Showing posts with label envy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label envy. Show all posts

Thursday, August 6, 2026

A Parting Wish

     Mathematician-philosopher Raymond Smullyan once told an illustrative tale that went something like this:

     Once upon a time there was a man who hated being envied. It was the supreme irritant of his existence. Yet there seemed no escape from it – meaning, from others who envied him for something of his that they lacked. There came a point in his life where he could no longer stand it to any degree. He embarked on a huge effort designed specifically and only to quench the envy of others.

     He abandoned his profession as a lawyer.
     He sold his house and gave the proceeds to charity.
     He gave away all his movable property to whomever might desire it.
     He even gave away his clothes.

     Presently he was garbed in rags. He went barefoot. He slept in the open. He had nothing to his name but a begging-bowl, for it was the kindness of others that provided his meager meals. But at long last he had nothing anyone else could conceivably envy. And he smiled, smiled, smiled.

     But not long afterward, he encountered a colleague from his former profession, a lawyer with whom he’d once worked. After exchanging the usual pleasantries of greeting, the other lawyer looked him up and down, shook his head in wonder, and said “My God, how radiantly happy you look! How I envy you!

     And thereby hangs a tale.

* * *

     I think were Mankind to be shorn of its propensity to envy, by far the greater portion of the world’s ills would instantly vanish. Envy is the most destructive of all emotions, for it embeds a willingness that someone else should suffer harm or loss even though it would do the envious person no good whatsoever.

     As usual, I have to add the clarification that the wistful, colloquial use of the word envy is entirely innocent. What I have in mind here is the real thing, the corrosive emotion of envy distilled to 200 proof. It’s hatred of a special kind: hatred of that which is good and worthy, for no other reason.

     Hatred is intrinsically destructive. It seeks to damage the hated person or thing. Envy seeks the degradation of the envied one in a specific fashion. The particular possession, virtue, or ability the envied one possesses is the nominal target.

     Envy functions at every level of human interaction. Underpinning it is a seemingly paradoxical force: the desire of every man that’s ever lived to feel superior.

     Quoth Dale Carnegie:

     Do you feel that you are superior to the Japanese? The truth is that the Japanese consider themselves far superior to you. A conservative Japanese, for example, is infuriated at the sight of a white man dancing with a Japanese lady.
     Do you consider yourself superior to the Hindus in India? That is your privilege; but a million Hindus feel themselves so superior to you that they wouldn’t befoul themselves by condescending to touch food that your heathen shadow had fallen across and contaminated.
     Do you feel yourself superior to the Eskimos? Again, that is your privilege; but would you really like to know what the Eskimo thinks of you? Well there are a few native hoboes among the Eskimos, worthless bums who refuse to work. The Eskimos call them “white men”—that being their utmost term of contempt.
     Each nation feels itself superior to other nations. That breeds patriotism—and wars.
     The unvarnished truth is that every man you meet feels superior to you in some way....[A]nd the pathetic part of it is that frequently those who have the least justification for a feeling of achievement bolster up their inner feeling of inadequacy by an outward shouting and tumult and conceit that are offensive and truly nauseating.

     That passage appeared in an early edition of Carnegie’s book How to Win Friends and Influence People. It was removed from later ones.

     It’s hard to feel superior to someone who can do what you can’t. Hence the following short story, which first appeared at the 2.0 site in September, 2023.


Average

     Father Raymond Altomare had not seen the inside of a guidance counselor’s office since graduating from his own high school. As pastor of Our Lady of the Pines Roman Catholic parish, which serves the whole of New York’s Onteora County, he was acquainted with a great many of the personnel who staff Onteora’s schools, but until that day he’d never been asked to advise one. However, he never turned down a request for a conversation from anyone, Catholic or not. So at the appointed hour he stuffed his stole into his breast pocket, adorned his features with a pleasant smile, and presented himself at Alvin Purvis’s office at Foxwood High.
     The office resembled what he remembered of his own guidance counselor’s cubbyhole: large enough not to be deemed a closet, but not much larger. The furnishings were no surprise: sheet-steel desk, sheet-steel bookcase, sheet-steel filing cabinet. The bookcase bore tomes with titles typical of the professional advice-giver. Ray remembered reading two of them. A couple of pseudo-motivational posters adorned the walls.
     Purvis was the epitome of the mid-Twenty-First Century public-school functionary. He was undistinguished in any way: middle-aged, medium height, medium build, brown eyes, thinning brown hair touched at the temples with middle-aged gray, and a slightly rumpled, open-collared dress shirt on which Ray could just make out the ghost of a condiment spill. The surface of his desk was littered with forms of many colors. He rose, shook Ray’s hand, muttered “Thank you for coming, Father,” and was back in his seat before Ray had settled into his.
     “Forgive me, please, but you don’t look familiar,” Ray said. “Are you one of my parishioners?”
     Purvis grimaced fleetingly. “No, Father, I’m not. Not religious at all, really. I hope that won’t interfere with our conversation.”
     “It won’t, but I’m quite curious as to why you asked for my assistance. Am I the confessor to a troubled student?”
     “No, actually.” Purvis appeared momentarily uncomfortable. “Ah, a lawyer I know spoke highly of you as an advisor, and I’m having a spot of trouble with a student I can’t figure out.”
     A lawyer recommending a priest? That’s a first. Probably Sylvie Yngstrom. Al Donaldson is about as Catholic as Interstate 90. “Well then, who is this student and how can I help you with him?”
     A spike of discomfort flitted across Purvis’s features. “His name is David Johnson. Any chance you know him?”
     “His name doesn’t ring a bell.”
     “I suppose it was too much to expect.” Purvis fiddled with the papers before him. “He’s not one of our brighter lights, but he’s not a known troublemaker either. Low B to high C average, no particular talent for any of the disciplines, not athletic as far as I can tell, and not particularly popular. Or unpopular, for that matter. He’s almost perfectly average in every measurable way. And it’s my duty to guide him from here to the end of his high school experience.”
     An average student assigned to an average counselor.
     “So far,” Ray said, “I’m unclear on what makes young Mr. Johnson a problem. Surely you’ve advised other average kids by now?”
     Purvis grimaced again. “I have,” he said. “And if David were average without exception, I doubt I’d have any problem with him at all. But there is one way in which he, ah, stands out.”
     “From the way you said that,” Ray said, “I get the impression that it’s not a good way.”
     “It’s not.” Purvis looked briefly off into the corner. “I’ve been getting complaints about what happens when he’s present at a contest.”
     Ray became uneasy “What kind of contest?”
     “Any kind at all,” Purvis muttered. “Academic, athletic, artistic, you name it.”
     “What does he do?”
     “According to the proctors, nothing much. Just sits there.”
     Ray was nonplussed. “Well, then what’s the problem?”
     “Nothing happens. Nothing at all.”
     Ray peered at him. “Meaning...?”<
     “The contestants and performers can’t perform. At all. None of them.”

#

     Ray had to see for himself, so with Purvis’ assistance he acquired a ticket to Foxwood’s upcoming end-of-season football game against Laurelton High. That Onteora County had only four high schools hadn’t kept the county’s education officials from forming tiny leagues in baseball, football, and basketball. Even though the competitors were few, competition was intense and fan interest was great. At least, Purvis said, it had been.
     Purvis arrived just after Ray seated himself in the bleachers. The guidance counselor perched next to him and smiled faintly. “Evening, Father. I wasn’t sure you’d make it.”
     “After what you told me last week, I had to see it with my own eyes,” Ray said. “Not that I disbelieved you. It’s just something I could never have imagined. Do you see him anywhere in the stands?”
     Purvis swept his gaze over the bleachers. “Mmm…not yet. But it might be for the best if he were to arrive some time after the game starts.”
     Ray started to ask why, thought better of it.
     As it happened, Purvis’ wish was granted. The game started out as a fierce battle between notably skilled teams. Laurelton was first to get possession. Its offense marched smartly down field until a spectacular interception granted the ball to Foxwood at its fourteen yard line. Foxwood’s quarterback led a precise eighty-six-yard campaign down field against a vigorous Laurelton defense. It culminated with a perfectly placed pass to the back corner of the endzone, a leaping catch, and the referee’s ruling that the receiver had come down in bounds and in possession.
     “These kids are pretty good,” Ray murmured.
     Purvis nodded. “A few of them have been scouted already.”
     As Foxwood’s place kicker leaped off the bench and strode onto the field for the extra-point try, a young man of no distinguishing characteristics ambled up to the bleachers. He assumed a seat near the top, a fair distance away from any other spectators, and propped his elbows on his knees.
     “He’s here,” Purvis muttered. “Watch what happens now.”
     Ray leaned forward.
     The teams lined up for the extra-point try. The holder called the signals. The center snapped the ball. It wobbled toward the holder, who had to rise from his knee to bring it in. The blockers held the line as the holder fumbled it into place for the kick, but the kicker stumbled and kicked the ball poorly. It flew directly into a blocker, who had the presence of mind to fall on it. The referee blew the whistle and decreed that the try had failed.
     Well, snaps do go bad now and then. But that wasn’t the most impressive kick I’ve ever seen.
     Purvis noted Ray’s expression. “Our kicker is first rate when David isn’t around. Just keep watching the game, Father.”
     Ray’s gaze flicked toward the young man Purvis had cited. He was doing nothing to speak of, just watching the action on the field.
     Keep an open mind.
     Though the game had started out looking near collegiate-varsity quality, from that moment forward it was a far less impressive spectacle. On both sides, the play was no better than mediocre. At times it verged on comical. Both offenses made mistake after mistake, both physical and mental. Yet neither defense seemed able to capitalize. It was as if the teams that started the game had been replaced by inexperienced ninth-graders of no particular skills. Spectators that had cheered loudly during Foxwood’s first drive and stood to applaud the touchdown pass became silent. By halftime, half of them had departed. The inept play and the departures continued through the second half. Foxwood prevailed, though it was clear that the team had no cause to brag about its performance.
     Ray and Purvis rose as the last of the other spectators trickled away toward the parking lot. David Johnson brought up the rear.
     “Did you, expect to see…what we saw?” Ray said.
     Purvis nodded. “It’s been that way whenever he’s present. Players with a solid reputation for ability and drive turn into buffoons when he’s in the stands.”
     “Have you seen the same thing at practices?”
     “Not personally,” Purvis said. “But I’ve been told about it by other staffers I trust.”
     I have to take it seriously.
     “What about musical performances?”
     “Same deal.” Purvis scowled. “My daughter is the school’s first-chair oboist. She has a genuine gift for the instrument. When David’s in the audience, she can hardly get a note out of it. I have no explanation. Do you?”
     “Not as we stand here,” Ray said. “But there’s still a possibility that it’s a huge coincidence. Would you be willing to help me with an experiment?”
     Purvis’ eyebrows rose. “Certainly, Father. What do you have in mind?”
     “The basketball season still has a few months to run, doesn’t it? Does David usually go to those games?”
     “Oh yes. Are you thinking of keeping him away from a game or two, then letting him attend them?”
     Ray nodded. “Exactly. But I don’t know the young man. You do. Can I count on you to provide the necessary obstruction?”
     “I’ll see what I can arrange.”

#

     Whatever ruse Purvis contrived to keep David Johnson away, it worked for a basketball game and a half. Ray was much impressed by Foxwood’s accurate shooting and solid defense against the Oakleigh team. One Foxwood forward racked up twenty-two points, including four three-pointers, in the first half alone. The Foxwood center was impassable in the paint; he repelled the Oakleigh forwards’ attempts to drive the baseline with exceptional skill and without fouling. Though Oakleigh fought hard, in the end Foxwood prevailed by a twenty point margin.
     The following game was against Chedwick High. The first half was an epic battle. Chedwick’s team had been mentioned as a candidate for the national high school championship tournament. Foxwood was nearly their equal, and fought tenaciously to keep the score as close as possible to level. For sixteen minutes the teams provided the best performance, in both skill and passion, that high school athletes could give.
     David Johnson ambled into the gym as halftime ticked toward its end. Once again he entered unobtrusively, took an isolated seat near the top of the bleachers, and propped his elbows on his knees.
     Now we’ll see.
     Alvin Purvis entered a minute or two later. He scrambled into the bleachers as the game resumed and perched himself next to Ray.
     “Couldn’t keep him away?” Ray murmured.
     “I tried my best, Father,” Purvis said. “But I couldn’t keep him talking to me any longer.”
     “Then when the third period ends,” Ray said, “I’ll buttonhole him and take him out of the gym.”
     Purvis looked at him in surprise. “You think you can?”
     Ray nodded. “You stay here and watch the game.”
     The third period was a farce. Both teams played as if neither had ever touched a basketball before. Dribblers stumbled, traveled, and lost control of the ball. Shooters missed by a yard. Centers fouled as they tried to block. As the last few seconds of the period ticked away, Ray rose, went to where David Johnson sat, and stood so as to block his view of the court. The teenager looked up at him with evident irritation.
     “What is it, Father?”
     “I need to speak to you privately.” Ray filled the words with urgency. “Come with me.”
     “But the game—”
     “Right now, David.” Ray took the teen firmly by the arm and pulled him upright against considerable resistance. Nevertheless, Ray marched him down the bleachers and out of the gym.

#

     As the gym door closed behind them, Johnson finally wrenched himself free of Ray’s grip and faced him squarely. “Well, what’s so important that I couldn’t enjoy the rest of the game in peace?”
     You enjoyed it, did you?
     Ray met the teen’s glare eye-to-eye. “You are.”
     “Huh?”
     “Tonight you’re the focus of an experiment,” Ray said. “Would you like to guess what sort?”
     The teen pretended bafflement. He essayed a shrug.
     “According to your guidance counselor—”
     “Mr. Purvis?”
     “The very same. When you’re present at any kind of competition, all the competitors lose all their skills. They perform like nobodies. Like the teams on the court tonight in the third period.”
     “So?” Johnson said. “Did you expect pro basketball from a bunch of kids?”
     “They played better before you arrived,” Ray countered. “Much better. Both sides. And the same thing happened at Foxwood’s football game with Laurelton.”
     Another shrug. “Maybe they got tired.” Johnson made to return to the gym. Ray grabbed and halted him. The teen’s eyes flared with fury.
     “What the hell—”
     “Never mind that,” Ray said. “Mr. Purvis stayed in there to watch what remains of the game. You’re staying here, with me. We’ll see what he has to say when it’s over.” The teen tried to shake himself loose, but Ray clamped down with his full and considerable strength. The teen winced.
     “My parents are going to hear about this,” Johnson growled. “They’re not Catholics. Neither am I.”
     “I know,” Ray said. “And I’ll be very interested in what they have to say, as well.”
     David Johnson became silent, but the heat from his gaze grew greater still. It expressed more than the teen might have intended.

#

     One side of the little pentagon that sat in the Johnsons’ living room radiated unease and more. David’s parents sat tightly together, hand in hand and hip to hip. They didn’t trouble to conceal their suspicion at the invasion of their home by a priest. Whatever they thought of their son’s guidance counselor, they kept it to themselves.
     “We’ve never heard the first thing about any trouble David’s been in,” Mrs. Johnson said. “Now you come here in the middle of the night as if we were criminals, demanding to know about our son? We should call the police on you.”
     “You can if you like,” Purvis said. “I won’t try to pretend that we’re here for David’s benefit, or because he’s in trouble with the school authorities. It’s just that he’s been present at some…unusual events. Unusual enough to draw the notice of other school personnel. And David is the only common factor among them.”
     Johnson glared at the guidance counselor with open hostility. “What kind of ‘unusual events?’”
     “May we leave that for a few minutes in the future, please?” Ray said. Purvis glanced at him curiously, but said nothing. “It might still come to nothing. We’d like to learn a little more about you and David, if that would be all right. What you do, your opinions about child-rearing, your religious beliefs—wait.” Ray held up a hand. “We’re not here to convert you or harangue you. We’d just like to see if we can get a little insight into what we’ve…observed.”
     “Which you won’t tell us,” Johnson growled.
     “Please bear with me a moment longer,” Ray said. “What do you do for a living, Mr. Johnson?”
     Johnson’s face twitched as if he found the question distasteful. “I’m a bookkeeper at Sentry Munitions.”
     “And yourself, Mrs. Johnson?” Ray said.
     “I…work in retail,” the woman forced out.
     Ray nodded. “Nothing to be ashamed of in either case,” he said. “Do you own your home?”
     “For three years now. Along with the bank,” Johnson muttered.
     “These days, that’s the case far more often than not,” Purvis contributed.
     Perfectly average, in fact.
     “You’ve done well to acquire a home in Foxwood,” Ray said. “There are neighborhoods in Oakleigh and Laurelton where it would have been much easier.”
     “It would have,” Johnson forced out, “but we didn’t want to live among…” His face twitched again, and he fell silent.
     “Yes, the environment is a little different in…the lower-priced townships,” Ray said before Purvis could speak. “But the property taxes there are a good deal less. Homeowners have to bear down a little to cover the ones here.”
     It was a perfectly normal observation, but the Johnsons bridled as if their character had somehow been impugned.
     “We do what we have to,” Johnson growled. “The older residents use the taxes to keep folks like us away. We decided we weren’t having it. They’re no better than us. We’re as good as anybody, and we’re going to live like it.” His eyes flicked toward his son, who’d been silent throughout the “We’ve told David that over and over. Practically since he was able to walk.”
     David didn’t speak nor twitch.
     “Have you had any…difficulties because of that?” Ray murmured.
     “Some of the women have been a little standoffish,” Mrs. Johnson said. “And David hasn’t made any friends in the area yet.”
     No surprise there.
     Ray looked at Purvis. “Well, I think we’ve learned what we came to learn,” he said. He rose from his seat. “Wouldn’t you agree, Al?”
     Purvis’ eyes widened. “Ah, yes, Father.” He rose and faced the Johnsons. “Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, thank you for your time.”
     “Hold on there,” Johnson said as he rose from his sofa. “What about these events that you were so concerned about?”
     Purvis smiled formally. “I’m sure they were just coincidences. Nothing to worry about.” He turned and with a jerk of the head urged Ray to follow him. They marched quickstep for the front door. Ray closed it immediately behind them, but not before he saw the hatred that burned in David Johnson’s eyes.

#

     “Well, Father?” Purvis said as he drove them back to the rectory. “Any conclusions?”
     “Yes, but…” Ray winced. “I don’t know if I should say what…I’m about to say.”
     Purvis grinned. “Guidance counselors are a bit like priests, you know. We don’t repeat what’s told us. Well, unless someone’s in danger. David isn’t in danger, is he?”
     “Not physically,” Ray said. “Not as far as I can tell, anyway. But it would be a good thing if he could be kept away from competitions until he finishes his schooling.”
     “Present trends continuing, that will be the June after next,” Purvis said. He turned into the rectory parking lot, set the parking brake and killed the engine. “He’s not a strong prospect for college. But from the way you said what you said, you have an opinion.”
     The stress on the word opinion was almost too light to notice.
     “I do,” Ray said. “But I don’t think you’re going to like it.”
     “Let me be the judge, please.”
     How do I tell this secular, perfectly average man that in one way, David Johnson isn’t average at all? How do I make it comprehensible in his frame of reference?
     “Do you know about demons?” Ray said.
     Purvis’ eyes narrowed. “I haven’t made a study of the myths. I know religious people believe in them, and that they intend us harm.”
     “Well…” Ray groped for words. “You observed the Johnsons as closely as I did tonight. What sense of them did you get?”
     Purvis relaxed fractionally. “Hm. Well, I’d say they’re as average as their son, for one thing.”
     “Materially? Talent-wise?”
     “Ah, yes.” Purvis frowned for a moment. “Were you hoping I would say more than that?”
     “I wasn’t sure one way or the other.” Ray steepled his hands. “Priests get a very specific kind of education, you know. Part of it is training in the detection of…evil.”
     Purvis glared at him as if he’d proposed to erect a stake and burn David Johnson at it. “Go on, Father.”
     “A great deal of evil is completely unobtrusive,” Ray said. “Banal, even. Evil doesn’t have to be showy, though sometimes it is. The mass killings, the great genocides, and the world wars got us thinking that we’d always recognize a monster in our midst. But that isn’t always the case. Evil can express itself in some of the quietest ways you can imagine.”
     “I am having,” Purvis said, “a very hard time making sense of what you’re saying. Are you about to tell me that David Johnson is possessed?”
     “No, sir,” Ray said. You wouldn’t believe me if I did. “But I do believe a malevolent force is using him to express itself. Through no fault of his own.”
     Purvis’s eyes remained hard. Ray fought to remain placid of demeanor.
     “I began to see it when I pulled David out of the gym,” Ray said. “He growled at me for not letting him enjoy the game. And I think he was being truthful about that. He was enjoying what he saw on the court. He found it comforting.”
     “That makes absolutely no sense, Father,” Purvis said.
     “Does what we saw make sense?” Ray murmured. “The total collapse of gifted teenage athletes immediately upon the arrival of one nondescript, non-playing boy?”
     Purvis started to reply, checked himself.
     “Did the players return to form when I managed to drag David out of the gym?” Ray continued.
     For the first time, the guidance counselor appeared to open slightly to what Ray was saying.
     “What David saw,” Ray said, “told him that he would have played as well as any of the varsity players we watched beclown themselves. That he was as good as any of them.”
     “But—”
     “The Johnsons gave it away back there.” Ray grimaced at the memory. “They’re as good as anybody. They said so! They’ve said it to themselves for so long that they believe it to the core of their being. Remember what else they said? They pounded it into David since he came out of the cradle—so relentlessly that he needs to believe it despite the evidence of his senses. And it’s twisted him enough, created enough of a chink in his soul, that an evil entity could attach itself to him, ride along with him, and learn to work through him.
     “I think David’s aware of what’s going on. He may have been resentful of others’ superior accomplishments in this or that field for a long time before this, but now that he has that…ride-along, it’s using his resentment to act on those around him. He resents seeing anyone outperform what he knows, in his heart of hearts, is the best he could do. He wants to see others as no better than he is–at anything. That he’s as good as any of them. And his ride-along is showing him exactly that.”
     Ray sat back. Purvis’ eyes had clouded with doubt.
     He has to overcome a lot of preconceptions to accept it. He may not manage. But there was a time when I wouldn’t have believed it either.
     “It’s hard to accept,” Purvis said. “But it’s consistent with what we’ve seen. Still, it doesn’t suggest a way to deal with it. For me, at least. I’m not in the evil-entity-fighting business.”
     “I know,” Ray said. “I am.”
     Purvis’ mouth twitched. “Getting David or his parents to accept your kind of therapy would be a hell of a trick.”
     Ray nodded. “I know that, too.”
     Purvis nodded and offered his hand. “Thank you, Father. I appreciate your input.”
     “You’re welcome.”
     He exited Purvis’ car, walked steadily to the rectory door, and closed it behind him as the guidance counselor drove away.

==<O>==

Copyright © 2022 Francis W. Porretto. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.


     I wrote the above in something of a fury. It felt important to write it. It still seems important today. The reason? I don’t understand envy at all.

     Envious Smith exerts effort – sometimes prodigious effort – to harm envied Jones. Yet it can do Smith no good whatsoever to see Jones suffer loss. Indeed, it often results in harm to Smith as well. Why on Earth? There’s no percentage in it!

     Yet it is commonplace. It’s less prevalent in the United States than elsewhere, but its foothold here is steadily enlarging, for reasons beyond the scope of this tirade. And there is no objective explanation for it.

     Slam that word objective. For the objective as we see and experience it doesn’t stand alone.

     Father Ray was sensitive to the unseen world. He perceived, if inchoately and inarticulately, that a force that stands outside Time had taken a hand in David Johnson’s “guidance.” Al Purvis, a secularist, politely dismissed the notion. But I challenge my Gentle Readers to produce a rational explanation for why any individual might seek the degradation of another when there can be no benefit to him.

     I shan’t be posting again until Tuesday, August 11 at the soonest. Enjoy your weekend; I’ll see you afterward.

All my best,
Fran

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Envy And Enmity

     Now and then, there’s a hard but necessary deed to be done. Since World War II, the doer has been the United States of America.

     At such times the U.S. has repeatedly “stepped up.” Have we always done exactly what should have been done? No, not always. But in the great majority of cases, we’ve done what was necessary. We’ve relieved lesser nations of the need to bestir themselves.

     WHOA! Did I just call all the other nations of the world “lesser nations?” Why yes, I did. They are lesser. They cannot do what the U.S. has done repeatedly. And the realization chafes some of them badly:

     I feel a certain pity for persons such as the one above. They know they’re inferior: personally, socially, and nationally. That can’t feel good. But rather than strive to match American power and prowess, they prefer to make snide comments. For that I have only contempt.

     Tom Kratman backhanded the above in his trademarked style:

     That had to be said, Tom. Bravo. But I’m sad about it all, for the U.S. bears part of the responsibility for the inferiority “The Lucky Heron” suffers.

     American power has protected Europe and much of the rest of the world for eight decades. In effect, we’ve made it possible for those nations to neglect their own militaries. When a need for intervention arises, they habitually “let the Americans handle it.” It saves money.

     And the rest of the world, observing how tireless we are in dealing with crises abroad, has come to think of us as “saviors in waiting:”

     "There's no food anywhere," said Fanny, a Liberian refugee who had trudged for two days to reach the stadium. "People are dying. The Americans must come. We want peace."

     “The Americans must come.” Why us? Because we always do. That Liberian refugee knew it. We come to the rescue even of peoples that despise us and seek to conquer us. The Christmas Tsunami that ravaged Indonesia was a case in point. Indonesia is a heavily Muslim nation that greatly resented that it owed its relief to a nation of “infidels.”

     We shrug it off. We do what needs doing. We go home with or without the thanks of those we’ve helped.

* * *

     Today at Fox News, we have this striking opinion piece:

     The strategy of the United States toward the Islamic Republic has crossed a threshold that marks the definitive end of a half-century of Western hesitation.
     In a landmark White House news conference, the President — flanked by CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth — dismantled the long-standing policy of "managed stability" in favor of a strategy aimed at the regime’s structural collapse. By confirming the systematic dismantling of the clerical security apparatus, highlighted by the death of IRGC Intelligence Chief Majid Khademi in a joint U.S.-Israeli strike, and signaling an end to the regime’s unhindered control over strategic corridors like the Strait of Hormuz, the administration has moved past the failed diplomatic cycles of 1979 and 2009.
     While mediators may continue to offer the 'off-ramp' of short-term ceasefires, history warns us that for the mullahs, such deals are never a bridge to peace. They are a tactical survival mechanism designed to shield a nuclear breakout. As this new era of clarity unfolds, the lesson remains: leaving any part of this clerical structure in power, even in a state of 'negotiated' weakness, is not a resolution — it is merely a stay of execution."

     Commentator Goli Ameri has grasped the core of the thing: Iran’s rulers were determined to have nuclear weapons, no matter what taqiyya they presented to the rest of the world. Moreover, they didn’t want nukes just to fondle them and preen over having become a nuclear power; they intended to use them. Their first target would be Israel. That’s been well known for decades.

     Donald Trump is unlike any of his predecessors in the Oval Office. He sees clearly; he does not allow anyone to tell him that things are not how they appear. Moreover, he is unaffected by political considerations. What he feels must be done, he will do. And so it is in our conflict with Iran.

     “The Lucky Heron” and others of his sort see American forces dealing with a threat that’s been allowed to loom for too long, and it infuriates them. They know that their pusillanimous governments lack both the will and the ability to do what the U.S. is doing. They know that they personally would never volunteer for such an effort. Indeed, were their statesmen to tell them that their “social benefits” must be reduced slightly to fund such an intervention, their cries of dismay would deafen the world.

     They know that we are not as they are, and they hate us for it.

     The Iranian conflict will take a while to play out. Brace for more sniveling from “The Lucky Heron” and his friends. America will do what must be done.

     May God forever guard and guide these United States of America.

Saturday, December 19, 2020

A Consumer, Not A Creator

     C’est moi, when it comes to what are currently called memes. However, I enjoy the clever ones, and am always happy to come upon one that expresses an important truth in a memorable fashion. The following is a case in point:

     Bravo! Visually arresting and evocative. But let’s “unpack” it a bit. There are more layers to it than a mere chortle would do it justice.

     Socialism and Communism – the former is actually just the latter before the show trials, gulags, and executions get revved up – are animated by the same emotion: envy. I use the term here in its maximally intensified sense: the hatred of those who have something the envious one does not.

     I have a lot of quotes about envy in my database. Here are some of the pithier ones:

     The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better. (Folk saying)
     There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. (Erich Fromm)
     Communism possesses a language which every people can understand - its elements are hunger, envy, and death. (Heinrich Heine)
     Envy is ineluctable, implacable and irreconcilable, is irritated by the slightest differences, is independent of the degree inequality, appears in its worst form in social proximity among near relatives, provides the dynamic for every revolution yet cannot of itself produce any kind of coherent revolutionary program. (Helmut Schoeck)
     No one admits publicly, and hence public opinion does not admit, that ingratitude is the norm. It is astounding that countless benefactors allow themselves to be persuaded over and over that ingratitude with the resultant hatred is a rare and special case. (Helmut Schoeck)
     There is one state that no society can live in for any length time, accepting it as official doctrine, and that is mutual envy. (Helmut Schoeck)

     (Allow me, once more with feeling, to urge upon you, Gentle Reader, Helmut Schoeck’s blockbuster book Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour. I can think of no volume more relevant to our current age. You will come away from it with new and better eyes. Best of all, it’s now available for the Kindle.)

     But concerning great beauty and the possession of an eye-catching rack, let it be noted that even in the Soviet Union of old, a few women had them. Who were they? Why, they were women who could acquire the necessities: the sweethearts of the politically powerful, of course! If your husband or lover was high enough in the nomenklatura, you could eat well, dress well, get high-quality cosmetics, have access to fitness-maintenance facilities, and maintain a beautiful appearance. Indeed, those things were essential to maintaining your status as the main squeeze of a high muckety-muck. Stint the use of them, and you’d soon be out of favor...or worse.

     And what delusion is prevalent among those who favor collectivist political systems? Why, they all expect to be commissars in the New Order! Remember that coal-heaver from 1848 France:

     The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge. In the French Revolution of 1848, a woman coal-heaver is said to have remarked to a richly dressed lady: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now; I shall go in silks and you’ll carry coal.”

     As an illustration of the sort of “equality” left-leaning types truly cherish, this one is unparalleled. Nor will they allow themselves to think that the outcome might be otherwise – that it might result in them doing thankless, mind-numbing work to stay alive, living in a one-room apartment, and waiting for hours on long lines to purchase potatoes and beets...when they’re available.

     With the prospect of a socialist executive administration looming ever nearer, this is the sort of subject that should be aggressively promoted in the national discourse. Is anyone troubling himself to mention it where others can hear?

     Just a quick thought before I go out to spread more E-Z-Melt on the driveway.

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Motivations, Strategies, And Politics

     A few informal definitions of important motivational states to lead off what’s likely to become a rather...impassioned column:

  1. Charity: When you actively desire that another should do well, irrespective of the effect on you.
  2. Indifference: How another is doing is of no importance to you, apart from any effect on you it may have.
  3. Jealousy: When you regard another’s gains as properly yours and work to take them from him and secure them for yourself.
  4. Envy: When you actively desire that another come to harm even if that should mean that you, too, will come to harm.

     There are circumstances in ordinary life that will bring us into contact with each of these four states in other persons. Recognizing the other person’s controlling motive is critical to adopting the proper strategy for oneself. I’ve made use of this in my fiction:

     He reached for his wallet and drew out a dollar bill.
     “We’re going to play some games.” He held up the bill as if to study it. “One dollar equals one hundred cents. Let’s suppose we have an auctioneer here, who’s trying to sell this dollar bill, this particular one and not another. Let’s suppose that only you and I are here to bid. All bids must be multiples of five cents. How much do you bid?”
     She smirked. “Ninety-five cents.”
     He nodded. “Very good. Now explain.”
     “Any lower bid can be profitably topped. Any higher bid yields no profit.”
     His smile was subtle, but there was definite pleasure in it.
     “Doesn’t that imply a particular objective?”
     “Well, yes, but what other reason could there be to bid on a dollar bill?”
     “Think hard, Christine. Give me three.”
     She pondered.
     Now I know where Louis got his style from. So acquiring a dollar’s not the objective. What, then?
     “It’s a collector’s item, so it’s worth more than a dollar.”
     “Good. Another.”
     “There’s a code written on it that would allow me to open a safe full of money, or diamonds, or something.”
     “Very good. One more.”
     She thought hard.
     “My objective is not to gain something for myself, but to deny it to you. And if you get hold of that dollar bill, I won’t be able to stop you.”
     His face went slack, and she wondered if she’d said something foolish. He stepped to her side, bowed, and proffered her the bill with a slight flourish.
     “You take this home,” he whispered, “and have it mounted in a fancy frame, and put it on your wall, some place where you’ll see it every day. Louis chose well.” There was a hint of exasperation in his voice. “Even in this, he has surpassed me.”
     She hesitated, then took it from him. Even with his stony face, there was no concealing his pleasure.
     “You’re already a fighter. You will be a warrior.”

     The core art of strategic planning is determining your opponent’s motives. Since he’s unlikely to email them to you, you must deduce them from his moves – his tactics. Tactics reveal objectives. Over time, objectives reveal motives.

     Take hold of the panic handle and hold on tight, Gentle Reader; I’m about to execute a series of sharp turns.


     Introductory game theory classifies the possible outcomes of two-player games into three types:

  1. Positive-sum: Outcomes in which both players profit.
  2. Zero-sum: What one gains, the other must lose, but no more than that.
  3. Negative-sum: Both players must lose.

     If we regard the decision to play a particular game as voluntary, what sort of motive is consistent with each of the above outcome types? No, I’m not going to answer that question for you. It’s not hard; think about it.

     But what if playing the game is involuntary, a consequence of a compulsion the player cannot resist? What’s the most important item of information he can possibly acquire?

     Exactly: his opponent’s motives:

     “Of all the musts and must-nots of warfare, this one is paramount: you must conceal your motives. Unless he is insignificant in comparison to you, once your opponent knows your motives, he’ll be able to defeat you. He’ll probably even have a choice of ways to do it.
     “You must move heaven and earth, if necessary, to discover your opponent’s motives. His tactics will be determined by them. If his motives change, his tactics will follow. There lies your opportunity, if you can get him to adopt tactics unsuitable to the conflict. Of course, he could try to do the same to you.”
     “What’s the countermeasure?”
     “Constancy. Refusal to let yourself be diverted. Of course, that can be a trap, too. Motive is partly determined by objectives. If your adversary’s situation changes but his objectives remain the same, he could find himself committed to paying an exorbitant price for something that’s become worthless.”
     “And that’s the time to stop playing with his head?”
     His grin was ice-cold. “You have a gift.”

     Your opponent’s motives – what he wants to do to you and what he’s willing to “spend” to do it – will determine everything about his objectives, strategy, and tactics. The same is true of your motives, so you’d bloody well better be sure you’re aware of them...sincerely.

     This acquires amplified force when his entry into the game is voluntary but yours is not.


     If you’ve ever played Dungeons & Dragons, or any similar role-playing game, you’ll be familiar with the following four player types:

  • Rational moral: The player is consistent in his actions and adheres to moral constraints.
  • Rational amoral: The player is consistent in his actions but recognizes no moral constraints.
  • Chaotic moral: The player is unpredictable in his actions but adheres to moral constraints.
  • Chaotic amoral: The player is unpredictable in his actions and recognizes no moral constraints.

     Before a D&D session begins, each player is required to choose one of those four orientations, and to keep it to himself. If he’s sincere about it, it will condition his moves throughout the game. Of course, playing D&D is voluntary. (At least, I don’t know of any involuntary cases.) So the players usually keep their orientations in mind as they choose their moves in the game.

     However, understanding the orientations, and noting those of other “players,” can be of great value in a game one is compelled to play, as well. This is especially the case with regard to the power an economic outlook can have on a player without his knowing it. Such an outlook is best captured in the following plaint:

“Why is he doing this?
What can he possibly get out of it?”

     He who says this when studying his opponent’s moves has assumed rationality on the part of that opponent. That assumption has proved incorrect in a number of important historical cases.


     Unfortunately – and I mean that most sincerely – we’re all compelled to “play the political game” to some extent. That is, even he who chooses not to participate in political events will be affected by the moves of others in the political game. Whether or not Smith votes, the votes of others can affect Smith, whether he likes it or not. Moreover, in our current post-Constitutional milieu, the effect can be enormous.

     Politics is a game whose possible outcomes include positive-sum, zero-sum, and negative-sum combinations. At any given time, some “players” will be playing for gain and will be either benevolent or indifferent as regards the results that accrue to other “players.” But there will be players whose highest priority is to harm others. Some of them will be willing to accept harm to themselves as the price.

     Which of the D&D orientations would best describe a “player” whose top priority is to harm others, even at cost to himself? He might be rational, but is it even thinkable that he consider himself moral?

     Now recur to the opening segment of this tirade. Which of the motivational categories would apply to such a “player?” We can immediately strike charity and indifference from consideration. Jealousy would require that the “player” be avid for gain. What’s left?

     That politics is a multimillion-player game doesn’t much alter the motivational calculus, does it?


     We’re about fifteen hundred words from where we started. I hope you regard the trip as worthwhile. Perhaps by now you have a sense for what I’ve been contemplating. The current political scenario – specifically, the behavior of Democrats in either house of Congress – invites inquiry into their orientations and their motivations. All of them are in politics voluntarily. We who are affected by their antics are not.

     The several gambits aimed at removing President Trump from his office have followed a clear pattern: find someone willing to lodge an accusation against him that implies that he’s illegitimately in the White House. Puff it up through their media handmaidens. Don’t worry about the validity of the accusation; just give it as much air time and as many column-inches as you can squeeze out of the friendly media. Should the accusation be debunked, as all of them have to date, pass on without acknowledging it. Find some new accuser / accusation and try again.

     Inasmuch as the accusations have become steadily weaker, and the accusers ever less credible, as the game has gone on – a series that converges on zero, so to speak – it is appropriate to question the rationality of the Democrats’ strategy. They’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a change in the result! Didn’t someone say something clever about that sort of behavior?

     The matter becomes even cloudier when we add the consensus of intelligent onlookers that the Democrats’ latest sally – the drive to impeach Trump on the grounds of the laughably feeble Ukraine accusation – will seriously harm them come Election Day. The Democrats might not accept that assessment...but what if they do? What if they agree that their drive to impeach Trump has only a tiny chance of removing him from office but is likely to cost them the House of Representatives and additional seats in the Senate? What would that say about their motivation – whether or not any of them would ever admit it, even to himself?

     I dislike the thought that roughly half of the persons on Capitol Hill are of chaotic mentality and are consumed by envy. I’d imagine that my Gentle Readers would view it the same way. But it’s awfully hard to reach any other conclusion.

     “Presidential authority is confirmed for change of test procedure. Dummy warheads will be replaced by a W-80 thermonuclear device. Have a nice day.” – Never Say Never Again

     Yes, by all means do have a nice day.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Unrealism

     This one is “off the top of my head,” so expect more extreme lunacy than usual. (Yes, I know that’s asking a lot.)


     Every now and then, I’ll encounter a picture that triggers a moment of reflection. Such moments are frequent in these days of universal Internet access and broadband media. Such reflections are sometimes accompanied by a surge of gratitude...or of regret.

     Courtesy of Kenny “Wirecutter” Lane at Knuckledraggin’ My Life Away, here’s the most recent example:

     Yes, it’s a beautiful picture. Yes, the woman is beautiful: beautiful face, exquisite figure, long hair, and long, smooth legs. Fetchingly poised in a window box, striking a contemplative pose as she gazes outward. And in sexy lingerie and five inch heels! My word! How much more could a man ask for?

     The odds are pretty damned high that this wasn’t a “candid” shot. The woman is likely to be a professional model. The photo was likely taken in a studio. Householders are very seldom interested in black-and-white photography. And all of that is secondary to this:

Have you ever known a woman of any age or degree of pulchritude to sit around her home wearing only sexy lingerie and high heels?

     Nope. Me neither.


     Desires and dreams are important. We all have them. But realism is even more important...and it’s becoming a critically scarce commodity.

     It’s good to dream. It’s good to have grand ambitions. But the universe has laws no one can break. Among the most important of them are the laws of probability.

     The gal in the photo above is one of the most beautiful women in America. That’s a small group. Needless to say (though, as is my wont, I shall say it even so), there’s no guarantee that her beautiful face and body are united to a beautiful character. Indeed, that’s the case less often than not, as a concentration on achieving and maintaining physical beauty usually accompanies a lack of attention to character and deportment. Moreover, membership in the Raving Beauties Club seldom lasts more than a few years...and as beauty fades, those other matters become even more important.

     Gentlemen: If you were offered the opportunity to be married to that gal, sight unseen and knowing nothing else about her, would you take it? If so, why?

     You’d be taking the short end of a bet, my friends. Especially considering what family law has become in our time. Yet she’s the image in a hell of a lot of men’s dreams.

     Of course, certain risks and sacrifices go along with marriage to anyone. But even should Mr. Smith find a supernaturally lovely Miss Jones to woo, what are the odds that he, a more or less average American with an average American’s life prospects, would win her heart? Should he succeed in doing so, how long would the physical gifts that attracted him endure? And what sort of character, children, and wifely and motherly devotion would he acquire with her?

     It’s the same for women pining for the sort of men featured on the covers of romance novels, so the ladies in the audience shouldn’t imagine that I’m omitting them from the unrealism derby.


     By making professional entertainers a part of our usual evenings, television in its early years introduced dreams of the sort alluded to above to our aspirations. The images have grown steadily brighter, sharper, more glamorous, and more enticing as the decades have rolled past. But they remain images, not realities to which ordinary people can seriously aspire.

     The same could be said of typical fantasies of great wealth. It comes to very few persons, and in many cases it doesn’t last long. Casinos and lotteries cater to those fantasies, which is how they make their money. But the man who heads to Atlantic City with his savings in his pocket, hoping to come home rich, is in serious need of a reality check.

     Yet we all dream. We’re encouraged to dream by many forces. Dreams are not entirely unconstructive; they can serve as a spur to effort. However, a tragic fraction of us make unrealistic dreams into goals we imagine we can realize, with the right breaks and enough effort. Failure to realize such unrealisms is at the root of a lot of unhappiness. It’s a notable component of the envy plague that’s beset our society.

     When dreams displace values is when we’re in real trouble – and that, too, has become an epidemic of sorts.


     A still worse outgrowth was the increase of speculation and gambling. With the plethora of paper currency in 1791 appeared the first evidences of that cancerous disease which always follows large issues of irredeemable currency,—a disease more permanently injurious to a nation than war, pestilence or famine. For at the great metropolitan centers grew a luxurious, speculative, stock-gambling body, which, like a malignant tumor, absorbed into itself the strength of the nation and sent out its cancerous fibres to the remotest hamlets. At these city centers abundant wealth seemed to be piled up: in the country at, large there grew a dislike of steady labor and a contempt for moderate gains and simple living.

     [Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money Inflation in France]

     "These people, it's no mystery where they come from. You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire. You build egos the size of cathedrals. Fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse. Grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green gold-plated fantasies until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own god. Where can you go from there?" -- "John Milton," played by Al Pacino, from the movie The Devil's Advocate

     Dreams that displace values are responsible for wrecking many lives, many marriages, and many careers. Political dreams, the sort that afflict many an occupant of high office or an aspirant to it, lead to self-betrayals that are often bitterly repented later on. Just now some twenty dreamers are vying for the Democrat Party’s 2020 presidential nomination. No more than one of them can succeed, yet all are making promises that no man, even one installed in the Oval Office, could possibly fulfill. To cap the ironies, they seek to challenge the first president since Grover Cleveland who’s making good on his promises, as far as human ability and the vicissitudes of federal politics will allow.

     There’s a moral in there, somewhere.

     “It is good to dream...but be sure to wake up.” – Gregory Benford, Timescape

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Changes

Sit by my side, come as close as the air,
Share in a memory of gray,
     Wander in my words,
     Dream about the pictures that I play
Of changes.

Green leaves of summer turn red in the fall
To brown and to yellow they fade,
     And then they have to die,
     Trapped within the circle time parade
Of changes.

Scenes of my young years were warm in my mind,
Visions of shadows that shine,
     Till one day I returned,
     And found they were the victims of the vines
Of changes.

The world's spinning madly, it drifts in the dark,
Swings through a hollow of haze,
     A race around the stars,
     A journey through the universe ablaze
With changes.

Moments of magic will glow in the night,
All fears of the forest are gone,
     But when the morning breaks,
     They're swept away by golden drops of dawn
Of changes.

Passions will part to a strange melody,
As fires will sometimes burn cold,
     Like petals in the wind,
     We're puppets to the silver strings of souls
Of changes.

Your tears will be trembling, now we're somewhere else,
One last cup of wine we will pour,
     And I'll kiss you one more time,
     And leave you on the rolling river shores
Of changes.

Sit by my side, come as close as the air,
Share in a memory of gray,
     Wander in my words,
     Dream about the pictures that I play
Of changes.

[Phil Ochs]

     Yeah, Phil Ochs was a New Left asshole who destroyed his own life, but what a songwriter! Anyway, this piece isn’t about Ochs, or the New Left. It’s about Apollo XI, the moon landing, and what’s come over us in the fifty years (and one day) since.

     (Fooled you, didn’t I?)


     Mark Steyn deposeth and sayeth:

     Four decades later, Bruce Charlton, professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham in England, wrote that “that landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achievement of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.” That's a good way to look at it: the political class presented the boffins with a highly difficult and specific problem, and they solved it—in eight years. Charlton continued:
     ‘Forty years ago, we could do it—repeatedly—but since then we have not been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

     ‘Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something....But I am suggesting that all this is BS. . . . I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75—at the time of the Apollo moon landings—and has been declining ever since.’...

     [I]f you think about it, isn't it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet blasting out from his iPod Lady Gaga and the Black-Eyed Peas or whatever the twenty-first-century version of Sinatra and the Basie band is.

     Those are among the saddest statements the famously optimistic “happy warrior” Mark Steyn has ever penned. I can’t find anything in America Alone or After America that compares with them. But that doesn’t diminish their accuracy – or their supreme importance – one iota.


     Fifty years of changes. Some of them were good ones. It’s awfully hard to knock the developments that furnished me with a lucrative career and made it possible to post these interminable essays. But sociopolitically and culturally, the great majority of them were negative – and they were not offset by the positives interspersed among them.

     I could enumerate the changes. I could go into gruesome detail about why most were net negatives despite the positive ballyhoo about them at the time. In nearly every case that ballyhoo was copious and wholly meretricious, even treacherous. But we swallowed every change whole. We’re still struggling to digest them.


     Quite a lot of decent Americans were utterly shocked by this New York Times article:

     The Cold War was fought as much on an ideological front as a military one, and the Soviet Union often emphasized the sexism and racism of its capitalist opponents — particularly the segregated United States. And the space race was a prime opportunity to signal the U.S.S.R.’s commitment to equality. After putting the first man in space in 1961, the Soviets went on to send the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit — all years before the Americans would follow suit.

     I can feel my blood pressure rising as I read that vile screed, so out of consideration for the sentiments (and blood pressures) of my Gentle Readers, I’ll spare you any larger excerpt. This feminist-socialist bitch is determined to pollute the greatest technological achievement in history: one that no other country has even attempted since. It’s a good thing she isn’t here as I write this.

     Yes, the three Apollo XI astronauts were white men. White Christian men, at that. As were the great majority of the people whose technological savvy and unstinting effort made the Apollo XI mission possible. At that time, most American women were more interested in things other than the STEM fields: marriage, children, homemaking, the nurturance of a family, its roots and its standing in its community. Very few went into the sciences or engineering – by choice.

     Very few do so today – again, by choice. Wherefore, then, does a no-achievements bitch, in commemoration of the greatest of all American achievements, praise a nation that was largely impoverished and barely twenty years from total collapse?

     Well, possibly because she’s a mealymouthed feminist-socialist bitch of no attainments whatsoever whose invidious resentment of people who actually did something — and of her comparably able contemporaries – compels her to denigrate their achievement. Envy can be that powerful.

     Envy is at the core of many of the individually identifiable ills that overtook us after Apollo XI.


     You’ve probably seen this before. Indeed, you might have seen it here. It’s the immortal Clive Staples Lewis on envy, which he describes as:

     [T]he feeling...which prompts a man to say I'm as good as you.
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
     And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, lah-di-dah affectation. Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here's a man who hasn't turned on the jukebox — he's one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they'd be like me. They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic.”

     [From Screwtape Proposes a Toast]

     Envy is the secret motivation of every whining bitch -- of either sex — who claims to stand for “equality.” And by legitimizing envy and propitiating the envious, we have brought America, the Renaissance Civilization, the highest fruits of the Christian Enlightenment, to the brink of ruin.


     Envy isn’t just a capital sin; it’s the deadliest of the lot. If permitted to take root in one’s soul, it can flower into any – or all – of the mortal sins. And I submit to you that culturally, socially, and politically, that is exactly what it has done:

  • It has catalyzed the destruction of intergenerational loyalties and respect.
  • It has given rise to undreamed-of carnage through abortion.
  • It has fueled vast waves of adultery.
  • It has been used to justify theft, both individual and systemic.
  • It powers great volumes of slander.
  • And of course, it feeds upon itself, such that no one anywhere who is superior in any way to the envious ones is permitted peace, privacy, or security.

     Envy is unassuageable. It hurls accusations and mud at others who have anything the envious one does not. It saps the desire to achieve. It gradually reduces the envious one to total impotence. And it is destroying this nation as we speak.


     Jesus entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.”
     The Lord said to her in reply, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her." [Luke 10:38-42]

     Could the Redeemer have been any clearer? He had no need of a great feast. Indeed, He had no need of a simple dinner. He came to us in the flesh to tell us of the Kingdom of God and the relatively simple requirements for entry. Mary, who listened to Him attentively while Martha scurried about dealing with food, plates, and utensils, had chosen “the better part:” the wisdom He had been born to dispense. Martha resented it – a not uncommon occurrence when “the chores” are apportioned unequally – yet failed to realize that what really bothered her was the choices she and her sister made: in both their cases, free and uncoerced.

     It cannot be made clearer, Gentle Reader. The rebuff of envy and everything it powers is vital both to our individual souls and to the health of the nation. We have shirked this duty for too long. I pray that it’s not too late to undertake it, and to bring to it the wholeheartedness, the constancy, and the righteous fury it demands.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

NeoVictoriana

     At one time, National Review Online was a worthwhile publication that had writers who were American in sentiment, temperament, and outlook. Those days are past and gone:

     I remember thinking that out of the lot of the younger NRO crowd, Jonah Goldberg, at least, might be a worthy successor to William F. Buckley. I will forever remember how wrong I was.

     The title of this piece stems from a recollection of a couple of the unwritten rules of Victorian society:

  1. Be loyal to your class; keep interlopers out.
  2. Never take pleasure visibly in anything; that’s for the proles.

     Bill Buckley had a tinge of that, but his better angels usually guided him in the direction of reason. We are the poorer for his loss, and poorer yet for having to endure the twits that have taken his mantle upon themselves.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

What Comes Of “Equality”

     When I saw this article yesterday, it filled me with sorrow:

     SOUTH Africa has set a date for when its much-criticised land expropriations can begin after a politician declared: “Your time is up, white people.”

     The country’s National Assembly approved a proposal to change the constitution to make the so-called reforms legal in a vote of 183 to 77.

     This paves the way for land to be taken from farmers without giving any kind of compensation.

     And now lawmakers have agreed to set up a committee that will write and introduce a new bill for land expropriations.

     Every African nation that has transitioned from “colonial” (i.e., white) rule to native (i.e., black) rule has followed a similar path. It calls to mind a quote from Vladimir Bukovsky:

     Is it really surprising that whenever you get striving for equality and fraternity, the guillotine appears on the scene?

     What black South Africans don’t realize is that the people they’ll be guillotining are themselves. That is what comes of such policies, as anyone familiar with the course of things in Zimbabwe can attest.

     But this piece isn’t primarily about South Africa’s auto da fe. Neither is it about race.


     I’m on record as having stated, quite plainly, that I’m a racist. That is: I believe that as statistical aggregates, the races differ in ways that are important at some times and in some contexts. Thus I cannot be cowed by being called a racist, for I admit it freely and can’t imagine, given how amply it’s supported by the observable facts, how it could constitute a condemnation. This irritates the apostles of equality and that chimera called “social justice.” If they can’t silence me by wielding their favorite epithet, what would work?

     It is observably the case that those nations founded and peopled by whites have attained greater heights of justice, prosperity, and security than those founded and peopled by blacks. It is observably the case that in America, areas in which blacks concentrate have far more crime, squalor, illegitimacy, and local disorder than those in which there are few of them. It is observably the case that American blacks score, as an aggregate, about 15 points – one standard deviation – lower on intelligence tests than American whites. Moreover, the fantasies of the rosy-glassed notwithstanding, these are not “cultural artifacts.” They are patterns that have been repeated throughout recorded history and are equally observable in every other nation with a significant black population.

     Given all the above – and whether you like it or not, those are facts, not the venom-drenched snarls of a Ku Klux Klansman – why, when South Africa rejected white rule and transitioned to a majority-black power structure, should we have expected that the Euro-American norms the white governments had maintained would continue? For it is not “equality,” an unattainable condition except in the very shortest of short terms, that the blacks of Africa desire, but the assuagement of their envy, to wit: to pull down the whites for daring to outperform them.


     The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge. In the French Revolution of 1848, a woman coal-heaver is said to have remarked to a richly dressed lady: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now; I shall go in silks and you’ll carry coal.”

     [Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty ]

     Envy is ineluctable, implacable and irreconcilable, is irritated by the slightest differences, is independent of the degree of inequality, appears in its worst form in social proximity among near relatives, provides the dynamic for every revolution yet cannot of itself produce any kind of coherent revolutionary program.

     [Helmut Schoeck, Envy]

     Envy is a form of hatred. It’s the capital sin of which few, if any in our time, dare to speak. Leftist activists mouth platitudes about “equality” and “social justice” as camouflage for their designs, when what really moves them is their envy and the envy of those for whom they claim to speak. Some of them are merely deluded, though they’re dangerous nonetheless. The rest employ their pearly phrases to conceal a drive for power, status, and their perquisites. Those who kowtow to them can be partitioned into two groups: persons unable to believe in their right to what they have earned, and Democrats.

     Envy is particularly valuable to that second group. They pander to it, hoping to excite it sufficiently that the envious will raise them to power. Thomas Babington Macaulay knew it:

     The day will come when [in the United States] a multitude of people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman?

     [From a letter from Macaulay to H. S. Randall of New York. Emphasis added by FWP.]

     But who envies? Not everyone. Not necessarily Macaulay’s “workman.” For many a decade the American most scrupulous about the property rights of all Americans, high or low, was the blue-collar workman or laborer. Indeed, many such workmen, perhaps most, are still of that mind today. And well they should be, for they know from experience that no gain of any sort can be had without hard work directed toward a good end. Their pride in their attainments, however modest, is well justified.

     No, the naturally envious man is of another cut.


     It’s time for a little C. S. Lewis:

     Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won't. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

     You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

     The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

     The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

     And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, lah-di-dah affectation. Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here's a man who hasn't turned on the jukebox — he's one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they'd be like me. They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic.”

     [From Screwtape Proposes A Toast]

     Note that the word envy does not appear in the Lewis passage above. He speaks of the resentment of those who know themselves to be inferior in some regard. But this is envy’s natural habitat. Demagogues know it and play to it. They seize upon Thomas Jefferson’s stirring declaration that “all men are created equal” – by which he meant that we must be equals before the law, not in any other sense – and treat it as meaning that all of us “should be equal:” in attainments, in income, in property, and (may God save us from our follies) in dignity and others’ esteem.

     It’s an impossibility...but impossibilities are the stock in trade of the demagogue and always have been, which is why guillotines always appear in their wake.


     Not every man who envies – i.e., who hates others who have what he does not and would like to see them brought down – is an absolute inferior. Some have drive but lack talent, or the reverse. Some are without direction, and therefore never “get started.” And some, it must be said, are merely unlucky: not in the right place at the right time, and so are unable to put their gifts to their best use.

     None of these things, including unquestionable inferiority of talent, drive, direction, and good fortune, justifies envy. Of the seven capital sins, envy is by far the most likely to be capitalized upon: i.e., to propel action intended to assuage itself. That’s why it’s the only emotion forbidden by the Decalogue: Thou shalt not covet!

     But that will never deter the demagogues. They’d rather be shorn of their genitals than refrain from the excitation and exploitation of envy. For they are the ones best poised to reap an actual profit from that exploitation.

     One more quote, if I haven’t yet exhausted your patience with the previous ones. This one is from Katherine Anne Porter’s magnificent short story “Flowering Judas.” Hearken to her mini-portrait of “revolutionist” Braggioni:

     Braggioni loves himself with such tenderness and amplitude and eternal charity that his followers—for he is a leader of men, a skilled revolutionist, and his skin has been punctured in honorable warfare—warm themselves in the reflected glow, and say to each other: ‘He has a real nobility, a love of humanity raised above mere personal affections.’ The excess of this self-love has flowed out, inconveniently for her, over Laura, who, with so many others, owes her comfortable situation and her salary to him. When he is in a very good humor, he tells her, ‘I am tempted to forgive you for being a gringa. Gringita!’ and Laura, burning, imagines herself leaning forward suddenly, and with a sound back-handed slap wiping the suety smile from his face. If he notices her eyes at these moments he gives no sign....

     ....He bulges marvelously in his expensive garments. Over his lavender collar, crushed upon a purple necktie, held by a diamond hoop: over his ammunition belt of tooled leather worked in silver, buckled cruelly around his gasping middle: over the tops of his glossy yellow shoes Braggioni swells with ominous ripeness, his mauve silk hose stretched taut, his ankles bound with the stout leather thongs of his shoes.

     When he stretches his eyelids at Laura she notes again that his eyes are the true tawny yellow cat's eyes. He is rich, not in money, he tells her, but in power, and this power brings with it the blameless ownership of things, and the right to indulge his love of small luxuries. ‘I have a taste for the elegant refinements,’ he said once, flourishing a yellow silk handkerchief before her nose. ‘Smell that? It is Jockey Club, imported from New York.’

     The wealth the envious imagine themselves seizing from “the rich” invariably flows to the Braggionis of the world.


     Writing about this subject leaves me gloomy. It chafes me particularly to do so in Advent, when all Christian souls should be preparing themselves for the coming of the Christ Child. But that doesn’t diminish its importance, nor the imperative with which it ought to command the attention of every man of good will. Indeed, a decent definition of man of good will would run “One who despises envy, and would have none of it in himself or others.”

     The article about the South African devolution is only part of the reason it was on my mind at this time. I’ve recently seen and heard fresh demonstrations of envy and envy-powered resentment among the very people I’m supposed to act charitably toward, as a Christian should. Some of those demonstrations occurred even as those “poor people” were receiving assistance from their better-off neighbors.

     I shan’t draw the moral for you, Gentle Reader. If you weren’t intelligent enough to see it for yourself, you wouldn’t be a patron of Liberty’s Torch.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Monday, August 20, 2018

Envy Part 2: Preventing Envy-Powered Insurrection

     “You know, the Force has got a lot of power, but what makes you think it gives a shit about you? Who are you, anyway?” – Joe Jackson, “TV Age”

     The evidence is clear: demagogues, identity-politics hustlers, racialists, ethnicists, and feminists are striving to foment an uprising against the American order. Their principal fuel for the outrages they elicit is envy.

     The campaign for power through envy has deep roots. Those roots have struck through several institutions of importance to American society.

     The institutions of particular importance in this regard are:

  1. Government-run and government-funded education at all levels;
  2. The legacy news media, both print and broadcast or cablecast;
  3. The majority of Christian parishes.

     (Believe me, Gentle Reader: penning entry #3 cost me quite a lot of pain. But truth demands it.)

     So far today, I haven’t told anyone attentive to contemporary trends something he didn’t already know. But such persons might not be aware of how frequently and unnecessarily they submit themselves and their dependents to the influence of those institutions.

     I’m sure I don’t need to dwell on the details. What’s most salient here is that there are alternatives, they are preferable, and the impact on the American future of a massive turning away from the corrupted institutions could be enormous.


     The gradual flowering of alternative educational institutions and services has largely gone unremarked in the press. Oh, they’ll deign to take notice when there’s a scandal, such as has beset a couple of the online universities. And now and then we’ll see an article that deplores the steady rise in homeschooling as somehow inimical to children’s “socialization.” But sober reportage about non-government-organized, non-government-funded schools and training centers is virtually nil.

     Nevertheless, they’re out there...and many American employers have noticed how effective they are at turning out young adults ready for adult responsibilities.

     Homeschooling involves sacrifice. The family that practices it must be sufficiently dedicated to its children for one spouse to forgo wage employment. In today’s America that comes at a significant price. The homeschooling family, unless the breadwinner is one of a very fortunate few, will forfeit access to a number of luxuries other families enjoy.

     But homeschooled children learn. One of the things they learn, in part by virtue of being with their own families at a time when other children are packed together with strangers, is that what others have is irrelevant to their lives – that what matters is their own preparation for life as an adult in a free society. Also, they learn far better than their government-schooled coevals that their parents love them. Verbum sat sapienti.


     Despite the emergence of alternative sources of news and opinion via the Internet, the legacy media still maintain a grip on the minds and sentiments of millions of Americans. As they march lockstep in an anti-American, left-liberal direction, their influence on their consumers is baleful. By emphasizing various manifestations of identity politics and other aspects of the “social justice” phenomenon, they lend legitimacy to the notion that how others are doing is more important to you than how you’re doing and what you could do to improve on it. While any information outlet can fall into this trap and many newer ones do, the legacy media are almost entirely mired in it. Indeed, they’ve embraced it.


     Schliemann took his duties seriously. His vision of those duties was clear, and quite at odds with the notions of most newer priests. He had little patience for the social-activist clergymen, whatever their denomination. They seemed to want to make their churches into gathering places for the envious and self-pitying. They were infinitely willing to use politics to impose their visions of good upon others. Father Heinrich Schliemann led no marches, signed no petitions, and never talked politics. While the prelates of the American Church tacitly permitted the social-activist priests to convert the legacy of Saint Peter into a stained-glass staging area for the crusades of special interest groups, the pastor of Onteora parish remained exclusively a man of God.

     [From On Broken Wings]

     Such parishes still exist. They can be difficult to find, as they tend not to “advertise.” Moreover, affiliating with one can involve driving a significant distance. But they’re out there, and they offer a healthful alternative to the heavily politicized parishes and churches that characterize Christianity in America today.

     The problem in the typical politicized parish arises through infiltration. Parish X might be entirely sound, until Father Y arrives. Father Y is a recent graduate of the seminary. He’s been subjected to a politicized education comparable to what children receive in government-run schools: nominally about his faith and the duties of a priest, but more candidly about how to conform his preachments and practices to the Causes approved by the left-liberals and homosexuals who run the seminary. And he has absorbed the lesson and made it his own.

     Father Y proves popular, for two reasons. First, he’s younger than the other clergy and therefore has an edge in dynamism. Second, he’s telling congregation X something a lot more palatable than traditional Christian teaching: he’s telling the communicants that what matters most is not how they behave toward one another but how they vote. All those “thou shalt nots” get shoved to the back of the stove...especially the ones about covetousness. Pretty soon the older priests find themselves under pressure to conform to Father Y’s methods and messages, as they “fill the pews and the collection baskets.”

     Though I’ve written about a fictional, nominally Catholic parish in the above, the model applies equally well to Protestant congregations.

     Once again, there are alternatives, and don’t let anyone tell you differently. Among others, there are private prayer and scriptural study groups. While such groups can’t administer the sacraments validly, they can offset the influence of a politicized pulpit. Moreover, it must be remembered that God does not judge us according to what parish or sect we belong to. He judges our souls, individually — and he who studies the Gospels and strives to the best of his ability to live according to Christ’s teachings will have no problem in the next life.


     Allow me a brief digression for the sake of validating the snarky Joe Jackson quote at the head of this piece.

     The emergence of a weird neo-pagan subculture whose devotees openly believe in magic, elves, dwarves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, and so forth, and in pseudo-religions such as George Lucas’s “Force” correlates strongly with the politicization of the mainline Christian churches. Like it or not, people have a need to believe in powers greater than those of the temporal realm. Take God away from them and they’ll find a substitute. The Communists have known this for a century; why don’t we?

     Popular culture has a lot to do with the phenomenon, of course. Video entertainments are buttressed by commercial tie-ins and other efflorescences that perpetuate the messages in the films and TV shows. When such things are pervasive, impressionable young minds can succumb to the notion that these fantasies have substance.

     Parents must involve themselves in counteraction. Entertainment is all very well. Entertainment that stretches the mind is valuable. But it must be confined to its proper place. In particular, it must not be permitted to engender cults, loyalty to which becomes dogmatic and church-like.

     J. R. R. Tolkien, the creator of the finest fantasy of all time, was reluctant to publish The Silmarillion because he saw what the cultism around The Lord of the Rings was doing. Professor Tolkien, a devout Catholic, understood the danger involved. American parents should understand it too.


     “There’s only one way to improve society. Present it with a single improved member: yourself.” – Albert Jay Nock

     If envy and the resentment of those who are “doing better’ can be prevented from taking root in young Americans, political movements that are powered by envy can be starved of allegiants. Granted that this would take time. Granted that immediate relief from the caterwaulings of the gimme-groups is not in prospect. But the American future is important, too. The violence and intimidation being practiced by envy-fueled forces will go on for as long as We the Decent and Ultimately Responsible treat the problem as “somebody else’s.”

     What part of the effort will you accept, Gentle Reader?