those who disturb them, particularly insignificants like undergraduates, it isn't a pretty or inspiring sight.  

The Never-Ending (Horror) Story

I've noted previously in this blog that I don't think Israel has a religious or historical "right" to the territory it governs, or occupies, or would like to govern.  Not only are there difficulties in asserting that a "right" of such a nature exists in the first place, for any nation, but--for me at least--the thought of God decreeing that anyone is entitled to real estate seems absurd.  Also, I question whether the area of land in question can be described as a "homeland" of the Jewish people since it has been ruled, for the most part, by others since Babylon occupied it and the Jewish people, in large numbers, left it long ago.

Babylon was of course succeeded by the Persians, who were succeeded by Alexander and his successors, who were succeeded by Rome, which was succeeded by Arabs and the Ottomans and so on until 1948.  That's a very long time.  At least from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, most Jews lived elsewhere.  Thus the Jewish Diaspora, which some maintain commenced with the Babylonian Captivity.

The creation of Israel, it must be recognized, virtually guaranteed conflict with those who lived where it is now located.  That conflict has continued since its creation.  It seems likely to continue ad infinitum.  It may therefore be claimed, reasonably I think, by those who don't believe in the Jewish homeland or that God gifted it to the Jews, that its creation was unfortunate.  

That said, Israel exists and is a sovereign nation.  It should be treated as such.  A sovereign nation may defend itself.  It cannot be erased from the world.  It will continue to exist, unless perhaps the entire region or the world itself is destroyed. 

Claims that Israel should be dissolved or destroyed and efforts to achieve those claims are, therefore, futile and unreasonable.  When those efforts amount to brutal, ruthless terrorism of the kind being perpetrated now by Hamas, they should be denounced and deplored. 

The fact that Israel is a sovereign nation does not mean that it has any right to, or should, expand its borders particularly if it results in the additional displacement of those already displaced by its creation.  Itsexpansion in the form of new "settlements" beyond its borders isn't justified by the claims of zealots who think the land is theirs because God gave it to the Jews, which are absurd.  It's expansion to the harm of others is unjustifiable.

What should take place in any reasonable world is a resolution which wouldn't include either the destruction of Israel or its expansion, and the recognition of the fact that Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs should be accorded the same treatment, and have the same rights.  However, the effective leaders of the conflicting peoples have no interest in such a resolution.  One side wants Israel destroyed, the others want the Palestinians to be removed or rendered harmless.

Can reason be imposed, can peace be imposed, when those fighting one another have no interest in either?  It's doubtful.  Perhaps the only option is to act in such a way as to restrict or contain the harm which will be caused by the intransigent on both sides.   That will be difficult enough to do, but may be more achievable than any peace.

 

Social Media and the Roman Empire

 

It seems there is a trend, fostered for God knows what reasons by Social Media such as TikTok, by which women ask men how often they think of the Roman Empire.  Supposedly, the men have responded that they think of it quite often.  Just what these men consider the Roman Empire to be, or what it is about the Roman Empire they think about (there was a lot involved in it, after all) isn't clear.

Nor is it clear whether this trend actually exists, or how it arose if it exists, or the extent to which it exists.  These days, it seems possible that a woman may have asked a man about the Roman Empire one day and posted the response on Social Media, whereupon women all over the world having read of it began asking men about it or at least claimed they had done so.  Such things are possible in these unfortunate times, where it seems anyone may be an "influencer" or can claim to be one.  I can only say that I see the trend mentioned in posts and headlines.

The fact that there is a "trend" having been noted somewhere, sometime, somehow by someone, various and sundry pundits and pontificators have pondered why there is such a trend and, of course, what it means.  What it means to some is that men are vulnerable and confused about themselves, and apparently long for the good old days of Rome, where it is said the patriarchy reigned free and undisturbed, and women kept in their place.  Alternatively, men may just want to repress and dominate women and think fondly of an era and place where that took place with greater ease than it does now.

Our current fascination with sex and gender issues makes it unsurprising that speculations and conclusions of this nature abound.  But explanation of the fascination with Rome and its empire is found easily enough because its memory is everywhere, and in some respects and forms it still exists.  The Catholic Church is in many respects a ghost of the Empire.  Portions of Latin are used in discourse, and in the law, medicine and science, and of course the Romance languages are derivations of it.  Roman Ruins, still spectacular in many ways, lie throughout Europe, the U.K., North Africa, and large parts of Asia.

Its impact on law and government is immense in the West., and not merely in the continent of Europe.  The government of the U.S. was inspired by it and mimicked it.  Christianity was born and developed in the Empire, and its history and that of the Christian religion are intermixed.

Movies and books based on Roman history have been made and written for many years.  Roman architecture can be seen in many public buildings.  Nations are compared to it.  Its authors are still read and studied.  There's really no getting away from it, in the West.

This is not to mention the fact that, in the history of the West, there has been no other nation or form of  government which ruled over so many diverse peoples and regions so successfully and for so long in all of history.

It seems unlikely, then, that the popularity of the Roman Empire is due to feelings of sexual inadequacy or insecurity or urge to dominate being experienced by modern men.   It seems rather peculiar that there are those who come to this conclusion; it may say more about them than anything else.

Rome was a patriarchal society, no doubt.  It was military and imperialistic, cruel and hierarchical. It can be maintained, though, that this is the case regarding its successors as well, and it's unclear it was any worse than other empires and nations that came after it, even relative to the rights of women, who could not vote until recently, could not freely divorce until recently, and whose legal rights were minimal until recently.  Women were, in fact, less free and had less rights in many respects after the dissolution of the Empire than they had during the Empire.

Philosophy as Affectation

Gertrude Stein made the remark shown at the head of this post in connection with the death of the dancer/choreographer Isadora Duncan.  Duncan loved to wear long, flowing scarves.  She was wearing one while driving on September 14, 1927.  The scarf became entangled in one of the wheel wells of the car she was in (the wheels were open-spoked), pulling her from the car and breaking her neck (even, it seems, decapitating her or nearly doing so).  Gertrude Stein could be sardonic.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "affectation" is "a. speech or conduct not natural to oneself: an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others" or "b. the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt."

It isn't clear to me that wearing long scarves is an affectation according to that definition.  It may be conduct intended to impress others, but I don't think it may properly be called "unnatural."  Still, we can infer what Gertrude meant in making her rather gruesome witticism without concluding wearing scarves of any sort is somehow an unnatural form of behavior.

I've remarked before in this blog that I'm annoyed by the metaphysical and epistemological efforts of some philosophers to question what is "real" and what we can "know."  Perhaps it would be kinder to describe those efforts as attempts to ascertain how or whether we can determine what is "real" and what can be "known."  It may be kinder to do so, but I think those efforts would in that case be no less annoying.

I think the fact that the claims of these philosophers are without merit has been shown by other philosophers, such as Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin.  But here I address the annoying nature to those claims; I propose that we may, reasonably, characterize their thought as irksome affectations. 

The source of my annoyance arises from a simple fact.  These philosophers, while spending their time and that of others foolish enough to read their works debating what is real and what can be known, and in creating and entertaining arguments in support of the position that we can't know anything, and in particular can't know if anything is real, blithely conduct themselves and interact with others and things in the world, treating them just as they would if they were, in fact, real and known by them.  Their conduct belies their claims, in other words.

I've always thought them to be in some sense disingenuous or dishonest as a result.  "I don't know if this chair exists" I imagine them saying "but I'm sitting on it and sit on it every day, just as I would if I knew it exists.  But I don't.  And in fact can't."  It seems rather harsh to call them brazen hypocrites, though.  We usually reserve that term for those who claim certain conduct is wrong and nonetheless engage in it all the time.  The philosophers I refer to probably aren't acting dishonestly or immorally.  

But, I think it's clear that they're saying, and behaving, in an unnatural manner.  "Unnatural" because the claims they make are plainly at odds with what they do, think and say naturally, as human beings, in the course of their lives.  For the same reason, their speech and conduct is not genuine.

I think it's also clear that their speech and conduct in this respect are intended to impress others.  After all, they purport to tell us all that we can't know what's real, or can't really know anything.  They seek to encourage doubt of things with which we interact at every moment.  They maintain, in other words, that we're foolish to think and act as we do, and we would understand that if only we were as intelligent as they are.

This kind of philosophy, which purports to doubt what is real and what can be known, is therefore an affectation.  And would be dangerous, if anyone actually took it seriously.

God Save us from Proselytizers

 

Something there is that motivates many of us to expound on our views, on a number of subjects, to others without being asked to do so.  Thomas Carlyle, as one can see in the quote above, thought that it is not merely a part of our nature but emphatically so.  Unsolicited pontification one might call it (or in any case I call it that, now).

This seems especially the case when it comes to God and religion.  An interesting question is whether this tendency has always been part of our nature, or became common at some point in our very talkative, chattering history.

I don't think it was a part of our nature until relatively recently in our history, at least as far as God and religion are concerned.  We don't see the ancient, polytheistic pagan West filled with adherents of a particular god urging people to worship that god only.  Worshippers of Dionysus didn't seek to convert worshippers of Isis; worshippers of Cybele didn't bother to convert initiates of other gods.  The Romans didn't insist that those they conquered worship Roman gods.  They generally would treat the gods of the barbarians as aspects of the gods they accepted; different versions of gods like Jupiter, Mars, and others, worshipped under different names.  Not even Christians were persecuted because they worshipped a particular god and not pagan gods, nor were the Jews.  They were persecuted, instead, when they refused to participate in the reverence owed the Roman state and its emperors, which they believed to be worship rather than a prayer or offering for their welfare.

I've come to the conclusion that proselytizing, which in most cases refers to religious hectoring, lecturing, sermonizing, and communication in general, wasn't indulged in to any great extent until some of us came to be monotheists who not only insisted there was one God only, but that worshipping that God--and no other god--was right and necessary.  That view naturally caused other views to arise, e.g. worshipping any other God was wrong, and that it was right and good that others worship the one true God in the manner appropriate according to those who worshipped that God already.  And so many unworthy, awful and horrible events began taking place and take place still.

Why else would someone want to tell others their beliefs regarding God, and what they consider the reasons for them?  The fact that one believes in God isn't enough to explain the urge to tell, and to explain, and to persuade (sometimes forcibly) others who don't, or who favor another, or perhaps to repress them for doing so.  Even the belief that the God one believes in is the one, true God isn't quite enough.  It isn't necessary that the believer in God X preach that X is God, rather than Y or Z.  That believer could merely believe and be silent.

For the preaching to begin, it's necessary that the believer in X feel somehow bound to preach that X is the one, true God.   What would engender such a feeling?  The belief that X wants the believer to do so, or the believer has a duty to do so (which may amount to the same thing). 

A God who wants everyone to believe in him/her/they/it has always struck me as peculiar, though.  Why would God be so needy, so intent on being worshipped?  Perhaps it may be argued that God wants all to believe merely because it's good for us, however, not good for God or desirable to God.  If that's the case, one is prompted to wonder why that's good for us.  Then it's required that we find explanations for that claim.  Is it good for us because it's evil not to believe?  If that's so, why is it evil?  Because we'll be prompted to do evil things?  Saying it's good for us to do so because only in that case will be believe in what is True, or Good, or really is God simply begs the question.  If it's good for us to believe in God X as opposed to God Y or Z or no God at all because if we don't we'll be punished, perhaps for all eternity, raises yet another question--why would God mandate punishment of unbelievers?

The claim that God wants to be worshipped by all, or should be worshipped by all, raise questions for which there are no final, satisfactory answers.  

Proselytizing seems to have been "built into" Christianity from fairly early in its history.  That's what Pentecost is about, after all.  The Holy Spirit or Ghost descended upon the apostles and the race was on, so to speak, to convert all, and there's no question that the race was run successfully.  Sometimes by force, of course, as a host of pagans, Jews, Moslems, and indigenous people throughout the world can attest.  Islam played the conversion game as well, of course, though at times it authorities were content merely to require payment from infidels.  It's interesting that among the Abrahamic religions Judaism was and it seems still is not particularly interested in converting all the world.  While intolerant and exclusive, Judaism has been content in continuing, nurturing and cherishing its uniqueness rather than diminishing it by pursuing new believers.

The great days of Christian proselytizing are over as best as can be told.  The Crusades, the excesses of the Reformation, the Inquisition, conversion through conquest and imperialism are all in the past.  It seems the Mormons still have the missionary spirit and their zeal is such that they baptize even the dead, thus carrying their efforts to convert to a remarkable extreme.  There's no need to persecute the unfaithful when their consent is neither sought nor possible.

The urge to compel acceptance of one's beliefs has become less severe in these times, it's true, but seems to remain a part of our nature.  We see it among those who insist on proving God's existence or justifying it even when not solicited, who ostentatiously practice their religion and seek legal support for it, who believe they know what's right for all, politically and socially, and seek to impose their views on others.  It's far easier to proselytize now than it was not all that long ago, and it seems to be more successful as the physical imposition of belief is no longer required.  One may simply spew whatever view or theory one seeks to promote onto the Web, and there are always those who accept it and spread it.

I repeat myself I'm afraid, but it's the nature of our technology and means of communication, including media, to discourage thought, particularly rational thought, which takes time and effort, and encourage emotional, irrational, and above all instantaneous reaction to claims being made constantly which are ubiquitous and repeated endlessly.  We'll be lucky if there are any left who are inclined and able to reflect on what's being touted within 10 years.

Kneeling, Standing and the Law

 

I've commented before in this blog regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the Great Pray for Football case,  Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.  That was the case in which an assistant high school football coach claimed his right to freely exercise his religion was violated by a school district because it sought to restrict his ostentatious prayer-sessions after games, which took place at the 50 yard line (see the above copy of an exhibit in the case).  His religion, it seems, provides that such prayers be made.

After attempts to accommodate his desire to pray alone and silently, while in public and with others (as shown above), he was terminated.   A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with him that his First Amendment rights were violated.

As a result, he got his job back.  He has been residing in Florida for three years, however, quite a distance from Bremerton, which is in the State of Washington.  Having been reinstated, he resigned the position after a single game.  He made some vague claims in connection with the resignation regarding his feeling he was not getting from the school district what was justly due him given his status and his victory at the Supreme Court.  It apparently only took a single game for him to believe that to be the case.  He also acknowledged, though, that he's been living in Florida and has some sick relations there, and wanted to be there with his family.  His coaching position was only part-time, and he quit a full-time job at a Bremerton shipyard to go to Florida.

Since his employment with the school district, he has been photographed in various places, including before the Supreme Court building in D.C., usually kneeling.  He apparently kneels, and presumably prays when doing so, with considerable frequency and in the presence of photographers.  He's appeared in various media and talk shows, and is something of a celebrity.  He's summoned to speak at various conservative and religious events.  He's written a book.  A movie about him is said to be in the works.  He has his own Website.  

I think it's understandable, then, that some suspect his desire to regain his position as assistant high school football coach was never the reason for his sojourn in the legal system, and indeed that he was never interested in doing so.  One even might suspect that he conducted himself in such a manner that the school district felt it had no option but to terminate him, as his prayers became more and more of a spectacle.  In other words, that the school district was goaded into action.  In even more other words, that there was a deliberate attempt to obtain a Supreme Court holding on the issue.

One might also suspect that the Great No-Gay Wedding Website case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, was similarly brought to solve what wasn't actually experienced as a problem given the fact that the person who supposedly sought to have a website devoted to a gay wedding denies having done so.  The tendency of the Supreme Court, or of any court, to decide questions which do not actually arise is troubling.

It's been the rule for a long time that a person who brings a legal action must have what's called "standing" to do so.   Generally speaking, a person has standing when the person has sustained or in the circumstances very likely will sustain an injury for which a legal remedy is available.  Legal action commenced merely to prove a point or address issues which may or may not arise, but haven't yet arisen, are to be disregarded by courts, which presumably have other things to do for people who are actually involved in existing disputes and have sustained actual damages.

The poet Wallace Stevens wrote that the imagination loses vitality as it ceases to adhere to the real.  It's the same with the law.  Where there is no real dispute to be resolved, no real circumstances to be addressed, legal decisions become detached from real disputes and real people.  They're mere abstractions.  They seek to address imagined realities.  They lack context.  They're speculations on what might or should be the case.  They're subjective declarations on what should be the case should something actually be the case.  Because they don't "adhere to the real" they're more likely to reflect the individual desires and preferences of those who make the decisions.  Also, it makes it difficult to assess when a legal decision would apply in the case of an actual injury or dispute, which can be very fact-dependent and specific.

It's to be hoped that the Supreme Court Justices will curb their apparent desire to proclaim what the law should be at least enough to require that a real controversy exist before doing so.  Otherwise, they may become political agents, and even unelected legislators, rather than judges.  There was a time when conservatives feared that was taking place.  Perhaps no longer.

The Day of the Demagogue

 If you look up the definition of the word "demagogue" or check the Wikipedia entry for it, you'll see it all there, in black and white.  The characteristics of most of our politicians, and of one of them especially, as well as their "playbook" are set forth in some detail.  Lying, fearmongering, scapegoating, personal insults and attacks--it's like a roll call of conduct engaged in by the most indicted candidate in the history of our Great Union, and likely of any other nation. 

It's easy enough to learn what demagogues are and what they do.  They're of a type and have done the same things throughout our history, beginning with the first known demagogue, Cleon of Athens, born in the 5th century B.C.E.  No doubt there were others before him, whose names we just don't know.

The most simple and succinct definition of "demagogue" of which I'm aware is that provided by H.L. Mencken:  "The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  The demagogue is a prolific liar who has learned that in certain circumstances, particularly in matters of politics, lies are important because they'll be believed by those who either cannot think or refuse to do so.  Mencken viewed democracy as so stupid a form of government that it encourages, and perhaps even requires, demagogues because so much is left to the decisions of the ordinary voter and the intelligence of the ordinary voter is minimal.  The success of demagogues throughout history makes one wonder if he's right.

A demagogue, however, isn't necessarily as stupid as those who believes the lies he makes.  A demagogue need only appear to be, or pretend to be, as much of an idiot as those who support him.  So it is a mistake to take a demagogue lightly.  A demagogue may be just intelligent enough to take advantage of others by inciting fear, or anger, or envy and promising the world to them, or posing as the only person who can save them from the evils he has conjured.  It's more likely that a demagogue is ignorant, or is a sociopath, than a fool.

One thing seems apparent.  It isn't necessary that a demagogue be physically attractive or impressive to be successful.  The most successful one of this time in our Great Republic seems to me to be an oddity.  Perhaps it's the hair.  His "mug shot" which his followers think is so beguiling makes him look as if he's about to burst into tears of frustration such as a child might do when deprived of a favorite toy or treat.  Hitler certainly wasn't an impressive looking man, though his propagandists did their best to make him so, portraying him in a knight's armor and other manly guises.  Mussolini took on the appearance of a marionette.  He would have made a fine bobble head.  Joe McCarthy looked like a small-time mafioso.

Demagogues are said to have charisma, but if that's the case it seems charisma is unrelated to physical appearance.

What accounts for the success of demagogues?  Why is it that the techniques employed by them down through the centuries are so well known, and ultimately lead to disaster, but succeed again and again?  

Clearly, there's something wrong with us.  

It's enough to cause one to despair of democracy as a viable form of government.  But the curious thing is that the aims of demagogues and their followers are not democratic at all.  They're autocratic or totalitarian, in fact.  So, democracy may itself be viable, but be subject to perversion by its nature given a propensity to accept demagogues.  This is a weakness not in the democratic form of government but in those governed.  Democracy may be a form of government that's intended only for the intelligent.

The painting shown above, by the way, is called The Demagogue and is by Jose Clemente Orozco.

The Strange, the Bizarre, the Unexpected

I'm reading a book by the prolific Colin Wilson called The Occult.  He wrote a number of books on a number of matters, and what is called the "paranormal" was one of them.  He was the author of the existentialist classic The Outsider, which I vaguely recall having read in the days of my youth.

He seems to have been a devotee of the paranormal, or at least that part of the paranormal involving communications with ghosts and spirits, telepathy, magic and knowledge of future events.  It doesn't seem extraterrestrial life or encounters with it meant a great deal to him.  His book is full of references to cases, and highlights seances which took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which make his musings seem somewhat quaint.  I don't know whether they're held with any frequency, now, but they were for a time a kind of fad and associated with those who advocated a study of ghosts and the possibility of an afterlife such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Emanuel Swedenborg, Franz Mesmer and other prominent "spiritualists."  Seances were apparently full of floating musical instruments and tables or other furniture rising from the floor and moving about, and ethereal figures.  That isn't the sort of thing which I've seen portrayed lately, except in period pieces.  

I've read that Wilson was thought by many to be quite gullible as far as these things were concerned, and it seems that he accepted what he writes of for the most part, though acknowledging that frauds exist and existed.  But his review of them is refreshingly matter of fact.  I was particularly charmed by his insight, based on reports from communications with the dead, that the afterlife is not all that different from the life we live, and is surprisingly mundane.  He notes that the dead evidently have nothing very profound to relate to us, citing to the fact that they tend to mention matters of strikingly limited importance and significance.

The paranormal remains quite popular and is now perhaps more popular than ever.  It's the subject of various ghost hunter and paranormal investigator shows on TV, podcasts, You Tube videos and no doubt other media with which I'm unfamiliar.  If the possibility of extraterrestrial life is a matter included in the paranormal, it seems that even our governments have taken to acknowledging that some phenomena exist which are inexplicable, for now, and that this is a matter of some concern from the standpoint of security and has military significance as a result.

Back in the 1980s there was a show hosted by Jack Palance based on Ripley's Believe It Or Not which claimed to be devoted to an exploration of "the strange, the bizarre, the unexpected" (thus the title to this post).  I'm generally skeptical of claims made regarding the paranormal, but think that there are such things which manifest themselves in certain circumstances, though I have no idea what they may be.  I've had no "close encounters" of any kind, but what appears on camera and radar and are attested to by military pilots and personnel aren't likely to be nothing at all or mere hallucinations. I've seen no ghosts or spirits either, but would accept that there are confrontations with the unexplainable which actually take place.   

Where I would differ from most if not many believers in the paranormal is in ascribing them to the supernatural, which is to say with something outside of Nature, or the Universe.  There's much we don't know about the Universe, and what we now learn about it through the technology available to us indicates that what's been called the mechanistic or materialist view of it, like Newton physics, is lacking or limited to only certain aspects of it.  

There are strange, bizarre and unexpected things, and it's foolish to deny them without investigation.  The paranormal should be subject to the same tests of critical intelligence as any other phenomena, rather than merely dismissed.  It's difficult to accept much of what we see in popular media, of course, as sensationalism is part and parcel of every form of media in these sad times.  The tendency is to do what's necessary to attract viewers and "clicks" and messages.  But recognizing that to be the case and making informed judgments is a part of playing the game of life well, and perhaps the games of after and other life also.

 

Mere Stoicism

Yes, the title to this post borrows from the title of C.S. Lewis' collection of broadcasts made by him in his capacity as chief Christian apologist after the death of G.K. Chesterton (or so I think).  Unlike Chesterton, Lewis was more smug than clever, a characteristic of apologists throughout history, but one which Chesterton managed to control.  Chesterton also managed to defend Christianity without creating an elaborate fantasy world, which strikes me as a more effective approach if one is inclined to defend a religion or belief system which clearly must be defended, or else there would be no apologists.  A religion which produces apologists must be questionable by nature, but appears especially questionable if its apologists must defend it by resort to fantasies.

I don't think Stoicism requires apologists, and don't intend to be one.  That's not what this post is about.  It's meant to explore the limits of Stoicism or what it must be to have no limits, if that's possible.

The limits I refer to relate to its effectiveness in achieving tranquility, and in avoiding sadness or despair.  I sometimes am inclined to think there are limits and that they're unavoidable, particularly with respect to what has taken place.  In other words, I wonder whether the maxims of Stoicism, which are so sensible and seemingly effective in relating to the here and now and anticipating the future, suffice to provide solace regarding the unending, irrevocable past.

The past would seem to be necessarily a matter beyond our control, and therefore nothing to be disturbed by according to Stoicism, and particularly according to Epictetus.  To the extent what took place in the past has consequences now, Stoicism serves to address those consequences, and thought and conduct may serve to diminish their effects.  One might remedy what took place in the past in that manner and in that sense, and one may, with effort, not allow the effects of past actions in the present to be unduly disturbing.  

That's to consider past actions.  What, though, about past omissions, and specifically those omissions which result in one having missed an opportunity, being unable to do what one desperately wants to do or have a life which one longs for now?  The disturbance and despair one feels in that case, especially in highly personal and subjective human matters such as love and happiness, can be painful in the extreme.  It can find expression in our dreams or in sudden encounters with things or persons we know from the past and are unavoidable.  You don't see them coming.

Regret is futile, of course.  There's nothing more futile.  As a result, it should be avoidable.  But how do we avoid what cannot be avoided because it can't be altered, and when what could have been cannot be?  There's nothing to fix.  Nothing can be made better.  Mistakes can't be "made good."

Perhaps the power of regret lies in the fact that nobody else is responsible for what took place, and what didn't take place.  It's easier to ignore or discount things beyond your control when you didn't cause them to be.  It's difficult to be indifferent to yourself, to your own acts, failure to act, or your own thoughts and feelings.

Merely Mooching

Assuming what we hear from ProPublica is true, the frequent acceptance by Justice Thomas of extremely expensive and largely unreported gifts in various forms has been a regular feature of his life over the many years since he became a member of the Supreme Court.  This hasn't concerned some, who in explaining their lack of concern do so on several grounds.  For example, they claim there is no illegality involved, or that members of the Court cannot be regulated, or that the spending of huge amounts of money for the amusement of a Justice of the Supreme Court is done merely as an expression of friendship and the matters before the Court are not discussed by the Justice's benefactors.

Thomas may be the most benefited by the purportedly disinterested kindness of others, but he isn't the only Justice who has accepted gifts, free travel, free food, free lodging and various other freebies and perks, nor is he the only one who has been less than candid or forthcoming in disclosing them.  Nonetheless, it's claimed by them and others that there is no cause for concern.

It may well be the case that there's nothing illegal about this conduct.  The Supreme Court has not been especially zealous in upholding ethical standards in ruling on cases in which claims are made that public officials have misused their offices, especially when the claims are based on "gifts" made to them which were followed by favors granted to the "donors."  The narrowness of the Court's construction of statutory language and its disregard of the potential consequences of its decisions is notable in this respect.  When it's interpretation is broad, it seems that it has sanctioned the spending of money on the wants and needs of politicians and public officials.  Thus, for example, the spending of money has become a form of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and a private jet has been defined by one Justice as a "facility" in a self-serving defense of his acceptance of free travel.  It therefore isn't surprising that the Justices are disinclined to take seriously the influence of money on their conduct.

There's certainly nothing unusual about laws and codes of ethics which prohibit public officials from accepting gifts.  They're common, in fact.  But they don't prohibit specific conduct only on ethical grounds.  They also provide that officials should avoid even "the appearance of impropriety."

But those defending the Justices, and it seems the Justices themselves, also narrowly define what constitutes "the appearance of impropriety."  It's difficult, for me at least, to believe that someone who benefits so much from money spent on them would not feel beholden to those who are so generous.  That feeling would, I believe, influence conduct towards them, if only as a matter of personal honor.  The fact that those who pay for the gravy train on which they ride don't have matters immediately before the Court, or if they do don't discuss them with the passenger on the train, doesn't mean that the passenger is not or will not be favorably disposed towards them or the matters in which they have an interest.  It's naive to think otherwise.

If it's maintained that no appearance of impropriety arises, though, why would that be the case?  If a person spends huge amounts of money on you for your enjoyment and benefit and you feel no obligation to them, are not inclined to do anything for them in return, then you're a moocher.  Your a person who lives off of others without giving them anything in return.  You exploit the generosity of others; you seek out and obtain handouts.  You mooch off others.  You're the type of person Cab Calloway sang about.

Moochers aren't admirable people.  A person who mooches has no honor, feels no obligation, has no respect for others.  A moocher delights in receiving unearned benefits.  Moochers are selfish and self-centered.  Moochers are exceedingly self-indulgent.  

Perhaps, then, public officials like the Justices in question don't violate the law, and if they are unethical are so merely because they're moochers.  Maybe they simply enjoy having their expenses paid by others and receiving a great deal of something for nothing, and feel no shame in doing so.

That would make them only unsavory, or disreputable.  Perhaps that's the best we can expect of them.

 

Razzle-Dazzle

Sometimes, when feeling despair at the fact that such a large percentage of my countrymen are seemingly incapable of making reasonable judgments based on available evidence, and subject to delusion, I try to comfort myself with the idea that they are not truly saps, but rather are so entertained by the spectacle our politics have become that they simply don't want the show to stop.  What is taking place now would make a good dark comedy, after all.  Perhaps not even a subtle one, subtlety being something lacking in American politics and perhaps even culture, but more of a Marx Brothers' movie along the lines of a farce like Duck Soup or A Night at the Circus, though Groucho was far more clever and intelligent than the main character of this ongoing farce can ever be. Can it be that they are so amused by the freak show that they fear it may end, and so clamour for more and more despite the consequences for our nation?

This is wishful thinking, unfortunately.  It's odd enough that anyone would find this thought a satisfying alternative to what's actually taking place (better a perverse but knowing cynicism than what Mencken would probably have called "boobery"), but no.  We may not be sophisticated enough to be decadent.  Only ignorance and gullibility can explain what's now the case.  Gullibility in particular, I think.  Which brings us to the notion of razzle-dazzle.

This is a word which it seems has its origin in late 19th century American slang.  So, at least, is thought by the editors of the Online Etymology Dictionary which describes it as "a word, app. of U.S. coinage, used to express the ideas of bewilderment or confusion, rapid stir and bustle, riotous jollity or intoxication, etc.  Also, deception, fraud; extravagant publicity."  The rallies we see seem to be a sort of tent show of the kind that evangelical preachers and faith healers used to put on (or do they still?), inspiring the believers to unthinking credulity.  Or, maybe, a magician's act of a sort, in which the misdirection is obvious enough but nonetheless persuasive.  The snake oil salesman has a place in our history.  Perhaps its become an honored one.  Is there a nostalgia for the days of the bumpkin being taken advantage of by the city slicker, which also is a part of our history?

How do we explain the appeal of something or someone so obviously a con?  There must be an explanation.  Razzle-Dazzle seems as good as any.  If it's a peculiarly American word it may also be a peculiarly American tendency, to be dazzled and confused by showy deception.  Do we long, spiritually, for the arrival of the circus or the Wells-Fargo wagon, to bring color to our drab lives?

I find it hard to think of any historical precedent for this situation.  Hitler wreathed himself in Romantic, mystical appeals to a German Volk, a Master Race, and was aided in such claims by philosophical and intellectual loonies like Heidegger, but there is no philosophical appeal being made in this case.  Resentment is being fostered, but not yet to the extent it was in Germany after WWI. Intolerance and the desire for sameness has always been characteristic of Western civilization, but the blithe disregard of honor and virtue we seethe with as a nation is extraordinary.  

I don't think charisma has a place in the mix.  Those involved in this remarkable song and dance have none.  They resemble Willie Loman more than any successful leader in history, good or bad.  They seem gnomish, if not in actual size then in stature and character.  

We can look to the example of Rome in this and other cases, and there may even be some justification in doing so.  Spectacles were wildly popular with the people.  Celebrations of triumphs, the games of the arena, the races of the hippodrome, attracted the attention of the populace and even the most depraved of the Emperors, such as Caligula and Nero, had the admiration of many merely because they kept the people entertained.  Perhaps our future leaders will be entertainers.  They will take residence in Washington as they now do in Las Vegas.  

Maybe this is the new form of American Exceptionalism.  We can hardly be seen as exemplary anymore, but we're certainly distinctive and unique.  Mencken called us boobs, and his assessment was thoughtful.  We're seeking, and may yet attain, a government for the boobs, by the boobs and of the boobs.

A Fierce Ignorance

 

I've always thought of the three wise monkeys above as the "Goody Goody Monkeys."  That's because my first memory of them is from a cartoon I saw many years ago.  The cartoon was made and shown in 1935, or so the Internet tells me.  I'm not old enough to have seen it at that time, but it was one of the many cartoons, new and old, which were featured on TV Saturday mornings during my long-ago youth.  I can even remember some of the song they sang:  "Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil so; We're the Goody Goody Monkeys everywhere we go."  I can remember nothing else about the cartoon, but again the sometimes useful Internet tells me that it has to do with a devil tempting the unfortunate monkeys with a variety of things involving characters from famous and not so famous books.

I think they've come to be associated with ignorance.  Ignorance of evil, obviously enough.  But also ignorance of another kind; willful ignorance of anything disturbing or potentially harmful.  Of anything unsettling, or different.  Of anything we don't want to think about, in fact.

I've lamented the ignorance of these times often enough in this blog, but have to come think, in light of the deterioration taking place, that I've underestimated how ardently, how zealously ignorant we've become.

There are things we don't want to know, or don't want to know more about.  That has been the case for most of our history, in all probability.  It's an attitude which may have one of more causes.  "Ignorance is bliss" is a common saying.  Even the Stoics maintain we shouldn't let things beyond our control disturb us, and most which takes place is beyond our control.  The Stoics, though, also claim we should act virtuously as to things within our control, and wisely.  What we know and what we learn is in our control.  We can choose to be ignorant and remain ignorant.  Whether we should is something that we are to judge "according to nature."  I think that Stoicism requires that we know what it is that's beyond our control.  So, the Stoic would not be ignorant of such things, or necessarily seek to ignore them.  Instead, the Stoic would recognize them and treat them accordingly.

To be clear, the kind of ignorance I refer to is chosen.  A decision is made.  But with it is a decision to actively foster ignorance.  That kind of ignorance isn't merely chosen, it's pursued.  Not only do we imitate the good monkeys and close our eyes, mouths and cover our ears, but we seek to repress knowledge and information.  These days, we try to do so in great part by reference to conspiracies--claims are made, things take place not because there's good reason for them but because they're the result of efforts to discredit people and things we like.  Thus they're fake, like fake news and stolen elections.

So we pay no attention to them, but now we also do what we can to suppress them.  The slavery that's part of our history isn't something we want our children to be taught.  We want them to be taught that it was good for the slaves, really, in many respects.  Sources of information like some books shouldn't be read, according to some, but they're not content to refrain from reading them, they take steps to remove or ban them from libraries and schools.

The zealously ignorant want others to be ignorant as well.

We've seen this attitude and its results whenever a nation or society become totalitarian or autocratic.  Certain knowledge, books, people and conduct are banned.  Enforced ignorance is characteristic of revolutionaries and reactionaries whenever they have the power to impose it.

Sameness has a certain appeal for us, and we may be entering into one of those period when we long to be the same and follow, thoughtlessly, someone who tells us what to do.  What better way for that to happen than in circumstances where nothing is new or different, when there's nothing to be learned, nothing left to be known, or at least no way to learn or to know more?