The Gods Accuse Christians of Cultural Appropriation

A number of us pagan gods are quite put out with this new-fangled celebration of “Christmas.” We have nothing against the new god, Jesus, who decided to have a birthday around the same date that we have long held OUR celebrations. He seems friendly enough (though he lacks fashion sense), and at first we didn’t mind sharing the Winter Solstice with him. But, honestly, this guy’s FOLLOWERS have proved to be quite insufferable “pains in the a$$.” 

These uppity parvenus dare belittle us, insisting that WE wish THEM “Merry Christmas”—while at the same time they have unabashedly stolen all of OUR beloved pagan customs and traditions to use as embellishments for THEIR drab little barnyard birthday party which, thus gussied up, they call “Christmas.” Indoor evergreen trees, holly, ivy, mistletoe, gift exchanges, burning logs, elves, fairy lights, jolly beverages, singing in the streets, flying animals pulling chariots—they’ve just snatched it all—without the slightest thanks or acknowledgment. 

Enough! This is clearly an egregious and shameful example of CULTURAL APPROPRIATION. Very bad form. We old gods want the world to know that we are most seriously displeased by the disgraceful and ungodly behavior of so-called “Christians” celebrating so-called “Christmas.” Show us some respect! Make Yuletide and Saturnalia Great Again! Signed: Odin, Saturn, Yule, Sol, Mithra, et.al.

Bad Guys

I find it nearly impossible to speak intelligently—or even intelligibly—about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It seems that there are no good guys—only “reluctant” bad guys on both sides who believe—sincerely for the most part— that they have no other choice (i.e., the only “good” thing they can do in this impasse is to commit what are normally condemned as “bad” acts—in the pious but delusional hope that these bad acts will somehow bring about a “good” outcome—or, at least a situation no worse than the status quo ante.)

Oddly, or perhaps just distressingly, 

this moral dissonance is precisely 

what so “appeals” to the rest of the

world and why such great swarms of people everywhere want to participate, on one (bad) side or the other (bad) side—albeit mostly vicariously, in marches and rallies. Human beings just LOVE to feel good about doing bad stuff—or cheering for others who do bad stuff—especially if there are no painful consequences. 

Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure that many of the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine demonstrators honestly believe that their side is “good” in some absolute, universal sense. But the evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. The facts point to a brutal, unending conflict between self-perceived good people (Israelis and Palestinians alike) who have nevertheless committed themselves to being bad guys in perpetuity, all in order to keep things from getting even worse.  This hallucinatory narrative strikes me, former teacher of both Macbeth and Slaughterhouse Five, as a quintessential “tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.” Poo tee weet? 

Continuous War

I think this is pretty much what all the parties to Israeli/Palestinian conflict—including the U.S.—have tacitly (although never openly) decided. Because, as long as the war goes on, as long as no-one actually “wins,” then everybody on both sides can continue to think of themselves as “good” and “right” and “justified,” without having to actually CHANGE (i.e, make painful or humiliating or costly accommodations to reality). The price for this “virtuous continuity” is the endless bloodshed that somehow seems less awful than modifying or abandoning barbarous policies “sanctified” by religious assumptions. It’s inhumane and yet, so very human. 

Conspiracies and Chaos

I recently saw this comment in the NYT: “The fault in the conspiracy theories is the assumption that the world isn’t chaotic but highly organized.” I agree. People who believe in vast, apocalyptic conspiracies (e.g. RFK, Jr. and his devotees) all seem to be invested in the dubious but comforting notion that “it all makes sense,” that the universe (and human civilization) have been set up by some great mastermind who has a plan (you know, the “arc of history or the moral universe”) and that various nefarious “conspiracies”—all carefully orchestrated and coordinated amongst themselves—have been erected by diabolic forces opposed to this beneficent master plan. 

In my view, that’s rubbish. Granted, there are apparently some universal laws that apply to the material world (though no one seems to know by whom or for what “reason” they were thus established). But in the moral and social context of human interaction, that just ain’t the case. Plots and conspiracies spring up, succeed or are thwarted, but I see no evidence that there’s a supreme Wizard—or, frankly, anyone at all—in charge of much of anything, especially ultimate outcomes. So, no, it doesn’t “all make sense.” Rather, it seems to me that life’s messiness is an inherent element of the universal (and nonsensical) chaos through which we must navigate using our very, VERY limited faculties.

It’s true of course, that we CAN act—within certain circumscribed limits—to oppose individual plots whose means and ends are identifiable and which we judge dangerous to the general welfare. But the measures we take must be carefully tailored to unravel the specific plot’s very specific  weave.There is no one-size-fits-all solution that can somehow “restore” the perfection of a desired but non-existent master plan.

 In short, RFK’s magical formula to “Reclaim Our Democracy” amounts to little more than a variation of Trump’s MAGA scheme—slightly retooled for chimerical Democrats, but equally vacuous and equally delusional. Because, let’s face it, if there is no grand plan to be “saved” (and there isn’t), then “saviors” like Trump and RFK are either charlatans and/or raving nutters—false prophets peddling snake-oil salvation to a credulous populace.

No, the chaos portrayed above by Hieronymous Bosch will undoubtedly persist. Paradise IS lost. (Say, is that a nun inside a fish? Woah!)

Keep the Crown, Remove the King

 

The British definitely need to keep The Crown. The “Crown,” after all, is the distilled, disembodied, platonic essence of the British Constitution—the whole unwritten congeries of traditions, conventions, ceremonies and mythologies that provides order and  cohesiveness to the nation. But what they no longer need, really, is an actual flesh-and-blood monarch, with all his/her imperfections, inadequacies, and personal quirks (what Plato called “accidental properties”). This is so because, aside from allowing the citizenry to “visualize” and venerate the Constitution, any particular “fleshly” king/queen no longer actually plays any necessary role in the governance of the realm.

On the contrary, as we inevitably see, any “real” human beings, assigned by heredity to the daunting task of incarnating (but without thinking or feeling) the ideal “forms” of The Crown, often waste a great deal of money and time in constitutionally useless or irrelevant activities, stuff that keeps them busy and, frankly, non-suicidal. In their trivial and human pursuits, they even, sometimes, bring opprobrium upon themselves and thus make people—especially those who read The Sun—lose respect for The Crown itself.

I’d like to suggest that the solution to this dilemma might be illustrated in the photo at the top: eliminate the particular, mortal player (i.e., in platonic terms, the “accidental” properties of The Crown) and replace this imperfect vessel with something having no fleshly body at all—only the “essential” properties. I took this picture of a float in a grandiose Corpus Christi procession in Barcelona. You will note that the object for veneration is—not a material, pinchable Jesus—but rather an idealized “Body of Christ,” encapsulated in a consecrated wafer, itself enshrined in a bejeweled tabernacle, and the whole edifice mounted on an gilded throne beneath a brocade canopy. At various moments along the parade route, certain liturgical ceremonies were performed by the priests—in particular, I recall, the entire assemblage was perfumed with incense as a sign of veneration. Not so much of a particular being—but of the idealized Corpus Christi somehow abiding in that metal monstrance.

I don’t know how many of the procession’s observers were devout Catholics (I, for instance, was not), but really, it doesn’t matter: we were all impressed by the pomp and solemnity of the proceedings and we were all thus invited to recall and reflect upon the essential FORMS of Christian belief that were here represented in an impersonal and metaphoric artefact.

That is what I propose for Britain. Ditch the actual royal family—they’re mostly a tedious anachronism who tend to piss people off (true, Elizabeth tried mightily to be an entirely robotic vessel, but even she had an annus horibilis). Only, by all means, keep The Crown—i.e., all the ceremonies, conventions and rituals that connect (almost sacramentally) the British people with their constitutional heritage. But do as the Catholics have done: replace the “accidental” body of a king with a vaguely tangible, but impersonally metaphoric, representation of the king’s meaning. Perhaps, for example, in lieu of a rather dorky human, an actual crown —St. Edward’s crown, say—could be incensed, anointed, placed upon the Coronation Chair and sworn allegiance to. (Please, though, only one “Crowning of the Crown” per generation.) And at the opening of Parliament, this artefact  representing the Constitution could be placed on the throne, and the actual dreadful King’s Speech could be read by the person guilty of writing it—the Prime Minister in person. Black Rod and all that—well, it’s sacramental. Keep it. It points to basic British dogma—like the bell in the Mass points to basic Catholic belief.

And keep the State Coach to ferry about this sacramental crown. It’s more impressive than a float in a Corpus Christi parade, IMO.

P.S. This post is entirely tongue-in-cheek and NOT intended to offend. I am not British, and I have absolutely NO qualifications for proposing political reforms in the U.K. I was merely struck by how tidily the Catholics have managed to celebrate the essence of their heavenly kingdom by tucking it beneath the appearance of an innocuous piece of bread: no personal presence of any king (though I do remember the insistence that he is still “really “ there.) I just wondered if the British couldn’t do likewise and frustrate forever the tabloid press. What possible scandals could they find in the conduct or opinions of an innocuous piece of metal, even if it is The Crown?

The Newspeak of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robert F Kennedy, Jr. has recently declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. This news astonished me, since in recent years, RFK, Jr. has seemed obsessed with only one single issue: vaccine skepticism. So I searched his newly-created website to see if I could learn a bit more about his other-than-vaccine “platform.” Here is some of (the little) information I found on his campaign website, www.kennedy24.com.

“Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has clear positions on most of today’s divisive trigger issues like abortion, guns, and immigration, but he knows that both sides have legitimate concerns and legitimate moral positions. No one is deplorable. Furthermore, most of the disagreements obscure deeper shared values. Everyone wants their children to be safe. Few relish the thought of dead fetuses, nor do they want to force women to have unwanted babies. Everyone wants safe streets, yet few wish for millions of people to languish in prison. Robert F. Kennedy…will lead the way toward national reconciliation, respectful dialog, and willingness to change, to grow, and to forgive.”

What a load of mind-numbing woo! If indeed RFK Jr. has “clear positions” on triggering moral issues (by the way, where are these stated?) then he obviously does NOT believe in moral equivalencies and moral legitimacy on all sides. He obviously does NOT believe that opposing positions have equal validity with his own. He obviously does NOT believe, say, that wanting safe children makes pro-and anti-abortion arguments equally valid in his own mind (where, since he has “a clear position,” one side is surely “right,” while the other is “wrong.”) In short, this forked-tongue statement was clearly designed, not to promote understanding, but rather, like Orwellian Newspeak, “to diminish the range of thought” in its readers and trick them into mindless acquiescence.

I recognize, of course, that politicians often try to “unite” voters (on and FOR election day, at least) with disingenuous happy talk about how we’re all Americans together. But this jolly bonhomie strikes me as irresponsibly dishonest (at worst) or pathetically simple-minded (at best). And it should be given neither credence nor approbation, especially not at a polling place.

In short, I simply could not vote for someone who cannot (or will not) recognize and vigorously oppose people whose values and policies ARE, by any humane and rational criterion (i.e., intended to promote the general welfare, the common good, human well-being) deplorable. Let’s be frank: some individuals and groups most assuredly ARE deplorable—and potentially harmful to the commonweal. As such, they must be resisted and kept from power (by means that are not themselves deplorable) lest the general welfare be sacrificed for the aggrandizement/pleasure of the selfish and stupid.

I conclude, therefore, that RFK Jr. is either a messianic crackpot or an addlepated simpleton. Either way, he’s a disturbing presence on our political scene. Don’t be taken in by this Nothing Burger with a famous name. Don’t vote for his Newspeak “woo.” 😬

Macron Barks But Doesn’t Bite

French president Macron is being widely criticized these days—mostly for his heavy-handed (albeit unavoidable) raising of the French retirement age from a fiscally unsustainable 62 to a still barely manageable 64. But in addition to his domestic clumsiness, Monsieur le Président has recently proved himself remarkably inept in international affairs. At a moment when Europe in general and Ukraine in particular are in great need of American support in the face of Russian agression and Chinese opportunism, Macron has, inexplicably, chosen to resurrect the tired old Gaullist wheeze about American high-handedness: France is not an American vassal, France does not need to “follow” America, France wants European “strategic autonomy”, etc., etc. 

Naturally, the Russians and the Chinese love this—cheering on the sidelines as France once again plays its classic role as intellectually superior (Socratic, even) sniffer/yapper, whose virtuous duty it is (not being itself the pack leader) to annoy and pester the top dog, thus keeping him aware of his limits and his responsibilities to the other members of the pack—and especially to the pack’s self-appointed yapper. Upon hearing this pooch’s adamant barking, one concludes that he, personally, would happily take over as top dog—if only he could gin up the support of the other (lazy, he thinks) dogs. But alas, these latter tend to evaluate him for what he does best—sniffing out everyone’s defects and calling attention to them. An occasionally useful member of the pack, perhaps, but not quite compelling leadership material.

The Americans—who, I heartily admit, DO often need to have their hubris identified and restrained—are of course predictably annoyed by Macron’s sniping. Not, though, because they think Macron is likely to leave NATO, but mostly because his ill-timed remarks serve to encourage all the centripetal forces bubbling for release just beneath the surface of the existing world order—any one of which, if stimulated, might burst forth and bring mayhem to the already tenuous Pax Americana.

Well, never mind. Down with vassalage! Down with collective security! In short, down with the Americans! And up with—somebody nicer, smarter, somebody with better taste in food and music and art and politics, somebody less obnoxious…like, oh, wait…well…maybe…or…hmmm…not so sure about THAT one… uh…hmmmm…what’s that you say? Well, what a pickle!

P.S. I am an enthusiastic Francophile who loves France deeply. If I could have chosen my nationality, I would have unhesitatingly chosen to be French. But just as my love for America does not (usually) blind me to its many flaws, so, too, my love for France does not delude me about its weaknesses, one of the greatest of which is its “know-everything-ism” (in contrast to America’s “know-nothing-ism”). Many French people, both on the left and the right, have a galling (“degaulling”?) tendency to assume that they just automatically “know better” than the presumably low-IQ Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes, undoubtedly, they are right. And it IS occasionally salutary to obstruct and restrain American gung-ho foreign policy. But persistent sniping and grumbling about being treated like a vassal, blah, blah, blah—well, this is mostly bad faith posturing—theater for the voters (whose grievances can thus be blamed, at least partially, on the perfidious Americans rather than on the beleaguered French government) but backed up by absolutely no sincere effort to break away from the collective security of NATO and/or the American alliance. It’s mostly hi-falutin’ bark accompanied by no toothful bite. Prickliness aside, the French are not particularly oppressed by Uncle Sam, are they? That dog just won’t hunt. 

Michelangelo’s David: Is His Penis a Thing of Beauty?

Recent news item from what some wags (not me, of course) call the EVANGENITAL [sic] South:

Florida Principal Forced To Resign After Parents Decry Michelangelo’s David As Pornography

In my advanced AP French class, I used to teach a unit on beauty— in which we viewed and analyzed many art works generally considered beautiful. In this context, Michelangelo’s David was of course canonically “incontournable” and, accordingly, I devoted a full lesson to him.

One of my objectives for David Day was to get the class to see that the sculptor had deliberately distorted proportions in order to emphasize David’s intelligence (head too big) and his “handiness” with a slingshot (hands too big). So, quite innocently, I asked kids to look for elements of David’s anatomy that were “disproportionnés.” 

Unfortunately, what they noticed, giggling, was NOT the hands and head, but rather the classically “discrete” penis, which they didn’t know the French word for, but which they were happy to point at and pronounce “trop petit.” I was embarrassed—not because of the statue’s genitalia, but because I, an experienced teacher, had carelessly not foreseen this reaction. 

The kids were totally cool, though. After I rather awkwardly explained what I had actually intended, one of the them tried to comfort me by saying (in pretty good French) that it was OK, Monsieur, and that I shouldn’t be upset because, after all, they were “adolescents, et nous pensons comme ça.”

They were also super kids, who had both good brains and common sense. In Florida I might have been fired.

I’ll Bet “Shakespeare” Is a Drag Name

 Update, March, 2023: Tennessee has outlawed “drag shows” in public places and Florida has made it illegal for teachers to “say gay” or teach subjects that might “confuse” children about real, and therefore complicated human behavior. I suppose, then, it’s only a matter of time until both states, in their evangelical fervor, decide to ban Shakespeare—ALL of it— since all of Shakespeare’s female roles were performed by males (boys, at that) in, er, “drag.” 

Moreover, special opprobrium will undoubtedly be reserved for As You Like It—in which, as one scholar notes…”the crossdressing scheme is very complex, as we encounter a boy actor who plays a girl, who pretends to be a boy, who performs in the role of a woman. Moreover, there is a direct reference to the real sex of the actor playing Rosalind towards the end of the epilogue. Rosalind steps out of her role, the male actor has just finished playing a part of a woman and addresses the audience in his own voice announcing what he would do if he WERE a woman…” (Lucie Johnová, Charles University, Prague) 

These facts—should they ever become widely “known” in the dim reaches of bible land—could trigger an alarming resurgence of stocks and pillories in public squares (or Walmart parking lots). Crossdressers and playwrights beware (doesn’t matter how famous you are). 

I’ll bet “Shakespeare” is a drag name.

TrumPutinLand

Here’s another parallel between Putin and Trump. Both are opportunistic, greedy, self-aggrandizers who have nonetheless managed (they are skillful propagandists) to convince great numbers of people that, no, despite their appearance of privilege, they are actually—like the aggrieved folks they have been “sent to save”—VICTIMS of globalists and perverts and corrupt, satanist forces “out to get” ordinary good folk—i.e., southern evangelical white nationalists (in the US) and the long-oppressed, fascist-threatened masses of the non-western world (in Russia and India and Venezuela and China). In Trumputinland the bad guys are identified as the western “liberals” and “progressives” who oppose both a) Putin’s brave efforts to “take back Ukraine,” (on behalf of Mother Russia, to whom it clearly belongs) and b) Trump’s heroic struggle to “take back America,” (on behalf of Christian dominionists, to whom it was given by God). Trump and Putin, on the other hand, are portrayed as the good guys in this holy war against the evils of Enlightenment values and American/NATO hegemony. They may win. Never underestimate human brutishness.