Essays in Idleness

That strange flower, the sun, is just what you say. Have it your way. The world is ugly, and the people are sad. …

That tuft of jungle feathers, that animal eye, is just what you say. That savage of fire, that seed, have it your way. …

The world is ugly, and the people are sad.

*

The above, “Gubbinal,” is, I have thought, the most political of Wallace Stevens’ lyrical poems, which, by and large, are not political at all. Except, everything is political to the humourless scold.

Or, in “the Nietzschean reading” you will find in the Wicked Paedia, it is one of Stevens’ “poems of epistemology.”

But instead I would observe, to academic experts unreachable by verse, that they might have it their way. For, “the world is ugly and the people are sad.”

Of course, this is not entirely true. On Thursdays, for instance, I have found enough happiness to last into Friday. And on Mondays, too, freedom from despair. Only the world of the progressive liberals — of the tedious Left — is ugly, and only Democrats are sad.

Over there, on the right — and the farther over you go from there, into what a progressive would call “superstition” (i.e. Catholic Christianity) — the world is quite blissful. Joy and merriment may be found, even in a hateful and smelly leftist, for Satire will quickly provide a few laughs. And when they are attempting murder (abortions, intifadas, “Maid”) we needn’t be judgemental. For we are not the One who sends them to Hell.

I do not take polls seriously, except as illustrations of the obvious. I noticed some American media poll recently (it was Pew Research, if I remember), that asked Democrats and Republicans, respectively, how satisfied they were with their lives. Predictably, and by a huge margin, as ever, Republicans were happier, and Democrats more sad. This is because, to a Democrat, the world is unjust and unfair. And it is very ugly.

“Beauty is truth, and truth beauty,” — said Keats, controversially, — “that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” The controversy is in the fact that he was probably examining a Greek urn that we, in our much-vaunted wisdom, would now condemn as rather ugly, and buy something else in the trinket-shop of history, where the Sung pots from China seem rather more attractive.

Mere tastes change, over the years, but with Keats I suggest that when one can appreciate beauty of some kind, one has also discerned truth of some kind; and vice versa; in a world that is complex.

Benito Mussolini, for instance, could appreciate not only the beauty of bombs exploding, but of the aeroplanes that deliver them, and by extension I would imagine the beauty of missiles bearing nuclear bombs. But he had a (quite literally) Fascist sensibility, and the truth in that easily slips away. Normally, it does not slide so easily, from an Italian savant.

Yet in one respect, Benito was onto something. At the complex intersection of beauty and truth, morality may be ignored. For goodness sake, itself, it should never be ignored entirely, because we were instructed to avoid evil, initially by God; but there is a pure sense where beauty and truth are amoral. This sense is discovered both in art and life.

Much of Shia, and Muslim, art is gorgeous; and I was a child in Lahore, exposed occasionally to the truth and beauty of Persian art and gardening. Given my own descent from designers and calligraphers, I am mesmerized by Persian, Arabic, and Turkish writing. Fortunately, the IDF and the USAF were not called upon to delete any of that, unless incidentally. Most of what they deleted was of far more technical than aesthetic significance.

Indeed, generally their deletions from the Iranian environment improved it aesthetically. This is often the effect of warfare, but it is transient. For after the bangs die out, the workmen go back to making ugly things. Whereas, that for which we long is truth and beauty.

One of the most cheerful accomplishments of the precision bombing of Iran, is the demolition of the front gate of the Evin Prison for political inmates. This has been just one of the “showier” acts of the blesséd IAF campaign. It has destroyed so many of the Ayatollahs’ brutal institutions, while their captives are left only to watch and applaud.

For 46 years the Persian and other peoples imprisoned within the Iranian totalitarian regime have been not only tortured and murdered, but forced to look daily upon the symbols of Shia oppression. But with control over the Persian-turquoise skies, and a seemingly endless supply of efficient, Western-made airborne munitions, the Israelis have made use of the leisure to “edit” the official landscape, and replace the enemy fixtures with delightful ruin.

“Regime change” was not the best idea, as the Americans learnt in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, &c. Like other aspects of “democracy” it has never been adequately thought through. It is, and will always be, too much trouble, and it never works. As I wrote, when as a daily journalist I was recommending the invasion of Iraq, the intention ought to be purely destructive, both going in and coming out. (In the manner of pagan Rome, as my colleague John Robson then suggested: in through Kuwait, and out perhaps a few weeks later through the wreckage of Syria and Lebanon.) It is for the surviving natives to decide what comes next. And if, by chance, they make another poor decision, you can always invade them again.

Study drama. Read Aristotle on the importance of poetic unities.

The “Proverbs of Hell,” to which I, at least, concede some authority, hold that, “A dead body revenges not injuries.” Indeed, William Blake is among my leading quasi-Christian prophets.

There is possibly no exception to this Proverb. However, the leading tactical experts observe, that the body may not be dead yet. A supplementary beating may still be necessary.

I thought I should render my thoughts on Iran, and on Mr. Trump’s employment of more than a dozen gleaming “bunker busters” on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, in the present news cycle. Surely he did not use them on the archaeological vestiges of Isfahan, which I have visited and by which I was aesthetically pleased, but only on Isfahan’s uranium conversion plant, which is, or was, slick, modern, and probably ideal to be “blowed up real good.” Veritably, Iran has so many of these “miracles of modern engineering,” that we should keep up the production of high explosives.

But will there be a “live one” left, now all the bunker busters have exploded? Or will some supplementary beatings be required?

For the principal threat of any monster regime (one thinks, for instance, of China and North Korea) is not its possession of nuclear weapons, but that its rulers try to use them, if not for war then for blackmail. It is the same issue with guns: no problem at all, except in the hands of criminals or worse. (Religious fanatics are generally worse.) The ayatollahs of Persian Shia Islam, i.e. “Twelvers,” have consistently fit this description — Worse.

But this is not a new thing. The Zoroastrians, who seem to be making a comeback in Iran, after many centuries, could be as bad (read their history); but had no nuclear weapons. Ahura Mazda could be as troubling as Allah, when he was invoked aggressively, and Zarathustra could be as annoying as Muhammad. Thus we must all remain Christian Crusaders, with our elbows ever up, in Prime Minister Carney’s awkward hockey metaphor.

And, in this case, “Prudence is a rich, ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.” … Or, one might add, “Gung ho!”

Michael Malice, the inaptly-named, Soviet-born anarchist (less malicious than most who sport lively political opinions), has proposed a solution to the “Canada problem,” which will also solve several other problems associated with it. He begins by estimating the population of the “Great White North,” to be approximately forty millions. There are apparently also about that number of blacks in the United States, whom we understand to be seeking reparations from states like California, for their ancestors’ involuntary immigration to the American South.

Mr Malice’s idea is, that when Donald Trump annexes Canada (and Greenland), he could give one Canadian slave to each and every American black. The numbers are not precisely equal — there may be a million extra blacks — but let us not be distracted by administrative details. A few extra white slaves could be collected among Greenlanders and Danes.

Not only could this be presented as a handsome solution to the reparation issue, but also as a cure to Canadians’ unbearable smugness. And it corrects for what otherwise might have absent-mindedly created so many unnecessary Democrat voters in the USA.

Of course, I, and the few dozen sincere Catholics who reside in the Canadian Dominion, would be exempted, for we are not “citizens of this world.”

Every media cliché about Israel and the Middle East — including those which are presented as neutral — is built upon lies. The biggest is perhaps that which was satirized in the Book of Jeremiah — the call for “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” It is that kind of peace that is achieved by negotiations and compromise. Both sides must agree to something less than total victory.

This is the tactical peace, the hudna, or tahidya, recognized by Islam: the ceasefire obtained when you are losing, for the recovery of tactical advantage. War resumes only when your advantage resumes. In the meanwhile, your enemy is suckered by your lies.

Compare this with the peace that followed the destruction of Nazi Germany. Peace was achieved through “Victory Europe”; it consisted of the complete physical annihilation of the Wehrmacht.

To be fair, Islam recognizes something like this principle, too: in the Dar al-Islam that will be imposed when every alternative to Islam is vanquished, so that nothing is left but submission. The world will then enjoy the “perfect peace” of a single Caliphate with comprehensive, absolute power. The Muslim law, that holds apostates must be executed, will assure that it will be a lasting peace, as well. Obey, or die.

To the Catholic, even Protestant Christian, or the Jewish mind, this would be absolute tyranny. Rather than allow this sort of peace to be accomplished, we who are faithful — faithful to God — are committed to war. We are not pacifists: we are not that stupid.

I notice the radical difference in practice between the Muslim way of war, as exemplified by Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas; and our own. Missiles are gratuitously lobbed at the Jewish civilian population, although allowing for collateral damage when their Muslim neighbours are hit, too. Presumably, these latter will qualify as Muslim “martyrs.” Contrast this with the Christian view, enunciated by Saint Augustine: “It is not the punishment but the cause that makes the martyr.”

Israel’s targets are all military, and there are a lot of them. Unnecessary civilian casualties are avoided.

Of course, we want a singular peace. Everyone does, except those who long for death, which is not the Christian or Jewish desire. And peace can be achieved, however transitorily in this world. In this case, it requires the complete, permanent destruction of the Shia Iranian regime.

My very favourite among all the historical groups of Mexican revolutionaries were the Cristeros, who rose in rebellion against the persecution of the Church by the violent, anti-clerical Mexican state in the 1920s. And cried these words: “Long live Christ the King!” They were the last from the mouth of Blessed Miguel Agustin Pro, the Catholic priest who was martyred — executed without trial on the usual false charges — by the order of the memorably evil Mexican president, Plutarco Calles. A vicious anti-Christian, President Calles had the execution filmed in the expectation that this priest would give a cowardly display. He did the opposite.

Today we are apparently celebrating “No Kings Day” — designed as a counter-intimidation of Donald Trump, by leftist Americans, illegal immigrants, and other social filth. It would be very easy to sneer at those who wave Mexican flags because they don’t want to be deported to where it legitimately flies, while rioting and looting, &c. But let me at least take this opportunity to express my contempt for these people.

Father Miguel was shot with Crucifix in one hand, and Rosary in the other, both arms extended — facing the firing squad with fierce serenity. … ¡Viva Cristo Rey! he cried out, as the bullets cut him up.

That is how one deplores the pretensions of mere worldly kings.

The advantage of shooting looters is that it solves a serious problem, and quickly, rather than simply “discouraging” the crime, as may be promised by high-tech anti-theft devices. (One sees these advertised more and more.) For shooting will eliminate the looter directly, or when it misses, will nevertheless prove a more effective discouragement tool. Indeed, merely having a reputation for shooting looters is often prophylactic.

On the other hand, as Machiavelli probably observed, it comes with a downside. In a democratic political order — and virtually all polities are democratic at their lowest level — shooting looters will only be popular at first. One’s polls may decline if one keeps it up too long, or if, as so often, leftist trash is in control of your media.

This is where shooting journalists comes in, though as a journalist I have never recommended it. Moreover, shooting people too numerously and persistently could easily devolve into a tyrannous habit, to which I would be opposed.

Still, I would like to contribute to problem-solving, in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago for instance, or in the several dozen others where “Demoncrats” are in power. The consistent and prompt enforcement of legitimate rules of law, with fairly severe punishments against corruption, has apparently encouraged even economies to flourish. Justice need not apologize for itself, when it is applied justly. The human animal is, as it were, programmed (by the programming gods) to appreciate justice; only a few perverts are exceptional.

However, with sentimentality, and the loss of an ardent manliness, justice and trade soon go into recession.

Once upon a time, I delivered a few informal lectures to aspiring financial journalists at Thammasat University in Thailand. This school was in an earlier phase of a transition into a batty, shrieking, left-wing nuthouse; but some were still sincerely teaching the little that was known about development economics. (Note, this involves supply and demand.) Today, the economic students at Thammasat and elsewhere are taught instead how to permanently disable and impoverish venerable nations, enslave unthinking populations, and spread chaos and violence in the cause of fashionable “revolution.”

Well, I was then young and naïve. I already knew that economic faculties in the West were under siege from what I call (accurately) “communists and perverts.” I was just learning that this is a universal phenomenon. The whole self-appointed “intellectual” world is on the left, and indeed, throughout the universities — probably since they replaced cathedral studia in the Middle Ages — they had not been a source of sober seminary training, but of dangerous revolutionary notions. We might think of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas as representative of the new academic institutions of the West. But rioting by spoilt, godless rich children was more commonplace, from the XIIth century, forward; and the young rioters then grew up into the professorial idiots who people the faculty associations. (Or perhaps I am being excessively sardonic.)

The example that is teasing me at the moment is the formula for calculating Gross Domestic Product. A whole Seyfert galaxy of cumulative evils, implicit in government spending, now counts as contributing to national wealth; and tax money is scornfully wasted that could have been spent productively. Inflation is everywhere.

The challenge I encountered then was not to advance this mad and maddening statistical game of GDP calculation, but to replace it with something meaningful.

Operation Overlord; Tian-En-Min; the First Crusade. These events had absolutely nothing to do with one another, except that each of them is, or was, very big, and intended to put the world back in order. The world has since again strayed, dirorderward.

True, Nazi Germany, once its defeat was completed, did not revive; but the jury is still out on most other events in history. For instance, the Chinese students’ appeal at the Gate of Heavenly Peace has not yet been decided; it could go either way. My prayer is that Communism will be extinguished in China. Thousands of lives were expended in putting down the risings of 1989; and for a moment, the tanks were stopped on Chang’an Avenue in Peking. The man who stopped them, on international television, was a brave, anonymous hero. He was probably shot just afterwards.

For that matter, we cannot know just yet if the “reconquistas” will succeed, over the three-quarters of Christendom that fell to the VIIth-century Arab-Islamic invasions, and were brutally overrun. (The Sasanian Empire in Persia went down completely.) At the moment, our chances for recovery of these lands and peoples does not look good; the Crusaders are not even trying! And the sword proves mightier even than Joe Biden’s automatic pen.

Ten thousand were killed on the Normandy beaches, during D-Day; about five thousand on each side (Allies versus Germans). This was one of the more economical attempts to reverse the history in which the peace of Europe had somehow slipped away. In other theatres of war, millions of lives were wasted. All credit to Mr Eisenhower’s administrative skills.

Something of (not unmixed) good comes from all the other attempts to put the world back in order. But in the nature of things, this is an impossible task for the planners.

For you see, heavenly peace is Divinely arranged; it cannot be obtained by human enterprise.

From Ed West’s big, beautiful blog I have learnt that, when asked for his quo warranto, John de Warenne, sixth Earl of Surrey, drew his rusty sword and replied: “‘My ancestors came with William the Bastard, and conquered their lands with the sword, and I will defend them with the sword against anyone wishing to seize them.”

This was a suitable response, at the time, in the days before “stand your ground” was replaced by a pant-wet liberalism. Today, we start every bureaucratic meeting with a ridiculous land acknowledgement to some gawdforsaken Indian band, who themselves took it from some other tribe in farther antiquity. But to this worthy ancestor, “the buck stopped here.”

John de Warenne was not, in point of fact, my ancestor, from eight centuries ago; but my grandfather, an accomplished illuminator, once told me that he was, and grandpa was capable of forging mediaeval evidence. I doubt even this would, however, be recognized for a retrieval of the earldom of Surrey through the English courts, and something bolder will have to be attempted.

What the reactionary Englishman gave the world, and the revolutionary Frenchman has been trying to take away, is our “Anglo-Saxon” tradition of voluntary association. I should mention that Old French was used by these new Englishmen to convey the voluntarist terms: words like address, majority, minority, and parliament. But I will leave such details, perhaps, to a future Idlepost. For the world has been around for longer than England and France; and the terms ideologue, and doctrinaire, will meanwhile give some idea where I am going.

I was present for the French revolution, at least in American journalism. I was a copy boy in the Toronto Globe & Mail at the time, around 1969, that the executives of that paper resolved that all new hires must have a journalism degree or equivalent. Previously, all they needed was ability. More broadly, across the continent and around the world, the journalistic trade was, as the first profession, about to be turned over. Like its parallel, which is cheerless paid sex, it could be avariciously professionalized. Today, almost everywhere, this trade has become “professionally” devoted to shoving stupid ideas down people’s throats, in the trite, professional way.

It is not a trade any more, except for the few amateur operators who write things like blogs, and have managed to avoid arrest. Canada, where the entire mass media is under paid, Liberal-party direction, is among the most extreme examples.

Yet it is not only journalism, which we could probably do without. Medicine has also been converted from a trade into a “profession.” Not only have professional qualifications replaced ability as the standard for entry into a medical career. It is now five years since the medical men (and even women) acquired dictatorial powers in law. Or were you not at home during the Batflu “pandemic”?

No longer do doctors give advice we may blissfully ignore; having come to our back doors, as other tradesmen. Indeed, you are summoned to see them, and wait interminably in their “clinics.”

Rather than exhaust gentle reader with particulars, I will idly place this idea with him, as part of my mischievous writing “trade.” The reason both journalism and medicine have become leftwing and “evil” — to use the Old German word — is that the respective trades have been made into (very well-paid) professions.

Capitalism was not to blame. That only became a word, the negative for socialism, when the timeless business of trade was professionalized by the “Marxists” (i.e. commies and perverts).

It is now precisely five years since we confirmed that the medical authorities throughout America and the West are seriously deluded. This was not “an argument”; the facts of the case were put dramatically before us by the George Floyd riots, and the instruction from doctors and nurses to ignore the “pandemic” they had been promoting and go out into the streets en masse to protest (with Black Lives Matter and other violent revolutionaries) because “racism is a public health issue.” Nothing they had told us about “social distancing” was to be taken seriously.

Yes, just five years, although it seems longer from the attempt to wash away these memories, by the public health “experts,” who were either mistaken or lying on apparently every point. If anyone continued to have faith in the validity of bureaucratic methods it was, or should have been, completely shattered. All those who followed “progressive” instructions were proved to be dupes.

Alas, I do not overstate.

In my own case, I had learnt not to trust bureaucrats half a century ago, and watched this lesson being repeated many, many times. In other cases, there were some slow learners. Those who have voted, ever since, for any of the “progressive” parties — which include the Liberals in Canada, Labour in Britain, and Democrats in the States — have played a part in our civilizational decline; but too, so have most “conservatives” who have tried to compromise with them. Intelligent people should have learnt, by now, what wickedness is; within a few years of childhood one ought to realize that bureaucracy is evil, and that the good man will do what he can to resist its ministrations. Perhaps refusing to vote is the initial step to freedom.

Sick, and frequently embedded, I have had the opportunity to read sections of the Summa Contra Gentiles — the old Hanover House edition from the ‘fifties, which was portably compact and well-translated. It was an opportunity to refresh my understanding of error. For Saint Thomas made this book an extraordinary directory to error in every facet of the life of mind and the corporal. It ends in literary sight of salvation, and the condition of those who are risen. I recommend that readers at least consult the “Summa Contra” for its cogent accounts of the “official” heresies.

For bullshit is basically the same as it ever was, as if one needed reminding.