Osmosis and Walls

People who read history know that when outsiders want "in," they will--eventually--get in, fences, walls, and military force notwithstanding. This is not a matter of right and wrong, nor is it preventable--at least in the long term.

Temporarily, of course, walls and police actions can impede and delay this ingress. When we feel threatened by outsiders, we quite understandably implement such measures--even as we subconsciously sense that they won't provide any lasting solution and that they really aren't even justified within our OWN system of American values.

Huh, Kirkeby? So you believe it is legitimate to break American laws and enter this country illegally?

Well, yes, I guess I do. Each of us has only one life; and each of us legitimately, I believe (as Mr. Jefferson so eloquently stated), has the right—or, at least, the instinctive desire—to live that life with as much liberty and pursuit of happiness as he/she can obtain. This is a universal law of human nature, inscribed in the reptilian brains of homo sapiens (though not, I am sure, in any divine or karmic plan— Mr. Jefferson was either wrong or disingenuous in referring to “Nature’s God.”)

So I do not blame foreigners who, following their instincts, gather the courage to leave homelands that offer little and seek to improve their lot in the U.S. This movement of peoples appears to me as natural and as inevitable as osmosis. Furthermore, like osmosis, (and despite any hastily contrived interventions) it will not stop until an equilibrium is achieved--until Mexico becomes as appealing as the US or until the US becomes as unappealing as Mexico.

Question is, once they get in, will they become "insiders" and help the existing culture survive and grow or will they remain hostile "outsiders," committed to overthrowing and dismantling the existing culture?  Surely, a lot depends on how the existing culture "welcomes" their unavoidable arrival.

Will we let them become part of “us”? Our history suggests that sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t. And that the deciding factor, alas, is most often race or skin color. Sobering, and the subject for a later post.

The Conscience Is a Crock

How to know the Good: age-old dilemma. I just had an online "discussion" with two very self-assured, very self-righteous, very "self-reliant" (in the Emersonian sense) anti-war zealots. They were signing and emailing petitions to world governments demanding that, because of the zealots' conscientious objection to taking human life, they be exempted from any taxes intended to "pay for war."

Of course, my two interlocutors knew only too well that these petitions, if they were ever read by any official of any government, would be dismissed out of hand as the frivolous ravings of crackpots.  But a positive response from governments was not the petitioners' real purpose.  Their purpose was consciousness-raising, rattling cages, attention-getting.

Well, they got my attention--mostly because I, too, (like that hypothetical government drudge assigned to read crackpot emails), found the petition ludicrous--on a par with the whinging of the right-wing "religious liberty" folks--you know, those self-designated guardians of morality who want a government dispensation to discriminate against people whom they, in their Bible-befogged consciences, condemn as "disordered."

But as the argument progressed, I began to reflect a bit more deeply--and I realized that my aversion to the deliberately provocative petition was not that I disagreed with the anti-war sentiment--I think that wars, in general, are more harmful than beneficial--but rather that I was deeply suspicious of what I must call "justification by conscience."

Because “conscience,” all too often, is an illusion—a dishonest (though often purely reflexive) attempt by our conscious brain to objectify and rationalize as “good” our subjective, prerational and hence, morally neutral, reactions to our environment. That transcendental notion--still so prominent in American thinking--that our inner selves will just somehow "naturally" vibrate in unison with the great Oversoul and the Ultimate Good--well, it's a crock. Self-reliance--if one is relying on nonsense or fantasy or knee-jerk emotion is less "good" than merely quixotic.

So let's talk about what we really mean when we talk about the "conscience." Dictionaries tend to define conscience as an "inner-voice" that defines "right and wrong" and directs our conscious mind to act accordingly. OK. But what interests me most is the question of a moral CRITERION. 

In other words, WHAT principle or yardstick does the conscience use to determine whether a certain behavior is right or wrong? Here, psychology's concept of the super-ego offers some enlightenment: apparently, for its judgments, the super-ego relies almost entirely upon the cultural norms prevalent in an individual's home society/environment. THESE NORMS ARE SUBJECTIVE AND VARIABLE (though I suppose there might be a few that are universal). In short, what our conscience tells us is right depends, for the most part, on the family we were born in, the religion of our parents, the political and economic conventions we have internalized, the education we have received. Conscience is NOT an objective guide to truth or the Good--it merely tells uswhat other people like us believe is good because they have been taught pretty much the same thing that we have been taught.

So conscience, really, just tells us what we already thought: it cannot legitimize or justify our beliefs in reference to any objective God or Natural Law or Great Oversoul. It is, in other words, a nice, cozy, feel-good crock.

Mammy’s Rule: It Ain’t Fittin’

Regardless of Gone With the Wind’s undeniable racial stereotyping, I think that Mammy is the most consistently reasonable and admirable character in that book/movie. And I also think that her famous “rule” is by far the best way to measure the acceptability of statues, place names, etc. Let’s simply ask ourselves: is the PURPOSE of this statue/name “fittin’” for the PLACE/TIME in which it is situated? Is it fittin’ to honor a vice president of the Confederacy in the U.S. Capitol in 2020? No. (Because this statue’s PURPOSE is to glorify and legitimize racism and rebellion—and such a message is not acceptable in this place, at this time.)

On the other hand, is it fittin’ to honor crusader king St. Louis with a statue in a city named for him? Yes, I think so. (Because this statue’s PURPOSE is to encourage a city to take pride in the saintly virtues of its eponymous patron—not to glorify or advocate Louis IX’s anti-semitism.) 

Mammy’s rule should also be applied to names. Was Austin, Texas, for example, given that name because Stephen Austin was an advocate and defender of slavery? Certainly not, though he was both—but rather, because he is regarded as the “Father of Texas” (as unlikable a showman as he probably was). 

Sometimes, a thing is fittin’ even if you don’t like it, people! And sometimes, as Mammy would say, a thing—like, for instance, Miss Scarlett showing her bosom before three o’clock—well, that just AIN’T fittin’ (at least, for a barbecue given for plantation gentry in 1861). Yes, I admit, there IS a measure of relativity—time and place—involved in Mammy’s rule. So be it. It’s still the most fittin’ rule I can think of for these unruly and iconoclastic times.

Abortion and Picklehood.

Are you pro-pickle? At precisely what point does a cucumber immersed in brine become a pickle? I mean, when does picklehood start? Is a cucumber automatically a pickle as soon as vinegar is poured over it? Or does it have to gestate for a few days in the refrigerator? I’ve been reading a lot of pickle recipes lately, and I’m sorry to report that pickle-making is rather an inexact science. Who SHOULD decide whether or not a cucumber has become a viable pickle?

Sin for Jesus

I’ve been watching a Netflix series entitled “The Last Czars,” (in which, historical authenticity be damned, the Czarina talks like a Californian—“You’ll be OK”—and prays before a crucifix with a very unOrthodox three-dimensional Jesus). Well, anyway, despite the occasional oops moments, I’ve learned a lot of fascinating history. For instance, Rasputin’s special understanding of Christian redemption theology, i.e., redemption is reserved for those who have SINNED, and the greater the sin, the greater (obviously) the redemption. It is therefore necessary for true believers to sin mightily and often—in order to be fully deserving of forgiveness, salvation and eternal life. This theology found considerable favor among the Russian aristocracy, especially women, who did their best to Sin For Jesus—often with Rasputin himself.

Trump's Inferno: The Nine Circles of Trumpster Insanity

Levels of Trumpster Insanity

1.  LIMBO.  Only intermittently insane. Mostly just clueless. Probably voted for Trump because they heard of his steaks.

2.  LUST. Mildly insane. Passionate about everything. Partiers. Voted for Trump because he grabbed someone's pussy.

3. GLUTTONY. Quite insane. Gobblers and guzzlers and indulgers of every appetite. Voted for Trump because he likes to pig out on Big Macs and ice cream.

4. GREED. Solidly, gold-platedly insane. Approve of exploiting others for personal gain. Voted for Trump because he’s rich (like they want to be) and doesn’t care about poor people (which they refuse to admit they are).

5.  ANGER.  Substantially insane. Pissed off at the world and everybody in it.  Voted for Trump because he banned Muslims, put Mexicans in cages, and made fun of handicapped people.

6.  HERESY. Talking-in-tongues insane. Think Trump is God’s chosen vessel. Voted for him because he opposes abortion and gay marriage and horse-faced prostitutes.

7.  VIOLENCE.  Dangerously insane. Want to overthrow all existing institutions in which they do not own stock. Voted for Trump because he was enthusiastic about exercising his 2^nd Amendment right to shoot someone--preferably with an assault rifle--on Fifth Avenue.

8.  FRAUD. Extremely, like totally, insane. Lie and cheat habitually and blatantly. Condemn truthfulness and authenticity as Fake News. Voted for Trump because HE behaves exactly like them.

9.  TREACHERY.  The nadir (or "apex") of insanity. Think only of themselves and are loyal to nothing or no one else. Will betray "friends," family, commitments, oaths, and especially NDAs. Will even BETRAY Trump, himself, by not attending his super-spreader rallies in order to selfishly avoid possible death by Covid. Can't be trusted to vote for Trump. Maybe didn't even vote for him the last time.

Could We Please End the Civil War?

Undoubtedly because of my intellectual somnolence, it has only recently dawned on me (and, I suspect, a great many white Americans living in the North) that an entire pantheon of Confederate “saints” has long been honored and venerated by the very Union they fought to destroy. I do not believe in censorship, but I DO believe in censURE. And now that I know who Bragg, Benning, and Hood WERE, now that I’ve actually paid notice to those dreary racist icons in Statuary Hall, I certainly want to censURE the less-than-subtle, dog-whistling message this public canonization/idolatry sends to American citizens. 

When decoded, here’s the real message: “Never mind our official doctrine of E Pluribus Unum, racial equality, justice for all, etc., etc. All that is cosmetic—to make folks feel good and keep them calm. In actual fact, there are lots of ‘good’ racists and traitors who deserve to be included in our list of national saints and venerated in our national holy places. We need to be fair. C’mon.”

It’s as if the Vatican had erected statues of demons and devils in St. Peter’s Basilica—right there next to Jesus and Mary and Joseph. As if various supposedly Christian sites had been named Mephistopheles Seminary, Beelzebub Academy, Lucifer Meditation Center, Antichrist Chapel. 

Surely that heretical message should be promptly brought into line with  orthodox doctrine by purging our revered places of racist/secessionist taint.The Capitol should be cleansed, the confederate statues removed to a museum, the confederate names effaced from military sites. Total decontamination is imperative. And now!

Dear Lost Cause Folks: by all means, excercise (if you must) your First Amendment right to discuss, praise, worship, erect altars to these “saints”—who betrayed their oaths to the Constitution just as surely as Judas kissed Jesus. But do this in appropriate, non-official, non-consecrated places—museums, talk radio, a soapbox in the park, your own back yard or a cemetery plot you purchased. Just NOT, please, in the Capitol—our nation’s equivalent of St. Peter’s Basilica—or in military establishments dedicated to preserving that nation. 

Could we please end the Civil War! Now!

Desultory Iconoclasm

      About the removal of public statues of historic personages whose character and/or achievements are now considered “dubious.” Well, I am only a very desultory iconoclast. Most of these statues are of limited artistic value anyway, so if they could be dismissed as mere pigeon perches (like most park statuary), I would simply say “who cares?”. But, alas, their function is not purely ornamental, because their PURPOSE is not to serve as space-fillers. Rather, they were erected with the deliberate intent of indicating the approval, even veneration, of the public—for what? Surely for the OVERALL contribution to the general welfare/culture made by the depicted individual. This, therefore, seems to me the best criterion for deciding whether a statue should be erected or removed. Was this person’s OVERALL contribution to the community legitimately worthy of veneration—and (with regard to removal) is his-her contribution STILL seen as positive? By this measure, the statues of Robert E. Lee (in Richmond, VA) and of Edward Colston (in Bristol, England) probably DO deserve to be removed. Lee betrayed his oath to the Constitution, and his primary claim to fame is that he led a rebellion against the United States (a rebellion intended to preserve the institution of slavery). Colston made his fortune as a slave-trader and is—apparently—remembered primarily for that nauseating “feat.” Since neither treason nor slave-trading is today considered a venerable accomplishment, it seems justifiable to remove these statues from places of honor (though, surely, they should be preserved, as articles of historic interest, in museums or archives). Now, about Jefferson and Churchill. Yes, Jefferson was a slaveholder with a black mistress. Not admirable. But his overall contribution to American culture remains, in the popular mind, overwhelmingly positive. Likewise, Churchill is known to have harbored notions of the White Man’s Burden. Not easily condoned. But for his OTHER deeds, he deserves to be admired. In short, let’s not cease to honor those whose overall contributions were, and remain, positive. I vote to keep Jefferson and Churchill, despite their views on race, which we are nonetheless justified in condemning.