Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Orwell and Evelyn Waugh...An English Literary Odd Couple

Allen Barra, LA Times

...Lebedoff writes that what they had in common "was a hatred of moral relativism. They both believed that morality is absolute, though they defined and applied it differently. But each believed with all his heart, brain and soul that there were such things as moral right and moral wrong, and that these were not subject to changes in fashion."

Orwell defended "Brideshead Revisited" from a left-wing attack in the Times Literary Supplement by arguing that the reviewer missed the essential theme of the book, "the collision between ordinary decent behavior and the Catholic concept of good and evil." Or as Orwell put it in a final, unfinished essay, what Waugh was trying to do in his fiction was "to use the feverish, culture-less modern world as a set-off for his own conception of a good and stable way of life."

As much could be said for "1984" or "Animal Farm," and Waugh came close to saying it.

"I think it possible," he wrote to Orwell in 1950, "that in 1984 we shall be living in conditions rather like those you show." Of course, as Lebedoff points out, one of the reasons we're not living under such conditions is that "1984" was so powerful in helping prevent the future it described.

"Evelyn Waugh wrote against the tide," Lebedoff concludes, "as steadfastly as did George Orwell, and in their wake is our path." This may be overstating the case, but the peace that Orwell and Waugh found with each other suggests a common ground for liberals and conservatives of today...Read it all

 Crocodile tears?--->Who they are ...who he is, this "icon" who laudably wants "to change the world" by eliminating nuclear weapons and wars as obsolete. Wars he says only "bomb our customers"---even as he praises Paul Erlich and population control, which he defines as possible while maintaining "our" standard of living; but he says there are some 5 billion people too many now (not any of his friends!). Oh, and "Print" (books and newspapers) he says is going to "go away pretty fast". This is not all confused, pernicious thinking? Wouldn't eliminating wars and the global arms trade leave us plenty for the peoples (and books) he would rid the world of, this man? And can the Jewish sponsors here really approve this (pill and knife) jet-set agenda?

Along similar lines: Why is it that the political Left, while rightly decrying the unbridled greed of the multinational corporations, leaves one global transnational untouchable...Planned Parenthood? Is it not bloody? as well as immensely profitable ---and aided by the G-20 powers?

--->Disability Rights Advocate, Stephen Drake, writes, "I can't explain the feelings that go through me when Robert Latimer surfaces in the news again. Robert Latimer's murder of his daughter Tracy was pivotal in getting my attention directed at the euthanasia movement and in providing a solid foundation for my opposition to the movement...

--->Europeans Push Global Tax to Fund Poverty-Reduction, Climate Change Causes. "Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes.

Note: I am all for global poverty reduction
, but from nations, not from a global taxing authority which paves the way for global government. If a global authority can tax and enforce all nations, it by definition rules to that extent, and one can expect expansive assertions of global authority after that. A voluntary taxing program at national levels would cumulatively work just as well while posing no threat to the sovereignty of the nation-state.

--->EU Continues to Press Attack: "Italian Officials Impound Funds, Launch Money-Laundering Probe of Vatican Bank," striking directly at ability of Church to carry out global mission ---by Robert Moynihan, in Rome...

We should not forget that right after the Lisbon Treaty was strong-armed into ratification after the Irish initially said No, the first thing to happen was that the Cross was tellingly banned. Only one Name is not allowed on television, except as a swear word---the Name of Jesus. The whole rest of the pagan pantheon is welcome but not Him, just as in the days of imperial Rome, which appears to be the template of the New globalized economy.

--->Update: Vatican newspaper: Bank trouble
could be resolved quickly

Speaking of banks, when will we audit the Fed, and Greenspan and the boys who've made a killing (both literal and metaphorical) all over the globe with unaccounted for taxpayer money---trillions!?

Update to Moynihan story, 9/22: The plot thickens. Scroll to bottom of the report, "Next Day Postcript...An Odd Deletion"?, or, why we need print, not electronic NYT media.

--->Revisited: John Paul II, journalist said, feared Bush may have been eschatological antichrist, had keen sense of "last days"...

I am hoping that if and when you download any materials you consider helpful from this and other sites you will forward these to young people who will be most impacted in the decades to come after many of us are gone. Young people today need assistance in discerning facts from the media-'educational' spin-matrix. It is mostly them I have in mind when I cite sources and write. Thank you---Stephen Hand.