Poems I Like: A Ballade of Ephemeral Controversy by G.K. Chesterton

Chesterton wrote a lot of mediocre poetry, as well as a good few absolutely first class poems. But here's a poem I wouldn't place in either category. It's completely obscure, but it expresses thoughts and aspirations which are very familiar to me. I don't understand the "Hists" reference.

I don't think it is a great poem, but I do think it has one truly great line. Can you guess which one I mean?

A Ballade of Ephemeral Controversy by GK Chesterton

I am not as that Poet that arrives,
Nor shall I pluck the laurel that persists
Through all perverted ages and revives:
Enough for me, that if with feet and fists
I fought these pharisaic atheists,
I need not crawl and seek when all is done
My motley pennon trampled in the lists
It will not matter when the fight is won.

If scratch of mine amid a war of knives
Has caused one moment's pain to pessimists,
Poisoned one hour in Social Workers' lives,
I count such comfort more than amethysts
But less than claret, and at after trysts
We'll meet and drink such claret by the tun
Till you and I and all of us (What? Hists!).
It will not matter when the fight is won.

When men again want women for their wives,
And even woman owns that she exists,
When people ask for houses and not hives
When we have climbed the tortured ivy's twists
To where like statues stand above the mists
The strong incredible sanities of the sun,
This dazed and overdriven bard desists.
It will not matter when the fight is won.

Envoi

Prince, let me place these handcuffs on your wrists
While common Christian people get some fun,
Then go and join your damned Theosophists.
It will not matter when the fight is won.

Why Does the Left Oppose "Imperialism"?

I'm reading a book about a left-wing activist (A long-dead, pre-woke left-wing activist.)

The book, however, has been written recently so it uses contemporary leftist rhetoric. It repeatedly uses the word "imperialist".

I always find myself wondering why the (contemporary) left would oppose imperialism.

Is it because they think power should be devolved, that everyone should be governed by rulers who live close to them rather than rulers who live far away? Is it a sort of localism?

That sounds plausible...except the left is overwhelmingly in favour of supranational institutions like the EU, the WHO, the UN, etc. etc. Just look at the meltdown they had about Brexit.

So do the left oppose imperialism because they think people should be self-governing and not ruled by an alien government?

But what could this possibly mean according to the leftist worldview? The whole idea of an allegiance that is based on anything particularistic-- religion, language, ethnicity, folkways-- is anathema to the left. According to the left, the only permissible bond, on a societal level, is common humanity. (Even while they push identity-based grievances, this remains true.)

So how can the left possibly oppose imperialism? On what grounds? I don't get it.

Two Definitions

A Marxist: Someone who is infinitely cynical about existing institutions and infinitely credulous about future institutions.

Nationality: Something that you can't find when you go looking for it, but that rugby-tackles you when you're not looking for it.

Painted Rocks and Re-Enchantment

A few years ago, when I still lived in a house with a garden, I discovered a rock painted as a ladybird hidden under the grass. It was one of several painted rocks hidden there.

I didn't realize at the time (although I was quickly told) that this is part of a trend.

My own belief is that the path to societal re-enchantment lies in Christianity.

But I think delightful little actions like this are re-enchanting in themselves-- guerilla warfare of re-enchantment, so to speak. (Painted electricity boxes are another example.)

Why Isn't the Universe Boring?

I mentioned YouTuber Joe Schmid recent conversion (or reversion) to Catholicism, and the epic seven-hour video he made on the cumulative case for God. (One of only three videos explaining his conversion, which total twenty-five hours.)

I'm working my way through it bit by bit, but I was particularly struck by this section, in which he asks why the universe, if it's "just there", isn't a lot more boring. I've often wondered this myself.

Whenever I've found myself pondering this, I've imagined the universe as an endless block of steel extending in every directions

Here are some of Schmid's suggestions of how the universe might have been (I've modified things I don't understand):

No concrete objects exist.

Only one particle exists.

One particle moves in a straight line forever (or a circle, etc.)

One particle periodically enters into an excited state.

Exactly two particles exist and orbit their common centre.

And he then says: "I could do this forever". Indeed.

Atheists put so much weight on evolution that it doesn't seem to occur to them that even for evolution to occur, the universe had to be a dynamic, rule-governed, complex reality.

To which the atheist might reply: "Well, it just is."

Which reminds me of Fr. Frederick Copleston's reply to Bertrand Russell, in a radio debate on the existence of God, when Russell was sticking to the "arms folded and sitting back" position: "If one refuses to even sit down at the chessboard and make a move, one cannot be checkmated."

My Hipster Cartoon

 

Yes

 I completely agree with this Daily Wire article. The death of the monoculture is a good thing.

I can vividly remember how monolithic pop culture was in my childhood. It was a bad thing. It was a homogenizing, standardizing, deadening force.

Folk culture was dissipating, high culture was almost a memory, but everybody talked about the same TV shows and films and music and toys.

In a small country like Ireland, this could be quite cosy, insofar as it was Irish pop culture that was uniting people. But it mostly wasn't.

Also, people were generally led into same sociopolitical talking points. 

There's lots to decry about the internet, but the shattering of the pop culture straitjacket is not one of them.