Good Show, Cameron!

British Prime Minister David Cameron has made a most important speech.  Unsurprisingly, our media didn’t notice.

On Dec. 16, he spoke at a Christ Church, Oxford celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.  He proclaimed the Bible as still relevant, and admitted (confessed?) that Britain is in a very real sense a “Christian Nation”  He further articulated the Christian origins of modern values such as equality, human rights, and morality.  He also offered a sharp critique of modern “diversity” doctrines which have changed moderate tolerance into a disastrous abdication of responsibility.

I am grateful to George J. Marlin at The Catholic Thing (www.thecatholicthing.org) for shining light on this speech.  Marlin’s analysis is excellent, as is the rest of TCT.

Cameron’s full text is online at http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/king-james-bible/.

The Forgotten Books of Witness

Over the recent years, I have developed an interesting new hobby. (Well, I find it interesting.)  I prowl through thrift stores in search of forgotten books by forgotten authors.  And then I liberate them (usually for a dollar) and read them.

I pass quickly over certain types of books.  For instance, I have never bought a 20th or 21st century work of fiction. In my humble opinion as an accomplished literary snob, the last great writer of fiction was Anthony Trollope.  (I do not classify Orwell, Huxley, Waugh, or Koestler’s works as quite fiction.)

I do pick up curious books on subjects in which I have neither interest nor background.  For instance, I just finished a book called Let’s Talk About Port, by J.C. Valente-Perfeito, published in Portugal in 1948.  The author explains the varieties of port, sings (gushes, actually) its praises, and complains of how little his fellow citizens drink of it.   He offers eloquent warnings about the modern scourge of cocktail-drinking, and effectively rebuts those medical cranks who claim that alcoholism is a bad thing.  I had great fun reading it, and I may even try some of the stuff one of these days.

But the real goal of my pursuit is a category of books which was invented and flourished in the dreadful 20th century:  the survivor’s tale of witness to the inhuman atrocities that reached such a peak (so far) in the recent past.

Some books of witness were instant hits and remained so, despite their crushing intensity.  Elie Wiesel’s Night describes Auschwitz and his father’s death there.  The Diary of Anne Frank is rightly famous, though I myself have never been able to read more than a few opening pages before dissolving in tears.  (I think this is because I have a daughter, and the words always come into my head in my daughter’s voice.)

In One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, Alexander Solzhenitsyn used a thin veil of fiction to recount a part of his experience in the prison camps of history’s most earnest experiment in “building a better world.”   His later massive Gulag Archipelago removed the veil and included more detail that most readers can stand.

In the mid-range stand works which once were read and discussed, and now dot the dustbins.  Whittaker Chambers’ aptly named Witness tells  of a man whose soul was driven by his embrace of communism into the vicious underworld of espionage against his country.  It becomes a story of redemption, as he rejects his past infatuation and attempts, at enormous personal cost, to warn his countrymen of the ugly reality facing them.

Primo Levi’s If This is a Man tells his tale of Auschwitz survival in clinical terms that reflect his scientific background.

Many a bookshelf could be filled with tales from heroic survivors from the dark side of the soul.  And most of them would be unknown, unread, unstudied, and out-of-print, available only through Amazon’s used-book network, or (for the lucky treasure hunter) the bins of a Goodwill store.

Who now reads Victor Kravchenko?  Peter Deriabin?  Jan Valtin?  Earl Weinstock?

Viktor Kravchenko’s is an interesting story. He was a Soviet engineer and factory manager, a coddled member of Stalin’s New Class.  His book is filled with the chilling details that lay bare the soul-destroying communist system.  During WW2 he defected to the US from a trade mission and wrote his story.  When it was finally published (I Chose Freedom, 1946) he was blasted by Communists worldwide as a liar and defamer of the Soviet Union.  Kravchenko responded by suing a prominent French communist leader for libel.  He won, and wrote a second book, I Chose Truth (1950) about the case.

With unimpeachable credibility, Kravchenko exposed the nightmare that it was to live under the Chekists’ never-blinking eye, even for top managers who were never arrested or imprisoned.  This book should be the primary text for any serious study of the reality of Soviet life under Stalin.In his second book he unmasked the puppetry whereby supposedly indigenous communist parties existed primarily to serve the demands of one man in the Kremlin.

Peter Deriabin was a KGB bureaucrat, agent, and finally a spy in Austria.  He, too, enjoyed the material luxuries the Soviets lavished on the New Class.  And he, too, ran for the US at the first opportunity.  His book, The Secret World (1959), unveils the State Security apparatus from the agent’s side, and it dovetails with Solzhenitsyn’s victim-view.   He gives fascinating insights into the power struggle after Stalin’s death, and dashes the naive hope that the system would then change.

An intriguing tale from another perspective is Jan Valtin’s Out of the Night (1940).  He was a German communist organizer and spy; like Chambers, he was a true believer who thought he was empowering the working class and eradicating poverty, only to discover that he was just eradicating the Leader’s enemies and empowering a new class of party functionaries.  His description of the tactics used to eliminate non-communist labor leaders is a unique eye-opener by itself.

Earl Weinstock’s case is perhaps saddest of all.  A young Rumanian Jew, Weinstock only dreamed of escaping Rumania’s poverty and anti-Semitism by getting out, going anywhere.  While he looked to France or Palestine, his mother had one unchanging dream: America.   In 1942 Weinstock, his mother and two brothers were sent to German concentration camps, where he survived after seeing his older brother shot, and being forced to shovel in dirt on the open mass grave where he fell.  After the war, Rumania went through another hell, this time under their Soviet “liberators.”  Weinstock contemplated the difference between the two tyrannies.

“In Transnistria [the German camp] I was a prisoner.  I was clothed in rags.  I slept on the dirt and potato peels in a barrack of filth and stink.  I was given little to eat and I stole food from garbage cans, for which I could have been shot. I saw and heard of murders and atrocities.  But my life and my captors made it plain to me that I was a prisoner. Nobody tried to convince me in the middle of all this that I was really free. That made a difference that I could not know then but that I knew now in Iasi [his hometown in Rumania]. I had made up my mind in Transnistria that I could outlast them if they did not shoot me.  It wasn’t easy, but filth and hunger and confinement were environments I could adapt to.   For those who shared my lot in my barracks would share everything. Our minds were free.  We could confide in each other, trust each other…But in Iasi, in 1947…what could I hope for?  To whom could I talk and feel safe in so doing? …What and who was I to be?  And I was not in a prison and I could not point to anyone who was my captor, but they talked to me of freedom and I was a prisoner.”

He and his aged mother escaped to America in 1949.  She died within a year, and he tried to forget the past, but too many ghosts pushed him to tell his story.  So he wrote a book, The Seven Years (his life from 1942 to 1949). E.P Dutton published it.  It was never re-printed.  Amazon lists a single used copy.

I found mine in a Goodwill bin.

Do these books matter?  True, many of them had considerable success in opening Western eyes and forcing them to recognize the truth.  But many people were able to dismiss all these eye witnesses and their stories as mere propaganda.

After reading Kravchenko no one could seriously doubt the real hell that was life in the Soviet Union, or the truly criminal nature of the worldwide movement that supported it.  Yet millions in the West continued to believe that this hell was heaven.

Deriabin demonstrated the intense hyperparanoid terror that was essential to the system’s survival.  Yet millions continued to believe that the police state was an aberration of the system, caused by one man’s suspicious nature.

Valtin makes it clear that the Nazis and Communists were history’s ugliest fraternal twins; differing mainly in the effectiveness of the former and the puppet-leadership of the latter.  Yet millions continue to believe that while the Nazis were uniquely evil, the communists were well-intentioned reformers who made unfortunate “mistakes”.

And the fashionable deniers of “American exceptionalism” have to figure out a way to debunk the iron determination of Earl Weinstock’s mother, pursuing a lifelong vision of freedom under the Statue of Liberty.

The truth is always worth telling, even if it never finds an audience.  And there is value in seeking out these lost truths.  Otherwise, too many lives, too much heroism ends up down the Memory Hole.

_____________________________________________________________________

If you want to read any of these books, your best bet is a university or big-city library, but keep your handkerchief ready for the layer of dust that will cover it.  Another source is the Inter-Library Loan system.  And, of course, Amazon.  And Goodwill.

Let me know what you think of any of these writers, or any other witnesses you come across.  Click the “Post a comment” button below.

History BC and AD

One argument against the truth of Christianity is that if Christ came to change the world, He clearly failed.  History AD is no more moral or loving than history BC.

Indeed, the very institutions of Christianity succumbed almost immediately to the very sins of pride and power that were the target of Christ’s preaching.

Christ opposed the legalistic tyranny of the Law (Torah, etc.) as enforced by men.  His church, as soon as Constantine legalized and empowered it, began using the state and law to dominate society and impose conformity.  Apostasy, for instance, was treated by the church in a manner no better than that of modern Islam.  Only the anti-Christian Enlightenment put an end to Christian inquisition and persecution.

So if Jesus’ life, death and resurrection were the unique divine revelation and intervention that Christians believe them to be, why isn’t the world morally superior today to it was BC?

One possible answer:  The world IS different, and even arguably superior.  Men still sin, but now they cannot help but know their sin.  Now, one must argue with God to justify one’s sin and hate.  BC, no one preached that God is love.  No one taught a moral obligation to love your neighbor, and your enemy, and those that hate you.

Once these teachings were loose in the world, then the face of sin was exposed.  Of course, the counterpoint is that hypocrisy, lying to ourselves and others about our actions and motives, became a prime commodity.

To read the highest thoughts of the BC mind is to confront a world before hypocrisy.  Thucydides, on the Melian dialogue, shows foreign policy discussed with no pretension of any concern for humanity.  Plato’s Republic shows Socrates asking the sophist Thrasymachus: “Are the unjust in your opinion good as well as prudent?”   Thrasymachus answers “Yes, those who can do injustice perfectly, and are able to subjugate cities and tribes of men to themselves.”

It is difficult to imagine these exchanges taking place AD.  There are still bloodthirsty, cold-hearted “realists” ready to embrace genocide or injustice; but they know what they are doing.  And one way or another, they must attempt to justify themselves to God.

As I say, a possible answer.

Conservatism, the Enlightenments, and Religion

The Enlightenment of the 18th Century was the birth of the movement to articulate a rational basis for society and the freedom of the individual.

 

The French Enlightenment (Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Robespierre)  was directed against the church, seeing religion as mankind’s primary oppressor.  And it took a strongly ideological form from the start, being largely ungrounded in experience of local institutions that actually grew a sense of individual freedom.

The British Enlightenment (Locke, Hume, Smith, Burke) saw its task as the creation of a theoretical framework for the balancing of individual freedom and community interests.  Based on common sense and actual experience of freedom, the British recognized the importance of tradition-buttressed community institutions as the only soil in which freedom can grow.

 

The common philosophical ground of both Enlightenments was the necessity of basing theory on natural philosophy untethered from religion.   And in this they succeeded, so that the modern western world has broadly accepted as self-evident truth the illegitimacy of any reference to religion in the public square.

 

The modern-day heirs of the French Enlightenment are on the left, the range of humanist liberals from Democrats to Communists.

 

The British Enlightenment flame is kept alive by the conservatives and neo-conservatives, from Republicans to …

 

Liberals and conservatives act and argue as if their principles were well founded.  But they generally avoid discussion that gets too close to core principles, for fear of being asked the inquisitive child’s questions: Why?  Why is every human life sacred?  Why do we each have a right to freedom?  Why shouldn’t I steal?  Who says I shouldn’t?

 

Push them too hard and they must confront the fact that much, perhaps all of our ethical framework is founded in the leftover remnants of our family and community religion.

 

The fundamental question is just how long civilized societies can survive when their morality is a shell of a house whose foundations eroded away long ago.

 

Meanwhile, locked away in an intellectual ghetto, Christians and Conservative Jews continue to argue from biblical principles.  Their house alone seems to be built on solid foundations.  Biblical principles may be mistaken, of course.  But they provide a basis.  What about the rest of us?

The Gratitude Problem

I feel grateful for all I have – for so much.  For my wife, my daughter, my life, my health, my friends.  The beauty of nature, music, poetry.

But…to whom?  One cannot be grateful to nothing or no one.  “Thank you” demands an identifiable “you”.

My wife? I thank her.  And her parents, for having and loving and raising her.

My daughter?  I thank her, and her mother for having, loving, and raising her.

My life?  I thank my parents, for having and loving and raising me.

My health?  This is a little trickier.  I thank the medical professions, in part.  And Big Pharma for developing the medicines that keep me well.

But whom do I thank for the beautiful world around me?  And for my ability to see it and appreciate it?

I have heard some of the assertive “New Atheists” claim that they, too, feel gratitude for thir many blessings, but they don’t think that creates any kind of problem for their atheism.  They’re just gratedul, that’s all.  They as no further questions.

But I question. Is my natural gratitude an internal proof of God’s existence?  Or simply another superstitious hallucination?   Must I outgrow gratitude to be a well-adjusted atheist?  Can I?

Can One Love God and Hate Israel?

My friend Hans Moleman has an interesting post up. He ponders how a person can love everything Israel embodies, and yet hate Israel.

It’s a good question, and I certainly share his puzzlement.

You may find it worth a look.

Leszek Kolakowski Remembered

One of the greatest of modern thinkers passed away 2 years ago this month.  Leszek Kolakowski was rightly known for his searing critique of Communism, embodied in his magisterial 1978 survey, the 3-volume Main Currents of Marxism.  The 20th century had crushed his every favorable illusion about Communism (as it did for virtually every other Pole).  He exposed the ugly philosophical reality of Marxism as thoroughly as Alexander Solzhenitsyn exposed its hideous physical reality.  With Main Currents and Gulag Archipelago on a bookshelf, and only The Black Book of Communism between them, no library really needs another volume on the subject.

He was a fine prose stylist, with a vein of incisive wit. Here is his summary of the “New Left”:

“While the ideological fantasies of this movement, which reached its climax around 1968-69, were no more than a nonsensical expression of the whims of spoiled middle class children, and while the extremists among them were virtually indistinguishable from Fascist thugs, the movement did without doubt express a profound crisis of faith in the values that had inspired democratic societies for many decades.  In this sense, it was a ‘genuine’ movement despite its grotesque phraseology; the same, of course, could be said of Nazism and Fascism.” (Main Currents, vol. 3, p. 490)

Kolakowski lived long enough (he was 92) to be recognized for his brilliant contribution to the debunking of Communism.  The eulogies from Roger Kimball (New Criterions) and Christopher Hitchens (Slate) (among many others) make the point well.

But in his later years, LK made equally brilliant contributions to the understanding of liberal, secular modernity’s crippling of our civilization.  In books like Modernity on Endless Trial (1990), he made clear the extent to which a post-religious world is incapable of sustaining moral standards.  He understood the magnitude of failure that resulted from what Alasdair MacIntyre has called “the Enlightenment project of providing a rational vindication of morality” and “the secularization of morality” (After Virtue, 1981).   LK realized that without religion, morality, human rights, human dignity, and therefore civilization itself were all unsustainable.  They are edifices built on eroded Judeo-Christian foundations, waiting to be knocked down by the next strong wind.

Although he was able to see the dead end inherent in secular society, LK was not himself able to embrace what he knew to be the only solution: religious revival.  But religion does not exist because it is effective; it exists because believers have faith in God.  Faith in the power of religion is no substitute for religion.  (He states this beautifully in Modernity on Endless Trial, but I don’t have my copy handy to quote it.)

And he as much as stated that he himself could not embrace faith itself; he was not a believer.   So, like many of us, he must have stared into the abyss with a sense of profound sadness and pessimism.

The Great Sophist

Eric Voegelin’s Plato and Aristotle (the third volume of his Order and History) studies Plato’s exposes of the Sophists, especially in The Republic.

It has become clear to me that these clever men, whose inherent corruption so troubled Socrates/Plato, were the true models of much of modern Western society.

“Plato described the Athenian society in which he lived as the Sophist written large, explaining the peculiarities of Athenian order by referring them to the socially predominany sophistic type,” says EV, and it seems to be true again in our own day.  The inter-connectedness of the Advocate, the Social Scientist, and the Community Organizer seem to me to be most meaningfully placed under the umbrella of the Sophists, all in more or less open, contemptuous rejection of the search for truth of the philosopher and the religious believer.

In EV’s words, “In Plato’s immediate environment the sophist is the enemy and the philosopher rises in opposition to him; in the wider range of Hellenic history, the philosopher comes first and the sophist follows him as the destroyer of his work through immanentization of the symbols of transcendence.”

These “symbols of transcendence” seem to me the rhetorical use of reason, the existence of truth and right order, and the concept of justice.  These are the classic tools of the Advocate, taught in law schools and embodied in politics.  But they have also become the tools of the mass media and higher education, among others homes of the elite.

Again EV paraphrasing Plato: “The general social environment in courts, assemblies, and theaters is the principal formative influence on young men, not the teaching of this or that individual sophist.  The many who exert the continuous pressure are ‘the Great Sophist’.

Plato/Socrates, The Republic:  “The individual sophists who teach for money have no doctrine of their own but echo the opinion of the multitude; and that is what they call their wisdom.  The professional sophist is rather comparable to a man in charge of a ‘great beast’;  he will study the habits of the animal and find out how to manage it.  Good will be what the beast likes, and bad will be what arouses its temper.”

Another “type” which seems to characterize modern society is the Therapist, as ably articulated by Philip Rieff (The Triumph of the Therapeutic).  But I begin to suspect that the Therapist is yet another variation on the Sophist.  He is an Advocate for the person paying the bills, spinning arguments to demonstrate that the subject is not responsible for his own problems.   (Consider the modern role of defense psychiatrists in courtrooms, invariably arguing for a frame of mind that renders the accused person less than fully responsible for his crimes.)  As EV put it, “The sophist proclaims his disease as the measure of human and social order.”

Flannery O’Connor wrote that “Plato’s enemies were the Sophists, and Socrates’ arguments against them are still today the classical arguments against that sophistic philosophy of existence which characterizes positivism and the age of enlightenment.”

Plato puts the contrast between philosopher and the sophist in the starkest possible light when he writes in The Laws: “God is for us (philosophers) the measure of all things, of a truth;  more truly so than, as they (sophists) say, man.”

Or, as EV put it, “The validity of the standards adapted by Plato and Aristotle depends on the conception of a man who can be the measure of society because God is the measure of his soul.”

 

The “Mere Flabbiness” of the Elites

by Ben Finiti

I came across a passage which seems to describe in remarkably succinct terms the process of the “avant garde” elite’s degradation of our culture.  It is in a 1940 book on Aeschylus by the classical scholar Gilbert Murray.  He is contrasting his subject with the turmoil raised by the Sophists of Athens.

“The development is one which has often been repeated in ages of great intellectual activity.  Vigorous minds begin to question the convention in which they have been brought up and which they have now outgrown.  They reject first the elements in them which are morally repulsive, then the parts that are obviously incredible; they try to reject the husk and preserve the kernel, and for a time reach a far higher moral and intellectual standard than the generations before them or the duller people of their own time.

“Then, it seems, something is apt to go wrong.  Perhaps a cynic would say – and it would be hard to confute him – the element
of reason in man is so feeble a thing that he cannot stand successfully except when propped in the stiff harness of convention. At any rate there is always apt to come a later generation which has carried doubt and skepticism much farther and finds the kernel to consist only of inner layers of husk and then more husk, as the place of George IV’s heart, according to Thackeray, was supplied by waistcoats and then more waistcoats.

First come inspiration and the exaltation of breaking false barriers: at the end comes the mere flabbiness of having no barriers left to break and no talent except for breaking them. “

(Gilbert Murray, Aeschylus pp. 79-80)

I must confess that, not being a classical scholar myself, I found this only by reference in Eric Voegelin’s Plato and Aristotle, the third volume of his Order and History.  EV’s analysis of Plato’s exposes of the Sophists has made it clear to me that these clever, clever men were the true models of much of modern Western society. ”Plato saw Athenian society as the Sophist writ large”, says EV somewhere, and it seems to be true again in our own day. The inter-connectedness of the Advocate, the Social Scientist, and the Community Organizer seem to me to be most meaningfully placed under the umbrella of the Sophists, all in more or less open, contemptuous rejection of the search for truth of the philosopher and the religious believer.

I am working on a larger exploration of this subject.  But I felt I had to share this amazingly apt quote.

Hope and History

First Things has an interesting blogpost by R.R. Reno, analyzing a post by David Rieff on his World Affairs blog.

Rieff stumbles around his point (in some really stilted prose), but finally gets there:  history offers no hope.  True:  Hegel and Marx are only two of the many, many examples.  And Rieff ends with a rather hollow piece of advice:  get your hope some other place.

OK. But where?  Presumably he means something off-the-shelf from some meaning shop, or something more do-it-yourself from Home Depot.  Home Truth Depot?

Philosophers have long searched for sources of hope, finding them in all corners: in history, in technology, in therapy, in education, in political reform, in “getting in touch with nature.”

Man continues to seek hope everywhere in himself, always coming up empty-handed (and often bloody-handed); all because he thinks so well of himself, that “he just knows there must be a hope in there somewhere.”

It is both natural and appropriate that hope is always sought in triumph over evil.  Therefore, the search for hope is conditioned by our understanding of evil.

And it is here that all modernist schools fall short, while biblical religion sees clearly.  As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, “The Christian estimate of human evil is so serious precisely because it places evil at the very center of human personality: in the will.”

Biblical religion finds plausible hope because it faces clear-eyed the nature of evil.  It therefore offers the only hope that is both plausible and not inconsistent with the observed facts of human nature and history.

So why do so many people embrace such obvioulsy false hopes, while rejecting the most plausible of hopes?

People want certainty, and, as Voegelin observed, “Uncertainty is the very essence of Christianity.”  Of the faith that sustains hope, he wrote that “The very lightness of this fabric may prove too heavy a burden for men who lust for massively possessive experience.”  “This thread of faith, on which hangs all certainty regarding divine, transcendent being, is indeed very thin.”

The alternative hopes of history seem to have no trouble sustaining themselves as “massively possessive experiences.”  A quick reading of Koestler’s Darkness At Noon drives home the point.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.