To continue...
Again, the casual and matter-of-fact manner in which the potential "nuking" of
Looking for solace, I turn (as ever) to literature. A week or so ago I sat down and re-read Conrad's brief but brilliant novella The Heart of Darkness. In prose as dense as the Congolese jungles he was describing, Conrad weaves a tale of colonialism, of European imperialism, of Romanticism run amok. Towards the end of the book, Mr. Kurtz (the man the narrator of the story was sent up the river to bring back) was described this way:
"All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz;...He had faith--don't you see?--he had the faith. He could get himself to believe anything--anything. He would have been a splendid leader of an extreme party..."
And I thought of
It is generally conceded in the press (which has shown itself to have a vital interest in stoking bloodlust) that
I am far more concerned about the hardening of the average American's heart than I am about the potential of an Iranian attack upon U.S. soil. I find the very notion of such an attack ludicrous beyond words. The hardness of our collective hearts disturbs me and I find that I am at a loss to understand how we got to where we are today. When I was in college (late 1970's, early 1980's), people who spoke nonchalantly about nuclear war were typically regarded as "kooks" and "nut cases" and generally ignored. I could never understand what Jimmy Carter saw in that rabid Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski. Of course, back then, everyone understood that the enemies du jour (the Russians and the Communist Chinese) had nuclear arsenals themselves--and could do to us what we could do to them. The Cold War's status quo had a lovely acronym: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Kurtz, Conrad tells us, was mad and his methods were unsound. "His was an impenetrable darkness." I cannot seem to shake the apprehension that his spirit is now abroad in our land. Where is the voice of conscience? Where is the Christian church? Why aren't Christian ministers and priests and preachers coming forward to intervene?
About a year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. began speaking out on issues of war and peace. Perhaps that is what finally sealed his fate.
I have decided that, this summer, two books will be indispensable: The Modern Library Edition of the Complete Works of Tacitus (available in paper for about $13.00) and the Library of America's Hardcover edition of the complete works of Walt Whitman (entitled Walt Whitman: Poetry and Prose and marked down about 40% to a mere $22 at Amazon). The hardcover edition of Whitman is to be preferred because this one is for the long haul. It is the American scripture.
The ascerbic commentary of Tacitus on the cowardice and stupidity of people who sold their freedom for "security" could not be more timely reading for an American today.
On the other side of the coin is Whitman--Bard of an
1 Comments:
It is always good to hear from the Saint who (by the way) is an accomplished poet and (if I may make a personal suggestion here) should consider launching a web site to further publish his poems. That said, I fear that any organization with a name like "spiritual progressives" will never galvanize into a bona fide movement that is likely to have any real impact on ... what exactly do they hope to have an impact on? Such a name is felicitous insofar as it tells us much about the state of play today among so-called "progressive" people of faith in this country. They are hard at work paving the road to hell with their best intentions. Here's how I see things (lately): I don't think that any of us who lived through the "Reagan Revolution" really understood exactly what was happening in this country during the 1970's. I know I didn't. When Reagan was elected in 1980, I saw the rise of the Republican party as part of a natural political correction--a swinging of the pendulum--and not at all what it turned out to be: the Great Revanchement of Nixon's WASP and WASP-Wanna-Be "Silent Majority." The real irony of the situation is that, though Nixon named them, this group of Americans really didn't belong to him. They belonged to Goldwater and then to Reagan. But most of all, they belonged to themselves and their tolerance for those not like them has been historically (and remains) limited to those not like them who nevertheless wish that they were like them (and are willing to support their programs and objectives in the hope of receiving a little quid pro quo). I'm sure that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know (or anything that you wouldn't expect to hear from me anyway), so let me cut to the chase and say what it is that I think we need: Americans Awake to the Threat of Neo-Fascism--because that is the devil we are up against and it is time we begin to say it out loud and often. Neo-Fascism. The Gang of Four and their allies are Neo-Fascists. They need to be opposed with the same moral vigor that National Socialism and Fascism needed to be opposed in the 1930's--and they need to be opposed not by people of faith or spiritual progressives who happen to be Americans (because that sort of identity politics has really very little purchase with the vast majority of people of good will in this country and so it is a non-starter) but by Americans who believe in an America that never was but could be--Whitman's America. My only complaint about the Curtis White article in Harper's that you put me on to a month or so ago is that, in my opinion, White did not go far enough. We are, none of us, ever ready for Whitman; but we all must get ready, because night is falling.
Post a Comment
<< Home