The Little Red Blog

Sunday Sermon: Don't Let It Bring You Down

Don’t Let It Bring You Down (by Neil Young)

Old man lying by the side of the road
With the lorries rolling by
Blue moon sinking from the weight of the load
And the buildings scrape the sky
Cold wind ripping down the alley at dawn
And the morning paper flies
Dead man lying by the side of the road
With the daylight in his eyes

Don't let it bring you down
It's only castles burning
Find someone who's turning
And you will come around

Blind man running through the light of the night
With an answer in his hand
Come on down to the river of sight
And you can really understand
Red lights flashing through the window in the rain
Can you hear the sirens moan?
White cane lying in a gutter in the lane
If you're walking home alone

Don't let it bring you down
It's only castles burning
Find someone who's turning
And you will come around

Don't let it bring you down
It's only castles burning
Just find someone who's turning
And you will come around

Don't let it bring you down
It's only castles burning
Just find someone who's turning
And you will come around

----------------------------------------------

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Neil Young

Don't Let It Bring You Down lyrics © Hipgnosis Songs Group

Neil Young original: Don't Let It Bring You Down

Annie Lennox cover: Don't Let It Bring You Down

Saturday Lecture: A Bridge to the Absolute

{Romano Guardini (1885-1968) was a Catholic priest, theologian, and philosopher; born in Italy, he lived in Germany from the age of one until his death. Guardini is generally considered a critic of modernity, but his views were more balanced than his anti-modern admirers tend to admit.} 

Romano Guardini, from The End of the Modern World:

Deeply significant for the religious outlook of medieval man was the influx of the Germanic spirit. The religious bent of the Nordic myths, the restlessness of the migrating peoples, and the armed marches of the Germanic tribes revealed a new spirit which burst everywhere into history like a spear thrust into the infinite. This mobile and nervous soul worked itself into the Christian affirmation, where it grew mightily. In its fullness it produced that immense medieval drive which aimed at cracking the boundaries of the world.

This medieval impatience with all limitations cannot be explained simply in terms of the Christian view of man and his relationship to God. Nothing akin to the medieval drive can be found in the first centuries of Christianity, when the classical sense of limitation still retained its hold on Christian man. Although he experienced transcendence, he experienced it only as an inner freedom from the world and a personal responsibility for his own life, a responsibility transcending the demands and service of society. Only after the Germanic ferment had quickened the European world throughout the course and aftermath of migrations was man’s relation to God freed from the boundaries fixed by antiquity. Only then did man scale the barriers of the world and reach into the infinite that he might embrace the Godhead and return from Him to make all things new.

The Germanic longing to embrace the whole of being was one with the drive for transcendence. The Germanic spirit wished to surround the world in order to penetrate it completely. This passion both to embrace and to enter deeply the full sweep of existence explains the new vision of the world fashioned by medieval man.

Medieval man thirsted for the truth. No other society, with the possible exception of classical China, has invested the man of learning with the dignity and importance given him by the Middle Ages. The medieval passion for understanding had nothing in common with the techniques of modern scientific investigation. Medieval man was interested neither in pursuing nature or history empirically nor in mastering reality theoretically. He chose to plunge into truth by way of meditation, then drew from his meditations the spiritual laws governing all reality. The roots for all truths were given by authorities: Scripture, the Church, and the thought of antiquity. The foundations for religious and natural truth were painstakingly penetrated and served as the basis for interpreting immediate experience. From this fusion of natural and supernatural truths, there grew a new and deeper understanding of the world.

The philosophical-theological project was more than a systematic attempt to determine what being must ‘be’; it was an attempt to determine what being must ‘mean’. The meaning arose not only from the content; it arose equally from the very mode of statement and amplification. Medieval artistic form was not mere rhetorical adornment, not merely a desirable but unessential means of expression; it was the ‘how’ used to express the essential ‘what’. The medieval passion for truth was so intense that it was bound up inextricably with a will to fashion and form all things.

Modern man condemns the medieval man’s reliance on authority as ‘slavery’; in fact, he resents the Middle Ages. His resentment is born of the realization that his own age has made revolution a perpetual institution. But authority is needed in the life of every man. Integral to the full grandeur of human dignity, authority is not merely the refuge of the weak; its destruction always breeds its burlesque—force. As long as medieval man was gripped by his own vision of existence, as long as he heard its music sounding in the depths of his heart, he never experienced authority as shackling. It was a bridge leading to the absolute; it was the flag of the world. Authority provided medieval man with the opportunity to construct an order whose magnificence of form, intensity of manner, and richness of life were such that he would have judged our world as paltry.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, man’s passion for knowledge began to lead him away from authority, pointing him directly toward real things. He chose to probe things with his own intelligence, and to achieve judgments independent of any pattern first laid down by authority. Even earlier, corresponding changes worked their way into economic life. Previously, a man’s livelihood had been linked with his status in life and governed both by guild regulations and by the canonical rules against interest which made economic speculation impossible. The new spirit brought new methods which increased the production and distribution of goods to an unprecedented degree. The older traditional ordering of society was cracked by the simple possession of things. Offices and positions hitherto restricted to privilege were now thrown open to almost anyone. A broader and more independent culture was born and bred upon an economics which obeyed only its own laws.

The older society had been supported in its basic norms and cultural order by the art of politics, even when politics exerted itself in the struggle for the fruits of sheer power. Although shot through with injustice and crime, political life during the Middle Ages was fitted to the moral and religious obligations owed to the Empire and the Church. Political goals were subordinated by the felt need to conform to the Divine Will; an injustice was committed only with a bad conscience. With the advent of the modern world, politics became a law unto itself; injustice was committed not only without bad conscience, but even from a certain sense of duty. The acquiring, maintaining, and exercise of power admitted every possible means.

===========================================

Romano Guardini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A Pigeon a Day Keeps the Plague Away!

{I have obtained the following from sources I am not at liberty to reveal. It is a memo, planned for public release, from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services. It awaits only the approval of Elon Musk before being disseminated.}

We have not had a pandemic in America since (checks watch) the last time Donald Trump was in office, but we must be prepared. A deadly flu season is just ending, and measles is now the rage among anti-vaxxers and others who bravely do their own research without the benefit of medical training, textbooks, or basic understanding of how medicines work. Sadly, the Biden administration failed to create a national stockpile of hydroxychloroquine; it also discontinued research into the curative powers of ingesting bleach, and it refused to consider ways of generating ultraviolet light, known for its healing properties, directly inside the human body. ¹

Fortunately, we have some historical guidance on how to cope with major contagions. Take, for instance, how medieval Europeans dealt with plague:  

The Black Death is the modern term for the bubonic plague epidemic that ravaged Europe between 1347-1352 CE, killing an estimated 30 million people there and many more worldwide as it reached pandemic proportions. According to scholar George Childs:

“The plague was attributed to any and all of the following: corrupted air and water, hot and humid southerly winds, proximity of swamps, lack of purifying sunshine, excrement and other filth, putrid decomposition of dead bodies, excessive indulgence in foods (particularly fruits), God's wrath, punishment for sins, and the conjunction of stars and planets. Religious fanatics asserted that human sins had brought the dreadful pestilence; they roamed from place to place, scourging themselves in public. There was panic everywhere, with men and women knowing no way to stop death except to flee from it.” ²

Since no one knew what caused the disease, no cure was possible, but this did not stop people from trying what they could, based on the medical knowledge of the time as well as religious belief, folklore, herbalism, and superstition. These cures – most of which were ineffective and some of which were fatal – fell roughly into five categories:

• Animal cures
• Potions, Fumigations, Bloodletting, Pastes
• Flight from Infected Areas and Persecution of Marginalized Communities
• Religious Cures
• Quarantine and Social Distancing

Of these five, only the last – quarantine and what is now known as “social distancing” – had any effect on stopping the spread of plague. Unfortunately, people in 14th-century CE Europe were as reluctant to stay isolated in their homes as people were during the Covid-19 pandemic. The wealthy bought their way out of quarantine and fled to country estates, spreading the disease further, while others helped with the spread by ignoring quarantine efforts and continuing to participate in religious services and by going about their daily business. By the time the plague ended in Europe, millions were dead and the world the survivors had known would be radically changed.

Many of the medieval methods could be helpful, should we again experience a global pandemic. Here are a few the DHHS and the CDC might recommend (or even mandate):

One of the most popular cures was the “Vicary Method”, named after the English doctor Thomas Vicary, who first proposed it. A healthy chicken was taken and its back and rear plucked clean; this bare part of the live chicken was then applied to the swollen nodes of the sick person and the chicken strapped in place. When the chicken showed signs of illness, it was thought to be drawing the disease from the person. It was removed, washed, and strapped back on and this continued until the chicken or the patient died. ³

Another attempt at a cure was to find and kill a snake, chop it into pieces, and rub the various parts over swollen buboes. The snake, synonymous in Europe with Satan, was thought to draw the disease out of the body as evil would be drawn to evil. Pigeons were used in this same way but why the pigeon was chosen is unclear. ⁴

An animal much sought after for its curative powers was the unicorn. Drinking a powder made of the ground-up horn of the unicorn mixed in water was thought to be an effective remedy and was also among the most expensive. The unicorn could not easily be caught and had to be lulled into submission by a young virgin maiden. Doctors who managed to procure the powder of a ground “unicorn horn” used it to treat snake bites, fever, convulsions, and serious wounds and so it was thought to work equally well with the plague.

Another remedy was eating or drinking a small quantity of crushed emeralds. The physician would grind the emeralds with a mortar and pestle and then administer it to the patient as a fine powder mixed with either food or water. Those who could not afford to consume emeralds drank arsenic or mercury which killed them faster than the plague.

One of the best-known potions was Four Thieves Vinegar which was a combination of cider, vinegar, or wine with spices such as sage, clove, rosemary, and wormwood (among others) thought to be a potent protection against the plague. It allegedly was created and used by four thieves who were able to rob the homes of the dying and graves of the dead because the drink made them immune to the plague. Four Thieves Vinegar is still made and used today in the practice of homeopathic medicine as an antibacterial agent.

Again, I present this information as a public service. We must remain vigilant against the return of diseases previously considered to have been eradicated, as well as new ones we have yet to create. Fortunately, the Department of Health and Human Services is now open-minded enough to consider alternatives to the so-called “wisdom” of the corrupt medical establishment.

In closing, TODAY'S HEALTH TIP: a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, but don't worry, there are numerous ways to bring it back up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Medieval Cures for the Black Death - World History Encyclopedia

¹ The human body is, we now know, a series of tubes, much like the so-called “Internet”. Like the Internet, the human body “is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.” Our thanks to the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for explaining the “series of tubes” principle.

² “Panic” was precisely what President Trump averted in 2020 by the simple expedient of minimizing the COVID threat, lying about testing, about infection rates and death totals, and by discouraging foolish “public health measures” like masks and social distancing. It is our goal today to convince people to ignore the so-called medical “experts”. Common Sense is back, baby!

³ Thus the proverbial riddle: “Which dies first, the chicken or the patient?”

⁴ “Many are called,” said Jesus, “but pigeons are chosen.”

Wednesday with Pascal: In Defense of Critical Theory

{Pascal the existential Russian blue cat continues to work on what he calls a Unified Field Theory of Decline (UFTD). Today, however, he addresses an unexpectedly insightful article from an unexpected source. UFTD, like Heaven, can wait.}

The Deseret News, a proudly Mormon publication, is one of the last places I would have expected to find a sympathetic (sort of) account of the intellectual phenomenon known as “critical theory”. By the same token, I would not have suspected evangelical pastor and theologian Carl Trueman to be the author of such an account; I hereby confess to having underestimated him.

Not that Trueman advocates critical theory, but he refuses to demonize it, as is de rigueur for right-wing polemicists (e.g., James Lindsay, Christopher Rufo). He does not accuse critical theorists of wanting to destroy Western civilization or of trying to smuggle Communism into America under false pretenses; he refrains from ad hominem attacks, and he resists, for the most part, distorting either the ideas or the motives of the thinkers under consideration.¹ His Deseret News article is essentially an introduction to his recent book, To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse,” and it shows an admirable understanding of the subject.

Acknowledging that Critical Theory has suffered from misinterpretations and oversimplifications, Trueman begins by claiming that it addresses “a much deeper issue in our modern world that makes [it] important in ways that go beyond broadly political concerns. That is the issue of anthropology, the understanding of what it means to be human.” He credits critical theorists, including members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm), with “wrestling with the question of what, if anything, it means to be human. Critical theory is, of course, an umbrella term for a variety of different and even incompatible approaches, but all share this in common: a basic preoccupation with anthropological questions.” Critical theorists were not seeking to undermine the foundations of the modern West; they were formulating “responses to that age-old question: What is man? Is he defined by making and producing or by consuming? Are biological relationships important or not? How has technology changed our understanding of human nature? Is sexual desire part of our core identity? Does the universe have a moral shape? Are we free agents or merely functions of broader cultural forces? And, of course, the pointed question so succinctly expressed by Pilate: What is truth?”

Critical Theory emerged in the postwar years of the late 1940s and the 1950s, trying to make sense of modernity’s descent into the nightmares of war, revolution, totalitarianism, and genocide. Beyond that, says Trueman, the Frankfurt theorists “recognized how the forces of modernity, with its industrialization, its bureaucracies, its exaltation of efficiency, productivity, and profit margins, and its addiction to the cheap products of the culture industry ultimately prevented human beings from being truly free.” While the theorists were, by and large, atheists, Trueman concedes that “religious people surely have no quarrel with the central claims of such analysis.”

The quarrel, Trueman explains, is about the ultimate cause and the ultimate cure of our existential maladies. Religious believers (Christians, that is) “see these things as the result not of bourgeois culture created by capitalism but of human fallenness. Thus, they paradoxically see real hope, not in making Earth into heaven, as the Marxists wished, nor in an endless dethroning of the powerful, but in embodying a little bit of heaven on Earth in their congregations and communities. The challenge to which critical theory therefore summons the faithful is to show, not merely to argue, that they have the answers. Critical theory does not so much provide people of faith with a useful tool to think about the world as clarify a set of questions to which we have the answers already, if only we open our eyes to see them.”

I could argue that Christians have had 2000 years to make their case and have not, for the most part, succeeded; but I prefer to end on a note of comity. Carl Trueman is not wrong when he says Critical Theory has been better at framing questions than at providing answers; then again, the same can be said of all philosophies and of philosophizing in general. I give Trueman full credit for treating Critical Theory fairly, and I do not begrudge him the answers he has found.

I will, however, continue to look for my own.  

-----------------------------------------

¹ He does, at one point, caricature critical theory’s current concerns: “Today, critical theorists deploy their skills in defending drag queen story hour, the use of preferred pronouns, and pressing for a more inclusive Oscar ceremony.” I seriously doubt that those issues preoccupy actual ‘critical theorists'.

Carl R. Trueman on the origins and purpose of critical theory – Deseret News

Carl Trueman - Wikipedia

Sunday Sermon: Beginning to See the Light

Beginning to See the Light (by the Velvet Underground)

Well, I'm beginning to see the light
Well, I'm beginning to see the light
Some people work very hard
But still they never get it right
Well I'm beginning to see the light
Wanna tell all you people now
Now, now people, I'm beginning to see the light
Hey now, baby, I'm beginning to see the light
Wine in the morning
And some breakfast at night
Well, I'm beginning to see the light

Here we go again
Playing the fool again
Here we go again
Acting hard again, all right

Well, I'm beginning to see the light
I wanna tell you now, ooh-ooh-ooh
Hey now, baby, I'm beginning to see the light
It come a bit softer now
I wore my teeth in my hands
So I could mess the hair of the night
Hey, well I'm beginning to see the light
Now, now, now, now, now, now, baby, I'm beginning to see the night, now
It's comin' softer
Hey now, baby I'm beginning to see the light
I met myself in a dream
And I just want to tell you everything was alright
Hey now, baby, I'm beginning to see the light

Here comes two of you
Which one will you chose?
One is black and one is blue
Don't know just what to do, all right!

Well, I'm beginning to see the light
All right now, here she comes!
Yeah, yeah, baby I'm beginning to see the light
Oh, some people work very hard
But still they never get it right
Well I'm beginning to see the light
Come on, let's get a little softer there now
Now, now, baby I'm beginning to see the light
Oh, it's coming around again
Hey now, now, now, now baby I'm beginning to see the light
One more time
There are problems in these times
But ooh, none of them are mine
Oh baby, I'm beginning to see the light

Here we go again
I thought that you were my friend
Here we go again
I thought that you were my friend

How does it feel to be loved?
How does it feel to be loved?
How does it feel to be loved?
How does it feel to be loved?
How does it feel to be loved?
How does it feel to be loved?

----------------------------------------------------

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Lou Reed

Beginning to See the Light lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9w3YfZktAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbs

The Velvet Underground - Beginning To See The Light

Artwork by G.C. Meyers, at Redtree Times:

Redtree Times | Concerning the work of artist GC Myers

Saturday Lecture: Freedom of Thought

{J.B. Bury (1861-1927) was a distinguished and sometimes controversial historian. He was accused by Hilaire Belloc of having propagated anti-Catholic tropes, particularly in his book 'A History of Freedom of Thought'. In fairness, Bury also presented plausible arguments in favor of restricting speech, arguments with which one can only assume Belloc was comfortable.}

J.B. Bury, from A History of Freedom of Thought (1913):

The average brain is naturally lazy and tends to take the line of least resistance. The mental world of the ordinary man consists of beliefs which he has accepted without questioning and to which he is firmly attached; he is instinctively hostile to anything which would upset the established order of this familiar world. A new idea, inconsistent with some of the beliefs which he holds, means the necessity of rearranging his mind; and this process is laborious, requiring a painful expenditure of brain-energy. To him and his fellows, who form the vast majority, new ideas, and opinions which cast doubt on established beliefs and institutions, seem evil because they are disagreeable.

The repugnance due to mere mental laziness is increased by a positive feeling of fear. The conservative instinct hardens into the conservative doctrine that the foundations of society are endangered by any alterations in the structure. It is only recently that men have been abandoning the belief that the welfare of a state depends on rigid stability and on the preservation of its traditions and institutions unchanged. Wherever that belief prevails, novel opinions are felt to be dangerous as well as annoying, and anyone who asks inconvenient questions about the why and the wherefore of accepted principles is considered a pestilent person.

The conservative instinct and the conservative doctrines which are its consequence, are strengthened by superstition. If the social structure, including the whole body of customs and opinions, is associated intimately with religious belief and is supposed to be under divine patronage, criticism of the social order suggests impiety, while criticism of the religious belief is a direct challenge to the wrath of supernatural powers. The psychological motives which produce a conservative spirit hostile to new ideas are reinforced by the active opposition of certain powerful sections of the community, such as a class, a caste, or a priesthood, whose interests are bound up with the maintenance of the established order and the ideas on which it rests.

In prehistoric days, these motives must have made change slow in communities which progressed and hindered some communities from progressing at all. But they have continued to operate more or less throughout history, obstructing knowledge and progress. We can observe them at work today even in the most advanced societies, where they have no longer the power to arrest development or repress the publication of revolutionary opinions. We still meet people who consider a new idea an annoyance and probably a danger. Of those to whom socialism is repugnant, how many are there who have never examined the arguments for and against it, but turn away in disgust simply because the notion disturbs their mental universe and implies a drastic criticism on the order of things to which they are accustomed? And how many are there who would refuse to consider any proposals for altering our imperfect matrimonial institutions, because such an idea offends a mass of prejudice associated with religious sanctions? They may be right or not, but if they are, it is not their fault. They are actuated by the same motives which were a bar to progress in primitive societies. The existence of people of this mentality, reared in an atmosphere of freedom, side by side with others who are always looking out for new ideas and regretting that there are not more about, enables us to realize how, when public opinion was formed by the views of such men, thought was fettered and the impediments to knowledge enormous.

Although the liberty to publish one's opinions on any subject without regard to authority or the prejudices of one's neighbor's is now a well-established principle, I imagine that only the minority of those who would be ready to fight to the death rather than surrender it could defend it on rational grounds. We are apt to take for granted that freedom of speech is a natural and inalienable birthright of man, and perhaps to think that this is a sufficient answer to all that can be said on the other side. But it is difficult to see how such a right can be established. Restrictions on freedom of opinion affect only the comparatively small number who have any opinions, revolutionary or unconventional, to express. The truth is that no valid argument can be founded on the conception of natural rights, because it involves an untenable theory of the relations between society and its members.

On the other hand, those who have the responsibility of governing a society can argue that it is as incumbent on them to prohibit the circulation of pernicious opinions as to prohibit any anti-social actions. They can argue that a man may do far more harm by propagating anti-social doctrines than by stealing his neighbor's horse or making love to his neighbor's wife. They are responsible for the welfare of the State, and if they are convinced that an opinion is dangerous, by menacing the political, religious, or moral assumptions on which the society is based, it is their duty to protect society against it, as against any other danger.

It is obvious that in order to readjust social customs, institutions, and methods to new needs and circumstances, there must be unlimited freedom of canvassing and criticizing them, of expressing the most unpopular opinions, no matter how offensive to prevailing sentiment they may be. If the history of civilization has any lesson to teach it is this: there is one supreme condition of mental and moral progress which it is completely within the power of man himself to secure, and that is perfect liberty of thought and discussion. The establishment of this liberty may be considered the most valuable achievement of modem civilization, and as a condition of social progress it should be deemed fundamental. The considerations of permanent utility on which it rests must outweigh any calculations of present advantage which from time to time might be thought to demand its violation.

--------------------------------------

J. B. Bury - Wikipedia

Hilaire Belloc's response: Anti-Catholic History: How it is Written - Wikisource, the free online library

 

Today in STFU: Gavin Newsom

As you may know, Gavin Newsom is Governor of California; he belongs to the Democratic Party, so we can assume that, like all Democrats (and most Californians), he hates America and wants to destroy it. That, however, is not why I want him to STFU.

Governor Gavin has recently started up a podcast called “This Is Gavin Newsome,” based on the intriguing idea that, in his words, “It’s time to have a conversation.” Expanding on that premise, Newsom said, “It’s time to have honest discussions with people that agree AND disagree with us. It's time to answer the hard questions and be open to criticism, and debate without demeaning or dehumanizing one other. I will be doing just that on my new podcast – inviting people on who I deeply disagree with to talk about the most pressing issues of the day and inviting listeners from around the country to join the conversation.”

Before we applaud Newsom’s courage in talking on the record with people with whom he “deeply” disagrees, let us note that, thus far, his conversational strategy with the likes of Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon appears to be agreeing with them in hopes they will return the favor, which they haven’t and which they won’t. Let’s keep men out of women’s sports! Let’s keep boys out of girls’ bathrooms! Let’s stand up to the oligarchs and the global elites! Let’s rip the guts out of the administrative state! Newsom nods at his guests’ ideas, seemingly channeling the classic canard about liberals: A liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument.

It is one thing to offer a sympathetic ear to the likes of Charlie Kirk, who is, to be sure, a baby-faced cretin with an inexplicable amount of influence in MAGAville. ¹ But it is another level of stupid entirely for Gavin Newsom to engage in polite, respectful conversation with Steve Bannon, a convicted felon, a January 6 conspirator, and a dedicated foe of democracy. Vitriol and contempt are features, not bugs, of Bannon’s rhetorical approach; finding common ground with him would require a deep dive into the ideological gutter.

Bannon, who appeared on “This Is Gavin Newsom” earlier this week, is a destroyer, a nihilist. He admits as much, and he delights in being open about his intentions. In 2018, documentarian Errol Morris made a film (American Dharma) about Bannon, trying to uncover the man’s worldview, only to find, in Morris’ words, that Bannon’s worldview is “a collection of bullshit philosophy piled up often without rhyme or reason. What I took away from much of what Bannon said is how the movie ends. It ends with destruction, right? The desire to destroy everything, and if I came away with one conclusion it’s that there was nothing positive about anything that he was proposing.” ²

In short, Bannon is the 21^st-century American version of the 19^th-century Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, who famously stated that “The urge to destroy is also the urge to create.” Today, we are watching the wanton destruction of our existing federal government, with more disruption assuredly on the way. Why, under these circumstances, does Gavin Newsom think it’s a good idea to provide a forum for Bannon’s toxic outlook or to banter with him in search of “common ground”?   

I don’t know, and I really don't care (do you?). I just want Gavin Newsom to STFU.

------------------------------------------------------

¹ “Wastin’ away again here in MAGAville / Searchin’ for what’s left of my soul.” MAGAville is where Trumpian Parrotheads flock together, parroting their Leader’s every demented word (e.g., “groceries” and “tariff”).

² In 2020, Morris doubled down: “Bannon outlines an ideology of pure destruction. It’s not about building; it’s about creating chaos.” Morris’ advice was, “Get rid of Bannon before he gets rid of us.”

STFU, both of you

Wednesday with Pascal: From Woodstock Nation to MAGA

{In which Pascal the existential Russian blue cat reminds us what a long, strange trip it’s been.}

“Johnny’s in the basement / Mixing up the medicine / I’m on the pavement / Thinking about the government.” (Dylan, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” 1965)

All the new thinking is about the government. In this, it resembles all the old thinking, only worse, because now it requires thinking about Elon Musk.

Perhaps because I am old—I literally wear my trousers rolled—the current chaos being generated by our MAGA overlords has me diving deeper than usual into my bottomless well of nostalgia. As a certified Boomer, I grew up with chaos, the difference being that the chaos in the Sixties was in the streets whereas today’s chaos is mainly in the White House and in government offices and agencies.

On the one hand, chaos is chaos; but not all chaos is created equal, and not all chaos serves the same purpose(s). Sometimes, when all that is solid melts into air, and when all fixed, fast-frozen relations are swept away, we have to pick our chaos (like picking our poison); that is, we have to decide which chaotic side we’re on.

For example, here is Jacques Ellul’s analysis (from his 1973 book Hope in Time of Abandonment) of the Sixties’ chaotic counterculture, which attracted a large portion of the postwar generation:

The young are in revolt against organized and ordered society itself, against the proliferation of things and of well-being, of skills and machines. They rebel in glorification of flower power, of the hypnotic dream and the musical trance. Absent is any program or project; in fact, that absence is the essence of the revolt. One lives for today. One seizes the present moment and tries to make it as beautiful, as seductive, as charming as possible. The ‘consequences’ are rejected. New modes of expression and new kinds of life experiences are tried out; security and provision for the future are renounced. Action toward a fixed goal is scorned.

Rage against the machine! In Ellul’s estimate, Sixties’ rebels were not trying to do anything so pedestrian as reforming society. Rather, they were bent on immanentizing the eschaton:

The young are trying to get at the root of evil. ¹ Convinced that all will be recaptured in the end, they promote only the Nothing; that, at least, or so they think, can never be captured by our cumulative and englobing type of society. Protests against war, against racism, and against repression are mere pretexts and secondary rallying points. The essence of the movement is nothing. It aspires not to see beyond the present moment. It recommends the Great Rejection of everything, which must be reduced to nothing because whatever exists is alienation and repression.

What Ellul called the Sixties’ “Great Rejection” bore more than a passing resemblance to Herbert Marcuse’s proposed “Great Refusal”:  

In this movement, there is no more value. There are no longer any criteria for action. There is no intelligent deliberation. There are flowers and love, hunger one minute and surfeit the next. There is desire finally set free, an ownership of the world which exudes from every pore, a calm exaltation, musical ecstasy, a resurgence of Orphism, a stripping bare of the self. This growth of the irrational is the true protest against the technological society. These desperate attempts, these behaviors which seem to us so strange and outlandish, these rings and beads, these Hindu symbols and long hair, these refusals and insults, these hatreds and hallucinations, this loveless free love and this confusion of crowds with communion, all this novelty which the young are throwing in our faces, is nothing but the reflection of the situation which is marked by the absence of a future. ² Of course, there will be a tomorrow. But there is no future, no building, no job, no logic, no ultimate unfolding of life, no harmony either present or to be sought after. There is no possible continuity, no steadfastness or loyalty, no lesson to be drawn for tomorrow’s conduct, tomorrow’s tactics, or tomorrow’s living, because tomorrow is nothing. ³

Of course, one could (and many did) characterize the absence of ambition as a refusal to grow up, thereby dismissing the whole counterculture movement as a reprise of the Lost Boys’ anthem: “I won’t grow up / I don’t want to go to school / just to learn to be a puppet / and recite a silly rule.” Still, for someone my age, it’s hard to accept that our generation’s Children’s Crusade was simply the growing pains of an affluent, coddled generation. Maybe Neil Sedaka should have changed his tune to "Growing Up Is Hard to Do"? ⁴

As a constructive alternative to the foolishness of the Sixties, consider the following much more adult guidance from Linda McMahon, recently installed as Secretary of the Department of Education. Ms. McMahon—tasked with shuttering the DOE so that American children can be protected from exposure to DEI, SEL, and other harmful acronyms—has exhorted her employees and colleagues to join her “in this historic final mission on behalf of all students.” Ignoring the ominous implications of “final mission,” she explained the raison d’etre of America's education system: “Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.” 

As inspiring as that sounds, another way of stating Secretary McMahon’s point might be this: “Twenty years of schoolin’ and they put you on the day shift.” Why bother filling kids’ heads with “useless, pointless knowledge,” even a little of which is known to be a dangerous thing? The formula for getting ahead is simple: “Get dressed, get blessed, try to be a success.” Who needs a Department of Education for that? "Teacher, leave them kids alone!"

The question is, which kind of chaos do you prefer? The childish antics of a g-g-generation of spoiled brats, or a mature approach to Making America Great Again by throwing government agencies into a bureaucratic woodchipper, bringing chainsaws to HR meetings, and training students to align themselves with workforce needs? Do you want to grow up or don’t you?

God, I miss the Sixties. I was so much older then, but I’m younger than that now.

------------------------------------------------------------  

¹ “And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.” (Joni Mitchell, “Woodstock,” 1969)

² “There’s no future, no future, no future for you.” (The Sex Pistols, “God Save the Queen,” 1977)

³ “There’s nothing at the end of the rainbow / There’s nothing to grow up for anymore.” (Richard Thompson, “End of the Rainbow,” 1974)

⁴ My first ever reference, and likely my last, to Neil Sedaka ("Breaking Up Is Hard to Do," 1959).

Sunday Sermon: "This Ain't the Summer of Love"

This Ain’t the Summer of Love (by Blue Oyster Cult)

Feeling easy on the outside
But not so funny on the inside
Feel the sound, pray for rain
For this is the night we ride

This ain't the garden of Eden
There ain't no angels above
And things ain't like they used to be
And this ain't the summer of love

Lock all your doors from the outside
The key will dangle by the inside
You may begin to understand
That this is the night we ride

This ain't the garden of Eden
There ain't no angels above
And things ain't like they used to be
And this ain't the summer of love

On the night we ride, this ain't the summer of love.
This ain't the garden of eden
There ain't no angels above
And things ain't like they used to be
And this ain't the summer of love
This ain't the summer, this ain't, this ain't
This ain't the summer of love

----------------------------------------------

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: A. Bouchard / Don Waller / Murray Krugman

This Ain’t the Summer of Love lyrics © BMG Rights Management, Peermusic Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Album version: This Ain't the Summer of Love

 

Saturday Lecture: A School of Suspicion

{Writing in 1973, French philosopher and iconoclast Jacques Ellul lamented the deplorable effects of the Sixties. “Young people monopolize the sidewalks,” he complained, “and make the elderly step down.” Moreover, he continued, “The communications media [encourage] the scoffing, the humiliating acts and remarks, and the general derision of the aged by the young.” Ellul was a sprightly 61 at the time, and he lived to be 82, despite being constantly forced by derisive youth to step down from sidewalks.}

“We can’t go on together / with suspicious minds.” (Francis Zambon, “Suspicious Minds,” famously recorded by Elvis Presley)

Jacques Ellul, from Hope in a Time of Abandonment (1973):

Modern man is living in an illusory world, illusory because made up of images transmitted by the communications media. His world is no longer that of his daily experience, of his lived mediocrity, of his known personality, of his repeated relationships. It has become an enormous décor, a stage set, put there by the thousands of news items which are almost completely useless for his life, but which are striking, arousing, threatening, glorifying, and edifying in their radical insignificance. They give him the feeling of living an existence which is worth the trouble, in contrast to the rest of his experience which is colorless and too obviously unimportant. It is an odd perversion that the person of this age bestows significance and sense on that which does not concern him at all but which he reads in the newspaper or sees on television and yet rejects the significance and sense of that which is his own experience twenty-four hours of every day.

Yet the perversion is not hard to understand. On one hand we have all the luster and accumulated prestige of the most magnificent technology combined with the most resplendent and terrifying reports, and on the other hand the gray world of ordinary loves, always slightly bungled, of ordinary work for ordinary wages, of difficult companions and of the woman (for instance) who does the cleaning. It is better to live in illusory magic, and from that vantage point to judge the banal and the boring.

To live in the poetic illusion presented to us by the spectacular environment of the modern world is to do away with the need for making history. Illusion is necessarily metaphysical. The ordinary person, placed by communications media in an imaginary universe, lives in a world of metaphysics. That is why he is so easily moved and so inaccessible at the same time. He is going nowhere. A believer in progress, because progress is what it is all about, he is becoming less and less capable of personal discipline and development. He is only at ease in the climate of the absolute, of all or nothing, of eternity. He skips over the real. He skips the mediation of time in order to land full-blown in the ideal, ultimate society where everything is taken care of. He dreams, but he no longer hopes. So when, by some misfortune, the dream ends, the illusion vanishes, and the ideal is seen to be unobtainable, nothing remains but death.

Today, man finds himself more ill-equipped than ever. He cannot construct the future his way, but he no longer believes in any outside forces or person, the gods or God, to whom he might appeal to intervene. There are only blind mechanisms, obscure powers, inexplicable interactions.

One mark of this age is suspicion. Nothing is any longer itself. We have learned to look beyond and behind for the nameless, the elusive, the depths, the hidden forces, the secrets. Such is the supreme lucidity to which we are condemned. Beginning with the thinking of a few intellectuals, suspicion is taking hold of everyone.

For figures such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, suspicion is their one point in common. For Marx it was a question of discerning modes of social behavior which underlie public statements, doctrines, political or economic attitudes, secret motives, hidden interests, purposeful decisions. He put forward the theory of the false conscience, of self-justification, of ideology, according to which man is always in bad faith. ¹ Each person obeys the interplay of economic forces and of class interests; the individual is relocated in the group which he necessarily represents. His essential self is defined by the class to which he belongs.

Nietzsche, for his part, relentlessly tracked down the false appearances, the moral fabrications and ideologies, the social relationships based on misunderstanding; there again, it was a matter of looking behind the front which man presents in order to see the swarming interior with its profound and frightening truth.

Everyone knows the paths down which Freud has led us, beginning with the sick person teaching us, based on the evidence of the sick person, what it is that constitutes the depths of the conscious, willing, and artificially constructed being—the unconscious drives, the composition of this base on which every person builds his personality, the ocean of the irrational and involuntary in which we are all submerged. The person is such a minor outcropping of the powers dwelling within that we have learned not to trust it any longer.

A school of suspicion: we have learned no longer to place our confidence in anything, no longer to have faith in anyone, no longer to believe in a person’s word, nor in a sentiment, no longer to accept the lasting quality of a relationship, no longer to believe that it could be authentic or truly representative of the person. We have learned that every good feeling merely expresses some self-satisfaction or some hypocrisy, that all virtue is a lie, that all morality is false, that all devotion is vain or a sham, that all speech hides the truth. We have learned that only the lie is true, that only the murder of one’s father is consistent with one’s being, that incest with one’s mother is the greatest desire, that we are never disinterested, that we are incurably insane for money, whether we have it or not, for our social class, for our childhood.

Such is the state into which the three geniuses, humanity’s great malefactors, have thrown us. They represent the opposite of mercy and love. The Marx-Nietzsche-Freud trio pins us to the wall like a butterfly. They have hypnotized us. They have staked out the field of the intellectually possible. Thanks to them, we are caught in a trap which is intellectual, social, and spiritual, a trap with no way out, a trap which forbids all hope and freezes us in an industrious, scintillating sterility.

------------------------------------------------ 

¹ In fairness, I think Kierkegaard got to the “bad faith” business before Marx. Also, I think Ellul meant to say, “false consciousness” rather than “false conscience”.

The Usual Suspects