Fewtril #95

No professional doom-foreteller has yet been so bold or so brave as to utter what is perhaps the worst of his forebodings: that he will awake one morning only to find the tulips in bloom, the birds in song, and that all’s well with the world.

A Contender for the Worst Neologism of 2006

Homo-sectual. – n. A person whose “gayness (or homosexuality) is deeply interwoven with personal experiences and understandings of religion”, as in, “the important challenges that homo-sectuals bring to conventional religious norms”. (Jeffrey A. Redding, “Human Rights and Homo-sectuals: The International Politics of Sexuality, Religion, and Law”, Journal of International Human Rights, Vol.4:3, May 2006.

Fewtril #94

Let us hope that the goodness of a man proves an effective resistance even to his most sacred ideals.

A Little Spat Over Monarchy

In my post about monarchy, I expressed my distrust for those who seek power:

In a non-hereditary republic or democracy, the governors must seek out power, and that for me is enough not to trust them an inch. In a hereditary monarchy, the ruler is invested with power which typically he did not seek. With the latter, there is always a fair chance of a good ruler; with the former, almost none at all.

In response to this, Cirdan stated:

[T]ake two people, A with a desire for X, and B who is indifferent to X. Assume that all else is equal between them. Commonsense suggests that A is likeliest to be responsible in the use of X if his desire is satisfied.

In an attempt to counter this “commonsense” suggestion with a stark example, I said let X be alcohol, and then cited the example of the alcoholic. Cirdan, however, suggests that the alcoholic’s addiction is not a desire but a weakness or pathology of the will as regards the use of alcohol. He may well have a point.

He also suggests, however, that “there’s no reliable way to sort out desires associated with addiction from desires not associated with addiction”. If true, then there is no reliable way to sort out those whose desire for power is associated with addiction from those whose desire for power is not associated with addiction, that is, those with a normal desire for something from those who have a weakness or pathology of the will as regards the use of it. All we can say with reliability is that they seek it.

For those seeking power, then, there must be either (1) a desire for power not associated with an addiction, or (2) a desire for power associated with an addiction as a function of a weakness or pathology of the will as regards the use of it. Possibility (2) is certainly not desirable in those who hold power; for it may not be sated within bounds conducive to freedom. In those not seeking power but who possess it, however, there may be (1) or (2), or there may be (3): neither of the above. In this regard, at least, all other things being equal, there is a better chance that those who do not seek power are more responsible in its use than those who do.

As far as a non-addictive desire for power is concerned, moreover, assuming that it could be identified as such, I cannot see how it follows that, if a man desires power, and he attains it, he is more likely to be responsible in its use than the man who attains it not through desire but through accidence. History suggests otherwise, not least in that the struggle itself for power tends to be more favourable to the corrupt and the ruthless.

Fewtril #93

The trouble with defending that which one suspects to be a fact is that one can very soon come to believe that it is an established one, for no other reason than that one has defended it as though it were.

The Importance of Sheds

“Only last year [in Nepal] was the custom of locking up menstruating women in cowsheds declared illegal.” [1] In the West, we have a different tradition of dealing with menstruating women: the men lock themselves in garden-sheds.

[1] Tariq Ali, “This is no rah-rah revolt”, The Guardian, 25th April 2006.

Monarchy

Upon the occasion of the eightieth birthday of Queen Elizabeth II, it was to be expected that the “progressives” would start to talk about abolishing the monarchy. If I were feeling lazy, I should be satisfied with the rule of thumb that states: if such persons are against a thing, then it is probably worth fighting for, lest we end up in a bloody mess again. But, feeling in fine pip, I might as well take at least a glance at the arguments.

The arguments [against monarchy] are simple and compelling, starting with the very notion of heredity. Even the most strident monarchist will usually dodge that idea rather than attempt to defend it. They can say little to rebut Tony Benn’s well-worn line that we wouldn’t trust the airline captain who announced over the public address system, ‘I’m not, in fact, a trained pilot - but don’t worry, my dad was.’ [1]

Now, anyone who thinks Tony Benn’s analogy is valid is not in possession of his reason. At least a fairer analogy would see a pilot training his son from an early age, instilling in him not just the skills but the qualities required for the task, which son, when he was ready to become a pilot in his own right, would have at hand many advisors and co-pilots—or in other words, the analogy would run: “I’m a trained pilot, I was trained by my father who was a trained pilot, as was his father, etc, and I am in touch with many people who know a thing or two about piloting aeroplanes – so don’t worry”. It is an analogy that speaks in favour of heredity, not against it. Whilst we’re playing this sort of game, however, it is quite easy to draw another analogy, one that speaks against democracy: “I’m not, in fact, a trained pilot - but I have been voted into the cockpit by a gaggle of ill-informed passengers at the back of the plane, near the lavatories - but don’t worry, I shall not betray the trust they have placed in me”.

.....But, of course, the analogy is spurious in the first place: being the head of state is nothing like being a pilot.

.....Heredity is a neat solution to a problem: how should a governor become such – by desire or by accidence? In a non-hereditary republic or democracy, the governors must seek out power, and that for me is enough not to trust them an inch. In a hereditary monarchy, the ruler is invested with power which typically he did not seek. With the latter, there is always a fair chance of a good ruler; with the former, almost none at all.

.....It is often assumed that, since I am a monarchist, I must like the monarch—but this is a false assumption. It fails to distinguish between the body political of the monarch, and the body natural. The former is the principle of the institution of the undying Crown, the supposed guarantor of justice and upholder of the laws; the latter, of the Crown’s mortal embodiment in the monarch of the day. Now, of course, there is no guarantee that justice will obtain under any regime, contra utopian thinking. As such, to a monarchist such as I, whilst to oppose the Crown is treasonous, to oppose the current wearer of the Crown, if its incumbent be unjust and act outside the law, is not only permissible, but a duty. If a king becomes a tyrant, I am all for getting rid of him, and it is the relative ease, effectiveness and infrequent necessity of which that partly explains why I am a monarchist and not a democrat. Justem est necare reges impios – it is just to kill impious kings. Against the “people’s government”, however, little can be done; and moreover, the consequences of lese majesté against the monarch are benign compared to lese majesté against the people. As Kierkegaard pointed out:

If mankind had not embedded itself, with the momentum of centuries and the passion of habit, in the idée fixe that a tyrant is one man, they would easily understand that to be persecuted by the masses is the most grievous of all, because the masses are the sum of the individuals, so that each individual makes his little contribution, while he does not realise how great it becomes when all of them do it. [2]

One of the great questions of political philosophy is: How might men live freely together without strangling one another? It speaks not of some reckless ideal of freedom from the restraints and obligations of social life, which if attained would quickly find its discontents amongst its former proletysers, still less of who ought to rule on the basis of some hazy ideal of sovereignty, but rather of how the freedom of the individual person might best be attained within the confines of social life. In short, the answer ought to speak of a practical solution to the problem set, and anyone who is genuinely interested in finding the solution ought not to mind, all other things being equal, which form of government might best provide it, whether it be a democracy, an aristocracy, a republic, a monarchy, or a commune.

.....To those soi-disant rationalists, however, who irrationally believe a priori that the answer ought to be “rational government”, a belief held for no other reason except that it is in conformity with a mania for the pretence of being able to cite rational bases to all things, preference for tea-drinking doubtlessly included, I say that they have misunderstood the question yet again: it is not a question of which government might be most rational (to which “rational government” is the unsurprising answer), but of which might best secure the freedom of the individual within the confines of his obligations to other individuals. The rational response to the problem is to seek out that form of government that best secures its solution.

.....It tends to be assumed that we have found the answer to this question in the form of democracy. Under this form of government, however, a collectivist identification with the masses is politically useful, if not necessary, and thus it is most likely that it will be fostered, and thus that individuality will be stifled. As Nicholas Berdyaev observed:

Democracy is fanatical only at times of revolution. In its normal, peaceful state it is innocent of all excesses – but finds a thousand quiet ways of reducing human personalities to uniformity and stifling free-spiritedness. There was probably more real liberty of spirit in the days when the fires of the Spanish Inquisition were blazing than in the middle class of today. [3]

Political philosophy asks other questions, however. One such is: Under which form of government might equality be best achieved? It is worthy of note that it is not a question that concerns itself with freedom or the flourishing of culture, and history and experience teach us that it is indeed damaging thereto. It may well, however, be the question to which the best answer is “rational government”.

.....Questions about which form of government will best allow freedom and culture to flourish are rather futile, however, if the form of society and ultimately the character of the individuals that shape it are corrupt. Good government depends to a great extent on social virtues. I acknowledge the worth of republics such as the United States of America or the city-republic of Basel in the nineteenth century, before they slipped too far into democracy. Little can be made of a decadent, irresponsible, materialistic mass that has been shaped for the power-ambitions of a political elite – except great wealth and almost unbounded power. Culture will certainly not flourish – nor will freedom. The form of government, in its reciprocal relationship with society, can help or hinder the fostering of the individuality and the virtues necessary for freedom and culture. I am as impressed with the ability of monarchy and aristocracy in the fostering of these things as I am unimpressed with their crushing under democracy, socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and all other mass-movements.

.....Now, I am well aware that my views are hopelessly outdated and against the spirit of the times, and it is not only the “progressive” left that abhors such a “reactionary” stance. Most of the animosity that has been directed at the German monarchist group Tradition und Leben has come from the “progressive” far-right. [4] It seems that as long as monarchy—by its very nature of being a limited and private government—puts total power beyond the reach of those who desire it, it will receive from those quarters only scorn.

.....Oh, and by the way—and as it were—I wouldn’t trust Tony Benn with a go-cart, let alone an aeroplane.

[1] Jonathan Freedland, “Elizabeth the Last” The Guardian, 21st April 2006.

[2] Søren Kierkegaard, The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. A. Dru, (London: Fontana Books, 1958), p. 124.

[3] Nicholas Berdyaev, The End of Our Time, tr. D. Altwater (London: Sheed and Ward, 1932), p. 178, quoted by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality (London: Hollis and Carter, 1952), note 556, p. 323.

[4] To a “reactionary” such as I, the modern labels of “left” and “right” refer to the seating plan of the French National Constituent Assembly, and thus, as far as I am concerned these groups – fascists, neo-Nazis, as well as conventional socialists and communists, and democrats – are all strictly speaking on the left, the right being the designation for those who stand by the monarchical and aristocratic principles. (Call it an old-fangled foible, if you will.)

Fewtril #92

Guilt and shame are important constraints on human behaviour, but the soft-humane wish that no one suffers has extended even to the sufferings caused by guilt and shame, and thus by the action of a pious and humane creed, these constraints have been lessened, so much so that we end up today with so great a deal of shameless and unconscionable behaviour, whereby callousness knows no bounds.

Setting the Benchmark

If the Bumper Book of Pretentious Drivel ever comes to be compiled, surely the following example ought to be included:

“At numerous gigs around Wellington I played my drums and, under the lights, in the midst of sound, in the middle of rhythm, always in between one time or another, I theorized my relation to the drums, my becoming-rhythm, the abstract-machine of player, stick and skin, my self as purely a conduit for other phyla.”

Grayson Cooke, “Human – 1 / Cyborg – 0: A Personal History of a Human-Machine Relation”, Nebula, Vol. 3:1, April 2006. pp.19-20.

Fewtril #91

An ideology can work largely unseen – the suspicion of which drives many a fool to see it everywhere.

A Puritanical Affair

Just occasionally I like to read the pages of the Weekly Worker, that irritable organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. For sure, it has none of the bounce of Woman’s Weekly, but what it lacks in knitting-patterns and jolly gossip, it makes up for in theoretical blueprints for proletarian dictatorship and bile-spitting excoriations of other socialists, which, whilst devoid of charm and cheer, have nonetheless the power to entertain.

It is a long-standing observation that socialism is by and large a puritanical affair, and no one ought therefore to underestimate the sheer life-numbing cheerlessness of it. Those comrades who still hold out the hope that, come the revolution, there will be a joyful popping of corks in celebration of a new and joyful age, had better reckon with that observation, and still too with the sentiments of their more zealous comrades, who will eye any outbreak of cheer with sober and sinister disapproval.

Consider, for example, the opinions of this joyless blighter from the letters-page of the Weekly Worker:

It is true that people still smoke despite the health warnings on cigarette packets. But fewer people smoke now than did in my youth in the 1960s, and many who still do would like to give it up. It is now generally accepted that tobacco is unhealthy. Government information campaigns have played a part in this. The same could be done for alcohol.

A socialist society would still bear the birthmarks of the bourgeois society from which it emerged. Even a workers’ state, until the process of its self-abolition is complete, would be an authoritarian body. In the final analysis it would be bodies of armed workers imposing their will. The will of the proletariat should be imposed on the bourgeoisie, including those who have profited from the manufacture and sale of drink.

They should not be killed, except where there is no other choice, or fined, but set to hard labour repairing some of the damage they have done. In so doing they may become human; just as a society freed from the poisonous swill sold by profit-hungry capitalists will become both human and humanistic.

Terry Liddle, Letter to the Weekly Worker, 620, 13th April 2006.

This man is clearly out of touch with the current political régime, wherein such chilling revolutionary puritanism finds little favour. Fabians, after all, prefer a gradual approach.

More Tea, Ayatollah?

Whilst considering the possible exceptions of The Independent and The New York Times, I am still inclined to the view that no newspaper is more mendacious, more prone to factual errors, more obtuse and more morally corrupt than The Guardian, all of which taken together explain its favoured status amongst Britain’s intelligentsia.

Of moral corruption, we find few finer examples than that set by The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins:

Blair’s desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran’s view of Israel. [1]

Now, I am hardly an admirer of democracy, let alone of Blair, but it seems to me that to claim that the wish to propagate democracy in the Middle East is akin to the wish to exterminate its Jewish population is to proclaim one’s own moral decrepitude.

The drawing of such spurious moral equivalences is a stock-in-trade of the ideologue, of course, as is the exculpating of the actions of one’s enemy’s enemy. Naturally, Mr Jenkins finds Iran’s actions to be largely, if not entirely, the fault of the West:

The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, while Blair’s jihadist rhetoric is inciting a fourth crusade. [2]

Though a dim view of the governments of Britain and the United States may testify to a healthy understanding, it requires a special kind of dedication to ideological dim-wittedness to find them always wrong in their dealings with foreign governments, such as that which now rules Iran. Mr Jenkins’ prescription is the usual one advocated by appeasers towards aggressors—be nice and perhaps they will be nice too:

If ever there was a nation not to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing. It is completely nuts. [3]

Of course, you know what would be said if an Iranian-government-sponsored terrorist set off a nuclear bomb in London. The really interesting question, however, is which would last the longer: the radioactivity or the squeal of “We had it coming”?

[1] Simon Jenkins, “If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran”, The Guardian, 12th April 2006.

[2] Ibid. Incidentally, I am not sure why Mr Jenkins refers to “a fourth crusade”. Has he lost count?

[3] Ibid.

Fewtril #90

Sometimes I think it would be more beneficial to society if our modern-day self-loathers publicly scourged themselves in the medieval fashion with spiked whips and chains. We could make a day of it. Instead, however, we have the daily and more pitiable sight of such persons committing their neuroses to print, in novels, poetry, sociological theses and newspaper-columns. At least the medieval fashion is less wasteful—and easier on the eye.

Fewtril #89

Throughout the ages, the common man has been satisfied with his ignorance, but in our age he is angered when it is not recognised as knowledge.

Fewtril #88

An untruthful relationship based on reciprocal faintheartedness may exist between the people and their political representatives; for when the people dare not hear the truth, their political representatives dare not tell it.

Far from the Fray

“[T]he ghoulish stereotypes that spread fear through Daily Mail-land: benefit scroungers, feral youths, problem families.”

(John Harris, “Bottom of the class”, The Guardian, 11th April 2006.)

One must suspect that this man — like so many of his fellow Guardianistas — has never walked through Stockport on a Wednesday afternoon.

Fewtril #87

It is often a great mistake to assume that a shallow and callous man is not fully committed to the moral principles he espouses. On the contrary, because he does not adhere to these principles through a genuine sympathy for his fellow man, but rather wears them with pride as so many badges and testimonies to his principled character, he may extend them without let or flexibility to their furthest limits, such that he may extend a moral principle against the oppression of a minority so far as to decry the incarceration of murderers.

The Fairest Method of Extermination

There has been a curious development in ethics recently, namely, that of making non-discrimination the sine non qua of one’s moral faculties. Consider the following remark, for instance:

I thought he was arrogant and racist but then I learned that he’s just upset at us Homo sapiens and he’s equally predjudiced [sic] to all classes of people. [1]

Or, in other words, while a prejudice or an injustice against some people is a sin, it is not a sin when applied equally to all—as if a sin against a part could be absolved by a sin against the whole! The author bases his moral judgement solely on the pious ideal of non-discrimination, and thus places his moral judgement in this regard below that of a vegetable, whose inability to discriminate would make it positively saintly. Such an ideal bespeaks a pious madness that benumbs the moral faculties, or indicates a lack thereof.

The remark was made by a student in his evaluation of Professor Eric R. Pianka, professor of Zoology at the University of Texas, who has allegedly expressed the hope that ninety percent of the human population of the world will be killed by airborne Ebola. [2] As one of his admirers puts it,

We need to decline in population. A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it’s nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. [3]

Ah, well, as long as it’s nondiscriminatory . . .

When this ideal of non-discrimination has become the sole or determining basis for a “moral” outlook, piously maintained as a sop to conscience, could it not be that the scope for callousness might be expanded rather than bounded? After all, by this way of thinking, if misfortune exists at all, it is only “fair” that it include all.

It does seem that there is something in the air — a whiff of misanthropic glee, by which our intellectuals might excite their doom-lust. Just yesterday The Independent published a letter, in which the author concerned himself about humanity and its impact on global warming, wishing for “a major pandemic” and wondering whether “bird flu could be the salvation of the human race”. [4]

As Monsieur Pascal noted, “Experience makes us see an enormous difference between piety and goodness”, [5] and we see a stark illustration of that here.

[1] Excerpts from Student Evaluations, 1998-2004, Biology 357: Evolutionary Ecology, University of Texas at Austin. (H/T: Krauze, “The blogger’s guide to Dr. Pianka” Telic Thoughts (Weblog), 4th April 2006.)

[2] See, Forrest M. Mims III, “Meeting Doctor Doom”, The Citizen Scientist, 31st March 2006. (H/T: Dan Collins, in the comments at The Daily Ablution, 4th April 2006.) This report of Professor Pianka’s views is corroborated by two student evaluations. (1) “I don’t root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.” (2) “Though I agree that convervation [sic] biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness.” Excerpts from Student Evaluations, 1998-2004, Biology 357: Evolutionary Ecology, University of Texas at Austin. (H/T: Krauze, “The blogger’s guide to Dr. Pianka” Telic Thoughts (Weblog), 4th April 2006.) Update: Partial transcript of Dr Pianka’s speech (HT: MikeGene “A Promise”, Telic Thoughts, 8th April 2006, which does not fully support Mims' account. Thanks to Krauze for pointing this out.)

[3] Brenna, Serenity (Weblog), 9th March 2006. (Original emphasis.)

[4] Bob Harris, Letter to The Independent, 5th April 2006.

[5] Blaise Pascal, Pensées (New York: Dover Publications, 2003), p.136

Fewtril #86

It may well describe an advantage over our forebears that we moderns can include under the name of culture a canvas daubed with the excrement of an attention-seeking cretin, though what that advantage might be, other than a greater flexiblity with names, I cannot rightly say.

Fewtril #85

Our politicians are like thief-beguilers with the simple knack of misdirection. “Keep your eyes on the future”, they say, and whilst we await the rabbit out of the hat, they’re binding our hands and rifling through our pockets.