The High and Mighty and Moralism

 

We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves.  I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.

Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.

With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims.  But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that.  Still, their moralizing is insufferable.

Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money.  They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.

The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.  

As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices.   These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.

Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened.  New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added.  In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.

This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant.  Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.

Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility.  The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.

The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs.  That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few.  As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife. 

I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc. 

Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist.  I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers

The moralists in this case tried much too hard.

Quo Vadimus?

To a certain extent, where we as a nation are going can be determined by the goals of our putative leaders.

Watching accounts of the Mideast trip was like watching a child accompanied by a host of attendants on his first trip to Disney World.  Exclamations of wonder at the (opulent) sights and expectation of gifts from those displaying them to his admiring eyes.  The expectation was satisfied.

Each day brings something unexpected.  We're fated to live in interesting times.  A person who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution says he doesn't know if he must uphold it.   The Director of Homeland Security doesn't know what habeas corpus means; indeed, she thinks it means something quite different--deportation without due process.

Such an absurdity would be amusing in other circumstances, but in these circumstances can only be indicative of a stunning level of ignorance.  The carefully planned humiliation of a head of state by the increasingly haggard-looking head of our own through use of contrived props does nothing more than induce distrust of us, already at a high level given the contempt being shown for former friends and allies. Who will be willing to accept an invitation to the White House, knowing that they may be ambushed as part of a self-serving stunt?

The nation's air traffic control system is failing.  It has been all but admitted that the tariffs being imposed will cost Americans and American businesses as businesses are being told to eat the resulting costs, reducing their profits rather than increasing prices. The efforts being made to return our economy to what it was 70 years ago continue.  Threats and litigation aimed at chilling First Amendment rights across the board proliferate. The Secretary of Defense has commenced holding monthly Christian prayer services at the Pentagon--what better place is there for those calling themselves Christian to pray?

Sometimes I wonder if this cavalcade of grotesqueries is brought not according to a plan but due to a tendency to react on mere whimsy, without thought but in eager pursuit of vaguely defined goals disregarding all consequences. That would explain the errors made in culling agencies of staff and cutting benefits, and the ad hoc grants of exceptions to tariffs and economic policies. Those in thrall to those setting the goals vie with each other in pursuit of them, seeking the favor of their master. Who is best at chest- pounding displays and sychophancy? The fact that most of those appointed to positions of power in the regime are unqualified may also explain errors made in implementing draconian measures.

But it seems that the ends in view are fairly clear.  The ultimate goal seems to be to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of others, and that has been at least one of the goals of our government for many years.  Now, though, the benefit sought isn't merely monetary.  The desires of the very wealthy for a docile, largely ignorant, unambitious, predictable, easily-led populace are to be satisfied as well.

Regarding "Practical Atheism"

 

The new Pontifex Maximus mentioned something called "practical atheism" in the first homily he delivered in that capacity.  Practical atheism is usually defined as an acceptance of God's existence but disregard of it in daily life.

Leo XIV, however, perhaps unsurprisingly, put a peculiarly Christian spin on the concept.  According to the pontiff a practical atheist believes Jesus to be a charismatic leader or superman, not God.

I don't think that makes much sense.  A theist need not be a Christian for one thing, and so need not even believe Jesus existed.  The pontiff displays the haughty exclusivity of Christianity, i.e. the belief that there is no other God but Christ or rather the triune deity of Nicean orthodoxy.  That makes anyone who isn't Christian an atheist.

Also, a practical atheist as usually defined need not substitute technology or science or pleasure or anything else for God in daily life as it seems Leo thinks must be the case.  In fact, a highly moral life is the goal of adherents of ancient pagan philosophy in the West and others in the East such as Buddhists and Taoists. 

Simply put, belief in the personal God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam isn't a necessary condition of a virtuous life.  So, what are called "Judeo-Christian values" for example, while they may be characteristic of Judaism and Christianity, aren't exclusive to them.  They arose in other philosophical traditions and some were even borrowed from them.

The Pope is an Augustinian, and Augustine the Bishop of Hippo was adamant that those who weren't Christian weren't entitled to salvation even though they couldn't know of Jesus, having lived and died before he appeared on Earth.  So, for example, Plato, Aristotle and others who extolled virtue centuries before the birth of Jesus is said to have taken place are condemned in the harsh judgment of the man to whom we owe the harsh concept of Original Sin.

So, the new Pope may be said to be a follower of the man for whom his order is named based on this homily. But his apparent devotion to social justice and relief of the poor may serve to make him an admirable pontiff nonetheless.

Worker Drones of America Unite!

 

We hear from members of the bizarre coterie appointed to implement the schemes of our plutocracy that they have a vision of our future. Our Glorious Union is to be transformed into what it's believed to have been like during the Eisenhower administration, in the sense that the great majority of adults will be employed in factories. Eventually, their children and grandchildren will take their jobs in the same factories. Thus our future will be our past, ideally. And it's believed that the worker drones we'll become will relish our narrow, unvarying lives.

I think only those who never worked in factories could believe that we all should do so--that living our lives as factory workers is what's appropriate for us and what we should desire.  I've worked in factories, if only during summers while a student, and while there's nothing degrading about such work, which is good and honest, it can be dull and predictable, physically demanding and sometimes dirty; sometimes even dangerous.  

What kind of person would think that most of us should be employed in relatively menial jobs and expect that our children and grandchildren will do the same?  Who would maintain that we should hope for nothing more for ourselves and our descendants?

It's a kind of romantic fantasy of the rich.  It's at once condescending and self-serving on their part. Nothing would better serve their interests than to have a nation of drones working on assembly lines manufacturing products for their enjoyment and use.  It must be comforting to imagine that the drones will be better off for their exploitation.

Does the fantasy include more than this, though? I suspect it includes the belief that the drones would be docile, socially and politically.  They would be as characters in the sitcoms popular in the 1950s and early to mid 1960s.  Adults would work hard at their unchanging jobs and live their unchanging lives, without ambition or hope for more. They would have no unsettling expectations.  Kids would be concerned with harmless (and orthodox) sex and sports and food and consumer goods.

This is the American dream of the plutocrats; it's what they dream for us.

Wishing for Wish Fulfillment

 

When I was a wee lad, a youngster, I was tremendously fond of comic books. I'm not sure they still exist, except perhaps as collectors' items.  They were in paper form, you see. I suspect that if they do still exist as something not treasured by collectors, they're referred to by the more dignified name "graphic novels."

Superheroes abounded in comic books. They were good for the most part, and did good works, unless they were induced to be evil by some ingenious villian or cosmic event. Most of the comic book heroes are with us still, but now appear on movie or television screens or computer monitors, etc. However, they're revealed sometimes to be, or are joined by, anti-heroes who are just as super but less good, or are tormented or sad or depressed, times being what they are.

The comic books of my younger days were read by kids; children and perhaps teenagers. Few if any adults could be found perusing them.  Normally, one "grew out of them."  Now, though, adults flock to movies featuring a variety of superheroes or watch them on streaming services or otherwise.

There's something peculiar about adults indulging in juvenile fantasies of possessing super strength or other super powers, performing heroic acts while demolishing buildings or cities, vanquishing evildoers or enemies. Something disturbing, in fact. Imagine adults eagerly reading comic books about the exploits of Superman, Batman, Flash, Thor, Ironman, etc.  Then imagine they're your friends, coworkers, neighbors, police officers, doctors, soldiers...anyone.

It doesn't inspire confidence in them.  It's understandable to seek entertainment and escapism is a form of it.  But I think it's a cause for concern when our entertainment drastically departs from reality. The more it does so, the more it reflects a dissatisfaction with the world and frustration at being unable to change it.

It's also a cause for concern that the entertainment we cherish is essentially childish.  We won't become superheroes and they won't come to save us. We know this, but it pleases us to pretend.  We even have regular gatherings where we dress up as our heroes, and those who pretend to be them professionally appear to be admired. It's a kind of moveable Halloween party.

Harmless fun, perhaps.  But dreaming of them is a kind of admission of our inability to cope without the benefit of dreams.  It's an implied acceptance of our place.  We seem to, and probably wish to, prolong our childhood.

In past years of war and economic depression we enjoyed fantasies of being rich or heroic played out in movie theaters or on TV, but we didn't dress up as the characters in those fantasies and attend conventions at which they're celebrated. 

Perhaps we've always been inclined to fantasy and masquerade, and now merely have more opportunity to indulge that inclination.  But there may be something dangerously inherent in our society or nation that causes us to be particularly eager to live in an imagined world and ignore the all-too-real one that we encounter on a daily basis.