On laughing from "social calmative re-distribution"

Dear Dr. Bones,
Those who are content to speak loosely about the political unconscious of strangers in their pænultimate paragraphs

...[S]ocial Darwinism loosely speaking describes the political unconscious of most centrist liberalism as well, even or especially in its superficially atheistic versions, the main difference being that social liberals are more interested in softening the sharp edges of free market implementation and operation, or in appearing to do so, accepting the trade-off against market efficiency a la Saint Hayek, and taking it on faithless faith that enough of the social surplus will remain indefinitely relatively painlessly available from the winners for adequately social calmative re-distribution to the losers

will doubtless (?) be rewarded in that piecolour-skied World to Come held out to us by religionators.

Meanwhile, closer to home, a little judicious persecution from time to time ought to strengthen the breed by culling the herd. Speaking of cullable herds, it looks to Paddy McTammany as if Bozoe, zeroth Freedame Zombie in the peerage of Foxcuckooland, here aspires to festoon every other substantive she ever learned with "‘social’ qualification." ¿Do you suppose this odd neo-tic could be related to Tweetbook, & Faceless Facer, & a’ that other pious viennasausage the youngkers are into nowadays?

Speaking of Vienna, Freedame Bozoe is maybe a little disrespectful of Freddy, Freelord of Hayek, though she does not uncover enough of her own intellectual foundation to permit a satisfactory examination and diagnosis. She seems to be sneerin’ here that his late freemightiness assumed that the warm days, mammonologically speaking, will never end. This I guess poor Freddy in fact did in fact do, but hardly more than anybooby else unto whom his freelordship might sanely be likened. Whole-hog--or maybe make that "lean-kine"--Malthus groupies are not easy to find. I betcha a thorough search would turn up only a tiny percentage of ’em at any place or time you care to specify since ‘we’ first discovered (or, as the case may be, invented) Social Agriculture. Viewed from very far away, ‘we’ may all indeed look like witless Panglossoids, but it has to be from VERY far away that one looks.. West Neptune might do, or the court of Princess Posterity in, say, Anno Religionismi 2001-2563-6323.

Up to now, it has always been quight whight to bet against any really devastating set-backs, disasters to social acquisition so g*reawful that the subsequent Dark Ages would not be lit even by fire. As it were. The Rev. Mathus himself did not, as I recall, look forward to anything so socially challengin’ as that. Thus Freddy Hayek fans can always plead Communis error facit ius, "A mistake everybooby makes is not a mistake," if all else fails. Though should ALL else fail, probably the charges will be dropped anyway, in social effect if perhaps not officially.

Such is the plainest way to understand Freedame Bozoe, though ‘plain’ must be a bit of a sarcasm in the absence of any social glimmer of a reason WHY "the social surplus will" should not "remain indefinitely relatively painlessly available." The Muses, sir, and yourself, and Paddy McTammany too, are not bound by her freeladyship’s Party soundbark "¡History is bunk!" and may accordingly recall that back in Ye Goode Olde Dayes, First- an’ Second-Estaters had serious trouble defendin’ their lives, their social honour, an’ (above all) their Sacred Social Property against the undersurplussed mob on only the rarest of occasions. Such occasions are very prominent in the books, but only because they are not the least bit typical.

Typical is social-boring. I mean, sir, ¿Would you be all agog to read a new mystery novel called something like The Morning of Roger Ackroyd? [1] ¡Imagine the incomparably social-vivid climax, a second (¡!) plain croissant chez Dunking Doughnuts . . . !

There is also the remote possibility that Freedame Bozoe has not much use for Freelord Freddy because of his disreligion. If you will look at her freeladyship's ultimate paragraph, you will find "Satanic Marxist" keyboarded with (one must presume) straight face, an' blue nose, an' pursed lips. (Crucifix an' garlic are optional.) For some reason that would be worth figuring out, most Daughters of Virtue and/or Sons of Wisdom Classy enough to maybe qualifuy as ‘conservative’ ‘intellectuals’ do not appear to notice atheism in their factional heroes, provided Neocomrade Heroe be whighteous on every other point. Poor Freddy could hardly have his ‘Satanism’ plainer, and of course anybooby who supposes himself a Hayekian but at the same time upposes Darwinian Darwinism to be anythin’ short of a settled truth, is a booby indeed. The woods of Foxcuckooland are chock-full of ’em, though probably not one in twenty will be able to recite on Die Verfassung der Freiheit adequately cum vix Justa sit secura. [2]

So, then: if Freedame Bozoe has indeed noticed that Freelord Freddy was a heathen, she is bestembrighter than almost all of their Party neocomrades. However, since her freeladyship does not actually say this, I am not sure you should award the bonus points. It could easily be that her freeladyship simply does not care to say "Freiherr von Hayek did not, of course, believe in the Providence of Father Zeus" where the servants might overhear an’ maybe get ideas above their station in the present life. There is a lot of that brand of self-censorship goin’ on higher up the slippery slopes over around Castle Podhòretz

A sayer might (be whight to borrow the freeladylike pet epithet and) say that her freeladyship is "a social Antisatanist," as opposed to bein’ a dogmatic-mythological Antisatanist such as Master Wally Wombschool an' the lovely Cindy from Wasilla presumably are. [3]

Happy days.
--JHM

(( N.B. -- I know this letter has nothing to do with our deal old MA, but I am parking it here temporarily anyway to get the

Quote-of-Many-Colors

effect. Probably I will truss up all the bags and baggage and move to WordPress, but I have not quite decided about the details. Please advise. ))



___
[1] Tot critici, tot sententiæ, to be sure. In this case, however, I am talking about you personally, sir, not about ‘one’. A person, that is, who has already agreed with Paddy to admire the late Rev. Chesterton’s remark "In fact, a baby is about the only person, I should think, to whom a modern realistic novel could be read without boring him."

On the supply side, though, a potboiler might find a niche market amongst Freedame Bozoe an’ her peeresses if you us "The Social Morning of Roger Ackroyd." Or for that matter, ¿why not "The Social Murder of R. A."?


[2] "Thank you, Mr. Justice Holmes"


[3] Paddy finds it a little challenging to imagine her freeladyship at once (A) a mythologically correct Christojudæan of some known sect or cult, and (B) a Malthusian or plus-quam-Malthusian who looks forward to a State of Postnature, as it were, that shall feature Nie wider Sozialüberschuss.

One might think the Rev. Malthus himself raises the same difficulty, but I believe not. You are to remember that Malthus expected "moral restraint" to save us from the very worst. That Malthus really did seriously expect that. Bozoe, Freedame Zombie, may have some comparable ace up the freeladylike sleeve, but there is no sign of it here.