The World Health Organization

by Baidu Wercs Lee

The WHO has praised Beijing’s response to COVID-19’s spread,
despite the fact of all the many thousands that are dead.
The Chinese first detected it November 17,
then tried to hide the outbreak, whistleblowers silencing.

A study by Southhampton University found they
could have prevented 95% o’ th’ Wu Flu plague,
since China put their secrecy above confronting truth,
and still refuses to acknowledge all they did not do.

And WHO was covering for them—the Chinese Communists—
at first denying humans spread the Wu Flu—there’s no risk—
and when conceding it was possible, WHO played it down,
and of asymptomatic transfers claimed there was some doubt.

WHO cast doubt too the Wu Flu came from Chinese animals,
commending China’s attitudes—No, they weren’t damnable.
In March, the Chinese claimed it came from US Army plans.
To call it Chinese, WHO said, it would stigmatize the land.

WHO even said that China had contained the dread disease,
believing data sanctioned by the tyrant Xi Jinping.
We are so lucky to have WHO’s great information wealth,
to know that they are working overtime for World health.

 

 

 

NOTE TO READERS: If you enjoyed this poem or other content, please consider making a donation to the Society of Classical Poets.

The Society of Classical Poets does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or commentary.


CODEC Stories:

61 Responses

  1. C.B. Anderson

    I thought the final couplet of this poem was precious in its exquisite irony, but everything before that was a rather bumpy ride for me. Assonance rhymes don’t do much for, and have little appeal to, me.

    Reply
      • Monty

        To say that “nobody really cares” what appeals to the previous commenter would indicate that you know personally all the other readers of this thread, you’ve been in touch with them all, and they’ve all indeed confirmed with you that they “don’t really care” what appeals to him.

        As this is obviously not the case, would you care to apologise to the previous commenter for patently lying to him; and would you also care to admit to all the other readers of this post that it was only you – and you alone – who “didn’t really care”?

        When folks purposely misuse words in this way – saying ‘we don’t care’ when it should be ‘I don’t care’ – it’s normally an indication that they haven’t got any real confidence or conviction with what they’re saying; hence they falsely try to make it appear that others are in agreement with them, hoping it’ll give their words a bit more weight.

        It’s an oft-used trick, and it’s as old as the hills (I first became aware of it when I was still in my mum’s womb): so don’t think you’ll ever get away with such a cheap shot on these pages. You won’t.

        And regarding the fact that said commenter made a perfectly legitimate and valid reference to the blatant inconsistency of rhyming in the above piece . . I feel it’d be rather fitting to leave you with the words of R. Zimmerman: ‘Don’t criticise what you can’t understand’.

      • C.B. Anderson

        I’ll be happy to do that, if you will endeavor to grow a cerebral cortex.

    • Baidu Wercs Lee

      One of Wise’s favourite American poets is Emily Dickinson. Though he learned poetic techniques from other American writers, like Poe, Longfellow, Whitman, H. Crane, T. S. Eliot, Pound, Williams, Frost, Cummings, Ginsberg and Lowell, still it is from her that he learned to use approximate rhyme (used for various reasons, including dissonance, surprise and freedom) and to trust the ballad. Without a doubt there is no New Millennial poet’s works who have reached him as deeply as have the poems of the Amherst recluse.

      Reply
      • C.B. Anderson

        Hitch your wagon to Emily’s star if you like, Baidu, but I find much of her material virtually unreadable as well. She was sloppy and over-fond of the dash, a spinster who likely contributed to the extermination of whales, perhaps due to her failure to corral her own Moby Dick.

      • Bruce Dale Wise

        1. Ah, Melville, ah humanity! I love the verbal textures of his short stories and his novels. In some ways, I draw from his “Battle-Pieces”, and Whitman’s “Drum Taps”, too.

        2. It is true Dickinson admired Emerson’s work more than I do. He was an inspiration to her.

        3. Yes, Dickinson is the master of—the dash. I know Mr. Phillips doesn’t like the dash either.

        4. Dickinson’s writing is hardly sloppy. Her precision is not only hard to attain, but it is hard to maintain. This is not to say Dickinson’s writing doesn’t have flaws; name one writer who doesn’t have any flaws. Ironically, at least from Mr. Anderson’s comment, from my point of view, I wish she had pursued “Moby Dick”. SCP’s attack on Descartes’ clear and distinct prose shows that SCP commenters are not averse to attacking even the best of writers, e.g., MacKenzie and Hartley in various strands.

        5. All this being said, she is not my favourite poet—just among the Americans. In English poetry, Shakespeare—mainly in his plays—remains my favourite.

    • Lew Icarus Bede

      I suspect Mr. Lee is thankful for Mr. Anderson’s critique of his rhyme, mainly because it is one of his major flaws as a poet: his propensity for rhyme. In short, he uses way too much. Take a poem, like “Doctor WHO?” Not only does he have the constant flow of rhymes (exact, assonantal, etc.) at the end of each couplet; but throughout the poem (as is his usual practice) he uses internal and interlinear rhymes, like Wu Flu, and the long echoic phrases, November 17/ whistleblowers silencing. In addition, he indulges in all kinds of poetic devices, such as repetition (often for rhetorical purposes), alliteration, and puns, to mention only three. So I suspect, in a world of irony, that Mr. Lee enjoys being accused for not doing the very thing he thinks he does too much.

      Reply
  2. Damian Robin

    Hi BC Wise – You are indeed wise and have opened my eyes — though I’m stuck on the name in my frame of mind. But thanks for your words – revealing and kind.

    https://www.ntd.com/giving-the-right-name-to-the-virus-caus…

    “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet.”
    ― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

    “What’s the name? – The CCP virus

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know from where it came.
    This bugger bug gets up your nose
    The CCP’s the same.

    Remember SARS, the hidden shame
    Of Party faking facts.
    This mongrel mugger’s much the same,
    Will CCP face facts?

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    From near a lab it came.
    Something fishy, this up-throws,
    The Party’s words flip lame.

    Remember organ harvesting
    In hospitals now full.
    The Party is still in-vesting
    In saying this is null.

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know it was Wuhan.
    We know the Party will impose
    Any Christening ban.

    Remember Uyghur education
    Preempting their wrong thoughts
    And dissidents’ dis-information
    In bleak dis-graceful courts.

    We knows from whence this bug arose,
    We know from where it came.
    This bugger bug gets up your nose
    The CCP’s the same.”

    ― Wimmian Shakebin, Roamer and Judicial balladeer

    Reply
    • Monty

      We don’t put the word ‘from’ before ‘whence’, because ‘whence’ means ‘from where’. To put ‘from’ in front of ‘whence’ is like saying ‘from from where’!

      It’s correct usage is: ‘Send him back whence he came’.

      Reply
      • Joe Tessitore

        I used it once – “from whence they come, where e’er they go” – and learned from Mr. Anderson and Dr. Salemi that it’s a tautology.

        I’ve also learned that Mr. Wise is a master grammarian as well, and was probably fully aware of what he was doing.

      • Monty

        I should point out that my above claim was directed at the commenter who used ‘from whence’ – Wimmian Shakebin . . and not at Bruce, who never used it.

      • Julian D. Woodruff

        Thinking of the magnificent “to from whence it came” in “Take back your mink” from Loesser’s Guys and Dolls.

      • Baidu Wercs Lee

        Mr. Robin is correct. The Chinese Communist Party has done everything within their power to avert suspicion from the likely Wuhan P4 Bio Lab, from which this epidemic has resulted, infecting millions, killing thousands, and crushing the global economy. This isn’t some conspiracy theory; the CCP coverup has made the World less safe for some time to come, and everyone should be aware of it, not hiding themselves from reality.

    • Mike Bryant

      As I am no grammarian, I post this without comment:
      “And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been common since the thirteenth century. It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe (in the opening of Robinson Crusoe: “He got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had married my mother”), Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol: “He began to think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine”), Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad: “He traveled all around, till at last he came to the place from whence he started”), and Trollope, and it appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help”).“
      https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10906/is-from-whence-correct-or-should-it-be-whence#10916

      Reply
      • C.B. Anderson

        Fine, Mike, but are you suggesting that mistakes, if they are repeated often enough, especially by luminaries, suddenly become correct English? I know that usage alone is the standard that informs dictionaries, but sometimes it behooves a purist to take a stand on principle. It’s a question of whether our language is evolving or devolving, methinks.

      • Mike Bryant

        I suggested nothing of the sort. In reading the rest of the page I cited, I found it interesting that this particular argument has been going on for some seven hundred years. It IS interesting and thought others might agree.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        The construction “from whence” does appear frequently in good writers, and even can be read in the traditional version of The Apostles’ Creed: “from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Technically speaking, it is incorrect, since “whence” in itself means “from which place.”

        But this is an example of tautology, pleonasm (or what we today might call redundancy, or overkill). It often happens when the public perception of a word’s actual meaning begins to weaken, and unlearned speakers begin to add something to the word to make sure it is fully understood. In this case, adding “from” is a way to emphasize location and direction.

        You can see a simple example in colloquial speech. Some unlearned speakers won’t say the following sentence: “That man can’t be trusted.” Instead they might say “That there man can’t be trusted.” The added “there” is redundant and unnecessary, but it emphasizes location and direction.

      • Monty

        I wouldn’t bother, CB. It seems futile trying to enlighten someone who merely quotes from the internet because he has no personal knowledge of, or feeling for, the word ‘whence’. You and I both know that ‘from whence’ is aesthetically wrong. What’s more, we know it from our hearts, from our deep affection for our language – not from the internet. If it wasn’t me who’d initially pointed-out the error above, he wouldn’t even have replied, but he saw the chance for some puerile point-scoring, so he immediately consulted Mr Google.. and dampened his knickers when he saw that ‘from whence’ is sometimes used (erroneously) by some who know no better.

        Having always known it naturally, I’ve never before looked-up the word ‘whence’, but this morning my curiosity demanded that I do so. Predictably, the dictionary cited the following examples:
        ‘The Ural mountains, whence the ore is procured’.
        ‘He will be sent back whence he came’.
        ‘Whence does parliament derive this power?’
        I then consulted Mr Google, and it appears that ‘from whence’ is exactly as you described it above: “A mistake which has been repeated so often, it’s become to be seen (wrongly) as accepted English”.
        I then found some quotes from a few modern-day grammarians:
        “‘From whence you came’ is an improper redundancy.”
        “‘From whence’ is technically redundant”
        “Those who say ‘from whence it came’ either don’t know what ‘whence’ means, or they’re worried that the reader may think they’ve made a mistake by not putting the proposition ’from’. These people should forget about ‘whence’, and simply write: ‘where it came from’.”
        “‘From whence’ has been used incorrectly for hundreds of years.”

        Some of those grammarians described ‘from whence’ as a ‘tautology’ – a word hitherto unknown to me. Thus, I dug a little deeper, and it transpires that a tautology is a redundant word in a sentence: “The phone rang, so I quickly ran speedily down the stairs to answer it”.. either ‘quickly’ or ‘speedily’ is redundant, a tautology.
        “The parcel was marked as ‘fragile’, so I gently laid it down delicately on the floor”.. ‘gently’ or ‘delicately’ are redundant.
        So, when one says: ‘From whence it came’, meaning: ‘From from where it came’.. one of the ‘froms’ is redundant, a tautology. (Being now aware of the word ‘tautology’, I hope I never hear it again! To me, it means nothing more than bad diction.)

        As you said above, CB (and what I’ve now learnt to be true), the ‘from whence’ thing is a matter of purity: those who’re language purists: and those who don’t really care. The latter, it seems, have enabled a blatant mistake to become accepted practise; and the former will always know that it is, nonetheless, a mistake. The former will also know that ‘from whence’ is nothing more than an example of the devolution of our language.

      • Mike Bryant

        Monte is right as usual. Monte can see into our hearts and minds. He knows what each of us thinks and feels. Because of this, and because of his huge intellect and empathy, every one of his pronouncements holds the weight of God.

      • Susan Jarvis Bryant

        Some are blessed with an omniscience that astounds; an impressive, all-knowing view that leaves others breathless with awe and stunned at the sagacious perspicacity emanating from every illuminating orifice. Sometimes, a tautology (or two) can come in quite handy – they may even bear repeating.

  4. Watcher

    Cries are not heard,
    When worlds are not safe.

    Deaths from WU say:
    WHO cannot save.

    God is somewhere,
    Watching us here,
    Kneel and cry-out
    God will come out.

    Reply
  5. Baidu Wercs Lee

    I’ve emailed Mr. Mantyk about putting the “s” in asymptomatic. I’m also thinking about retitling the poem “Doctor WHO?” after the BBC sci fi show.

    Reply
    • Susan Jarvis Bryant

      I like your idea of the new “Doctor WHO?” title – it says so much with a wry smile.

      Reply
  6. Susan Jarvis Bryant

    Poetry is an excellent medium for drawing attention to the atrocities of the world. The informative, deeply troubling series of events portrayed in this hard-hitting piece prove just that. I like the way this virus is named for what it is and the way the WHO, hiding behind the duplicitous media reports, has been revealed and shamed. Thank you for this. Mr. Wise.

    Reply
  7. Joseph S. Salemi

    Here is some new pertinent information about the Wuhan flu (referred to by Mainstream Media as “the Coronavirus”) as it has affected Italy.

    An Italian commentator (Cesare Sacchetti) , quoting the respected newspaper La Stampa, has reported that the Italian Ministry of Health has been lying about the number of dead in that country, and has been deliberately inflating the mortality figures.

    The Ministry of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanita) published the following recently concerning deaths in Lombardy:

    “627 nuovi deceduti con coronavirus, non per coronavirus…”

    This means that there were 627 deaths with [i.e. from] coronavirus, but not through {i.e. as a result] of coronavirus.

    As both La Stampa and Cesare Sacchetti have pointed out, only 12 persons in Lombardy have actually died of the virus, and the other 615 reported deaths were from something else. The left-leaning government of Italy, through its sockpuppet Ministry of Health, is deliberately stoking panic about the virus.

    As soon as La Stampa and Sacchetti came out with this, the Italian Ministry of Health deleted that information from their website. You can be sure they won’t make a mistake like that again in their propaganda campaign to generate mass hysteria.

    As Cesare Sacchetti has said: “Attribuire tutti i morti al virus non e solo falso e antiscientifico. E di piu. E terrorismo psicologico.”

    (“Attributing all of the dead to the virus is not only false and unscientific. It is more. It is psychological terrorism.”)

    This type of official lying is also taking place in the United States. Just recently an elderly man in Pennsylvania, who had tested positive for the Wuhan flu, accidentally fell and hit his head, dying from the injury. The health authorities insisted on listing him as a “Coronavirus death.”

    All of this terror is being staged for political reasons.

    Reply
  8. C.B. Anderson

    Monty, as I think you have at least implied, vulgar (common) usage is as great a force promoting the degradation of our common language as anything else can ever be. I don’t give a damn whether Shakespeare did it or not. If he did, he is still Shakespeare, and if he did it on purpose, he is only Shakespeare. I don’t know who to trust these days, and I’d rather make a fool of myself defending literacy than make a fortune undermining it.

    Reply
    • Monty

      Rest assured, CB: you can and will never make a fool of yourself by “defending literacy”. The only ones making a fool of themselves are those who write ‘from whence’ unknowingly, in a misguided attempt to embellish their text; and then try to support that usage by quoting unreliable information from the internet.

      I assume you noted above the words I quoted last week from a grammarian (since when I’ve forgotten his name, but he was an Englishman, which is relevant if we’re dealing with the finer points of the English language; he was described as a ‘linguistics expert’, and he had letters in front of his name):
      “Those who say ‘from whence it came’ either don’t know what ‘whence’ means, or they’re worried that the reader may think they’ve made a mistake if they don’t add the proposition ’from’. These people should forget about using ‘whence’, and simply write: ‘Where it came from’.

      Therefore, not only are you “defending literacy”, CB, but, at the same time, you’re upholding the high standards of our language . . when others are inclined to let them slip.

      Reply
  9. Bruce Dale Wise

    I’m not sure that I have used the phrase “from whence” in my poetry. I suspect writers, like Shakespeare and Neoclassicists, like Swift (in a poem) and Pope (in his “Iliad”), may have used the phrase for its iambic pattern, though even prosists, like the King James Bible writers, DeFoe, Gibbon, Austen, Smollett, Dickens, Trollope, Emerson and Twain, used the phrase. (I appreciate Mr. Bryant’s Internet search into the matter.) Because I am unsure, although the phrase echoes in my mind (perhaps from my Biblical writings), I have decided, perhaps slightly spurred on by the fine satirical remarks of Ms. Bryant and Mr. Robin, to append a quote to the poem in its next publication.

    “From whence came this coronavirus plague? Wuhan’s the place.”
    —Wilude Scabere, from his play “Coronavirus Blues”

    After all, if even the English literary critic Dryden used the phrase (and perhaps Samuel Johnson, through Boswell, despite his “vitious” definition), one is in good company.

    Reply
  10. Nalini

    This is not a poem. It’s a piece of right-wing propaganda. I thought this was a poetry society?

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Yes, Nalini — right-wing persons do write excellent poetry. Consider the examples of Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, William Butler Yeats, Roy Campbell, Allen Tate, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Charles Maurras, and Philip Larkin, just to name a few.

      If you don’t like it, take your guitar and get lost.

      Reply
      • Monty

        Philip Larkin plays far too big a part in my affections for me to see him flagrantly misrepresented:

        “Larkin’s sympathies were with the Left, if he was political at all”: James Booth, Larkin’s biographer.

        In a private letter to his life-long lover Monica Jones (to be found in the published book ‘Letters to Monica’.. which I own) Larkin observes: “Well dear, even if we neither at bottom care, the fact does remain that you explode to the Right and I explode to the Left.”

        You may wish to search Wikipedia for Charlotte Figi.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        You obviously don’t know a lot about Philip Larkin.

        He worshiped Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher. He loved Mrs. Thatcher’s breaking of the coal miners’ strike in 1984. He wanted the repatriation of all non-English migrants out of Great Britain.

        Here are two snatches of poetry from him, quoted with horror in “The Socialist Review” back in 2017:

        Prison for strikers
        Bring back the cat.
        Kick out the niggers,
        How about that?

        I want to see them starving,
        The so-called working class,
        Their wages weekly halving,
        Their women stewing grass.
        When I drive out each morning
        In one of my new suits
        I want to find them fawning
        To clean my car and boots.

        You can say a lot of negative things about Larkin, but only an idiot would call him a leftist. And that includes any biographer who could believe that the man was “not political.”

      • Monty

        How stiff of you to assume that when one writes a poem, they must also be the speaker in that poem, and that the views shown in the poem are also the author’s own. Wake up. The poems you quote above were never published, and were never meant to be. They were just included in a private letter which Larkin wrote to his close friend, the poet Charles Causley, in which he jokes that the views in the poem would be the views of the average British person if they were able to make their own political manifestos for the (upcoming) general elections.

        Causley WAS an admirer of Enoch Powell, and in the same letter, Larkin said: “Enoch Powell for Home Secretary, ah?”.. which he said humorously as a private joke to Causley . . and from that, you’ve sensationalised it to “Larkin worshipped Enoch Powell”. How desperate of you. Talk about ‘scraping the barrel’!

        And Larkin “worshipped” Thatcher? This is how you get caught out when you try to sensationalise something. If you’d have simply said: ‘Larkin was an admirer of Thatcher’.. or even a ‘great admirer’.. that sounds feasible: readers might believe that you can support that claim . . but as soon as you sensationalise it with “worshipped”, your words just fall flat on their face. Any astute reader will assume that only Larkin’s inner-circle of friends and associates could’ve known who he actually worshipped, and who he merely admired; anything else is just hearsay. And then they’ll conclude that you just used ‘worshipped’ for special-effects. And then you lose all credibility. Why d’you do it to yourself?

        It’s the same with your false claim that the above poems were quoted “with horror” by the Socialist Review. How do you know they were quoted “with horror”? Are you friends with the editor? Or a member of the staff? Of course not. Again, you used the “with horror” just for special effects, to try wrenching a false claim into some sort of plausibility. And the less astute reader will fall for it. They’ll see the words “with horror”, and they’ll automatically think that the Socialist Review REALLY DID quote those poems ‘with horror’. Only the more astute reader will see “with horror” for exactly what it is: gutter-press sensationalism in an attempt to lend credibility to a load of old tosh.

    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Oh Monty, you’re such a pathetic ass. Go to your computer, and very carefully type in

      Philip Larkin, racist, bigot and poet (Socialist Review, September 2017)

      and then read the damned article yourself, OK? It says a great deal more about Larkin’s very pronounced right-wing viewpoints than those two snatches of poetry reveal. And it certainly shows the absolute “horror” that the editors of that magazine had towards Larkin and his opinions.

      What’s the matter, Monty? Afraid to admit that one of your poetic heroes was not a leftist hippie fathead like you?

      Reply
      • Monty

        I can’t type anything into my computer “very carefully”; I can’t even type anything into my computer very carelessly; in fact, I can’t type anything into my computer in any manner at all . . ‘coz I ain’t got one! Now, wait till you get your breath back before reading on. I realise it’s come as a shock for you to learn that some humans in the western-world don’t own a computer: so, take a few seconds to recompose yourself . . .

        . . . I trust you’re ready now. Unsurprisingly, you haven’t produced a shred of evidence to prove that Larkin was ‘right’, ‘coz no evidence exists. How can it exist if he was ‘left’? All you’ve done is produce some evidence to prove that he was a racist. Well, how informative of you: you’re only a few decades behind the times. I doubt if there’s anyone alive with a serious rapport for Larkin who’s NOT aware that he was famously racist; no one would dispute that. I’m in possession of numerous private letters he wrote which prove beyond doubt that he was a racist (as were many in Britain in the 60’s and 70’s, owing to a large and sudden influx of blacks at that time).

        But ‘lefties’ can be racist as well! So don’t try to foist on others your misguided conclusion that all racists must be ‘righties’. You’re hopelessly hinging your whole argument on the basis that ‘if he was racist he must’ve automatically been right-wing’. How flimsy. And in a desperate attempt to support your (non)claim, you’ve produced some two-bob magazine which has fell into the same trap: ‘Oh, he was a racist; that must mean he was a rightie’. What a waste of space.

        As for your outrageously inaccurate claim that Larkin “worshipped” Thatcher: it was under her government that he famously turned-down the position of ‘poet laureate’, which was offered to him in ‘84 upon the death of John Betjeman (Larkin also declined the OBE, which he was offered in ‘68). He was anti-establishment, and he didn’t care much for politics. He led a simple, working-class life as a librarian at a university, and his only mode of transport was a bicycle (contrast that with the speaker in the poem you cited above: “I want to see them starving/The so-called working class”.. “I want to find them fawning/To clean my car and boots”). See what an idiot you’ve been?

        Again, I can only leave you with Larkin’s own words (but you must take special note of the word ‘own’: his OWN words; which are available for anyone on the planet to see for themselves) in a private letter to his mistress: “But the fact remains that you explode to the Right and I explode to the Left”. Are you really gonna waste any more space on this page by arguing against Larkin’s OWN words?

        My head’s even fatter now!

  11. Baidu Wercs Lee

    Ms. Nalini seems to think “Doctor WHO?” is not a poem, perhaps because it voices an opinion contrary to hers in a form she does not like; this really only puts her in with the majority of commenters @ SCP, from Mr. Anderson to Mr. Phillips, from Mr. Salemi to… I am thankful to Mr. Mantyk for allowing for a diversity of voices @ SCP.

    I grant that this icosa of ten couplets of iambic heptameter arranged in five four-lined stanzas is polemical; but so too has poetry been throughout the ages. Disliking a poem does not make it not a poem. In point of fact, my poetry is attempting things disliked by countless individuals of this era, not merely here @ SCP; though I must admit, this last decade has seen a growing appreciation of the kind of poetry I write. And I am so thankful for those thoughtful readers.

    Part of my willingness to indulge in such “nonpoetic” topics relates mainly to my readings in the Realists (1850-1900) and the Modernists (1900-1950), including Modernist Chinese poets. I appreciate their willingness to put anything into their poetry, including slogans, pop icons, contemporary attitudes, etc., even propaganda. Also I have been influenced by Postmodernists (1950-2000) as well, artists, such as Andy Warhol, and prosists [sic], like the New Journalists. Though my docupoetry has deep links to traditions throughout the World, it rests finally on this stage in this era.

    Reply
  12. Aw "Curbside" Lee

    The real propaganda is the Chinese Communist Party lies directed by Xi Jinping and his cronies. Today we hear of another critic who has been disappeared==Ren Zhikiang—for insinuating Xi Jinping is a clown, an emperor without clothes, and worse, for silencing top medical personnel about the coronavirus pandemic.

    Reply
  13. Joseph S. Salemi

    How convenient — Monty doesn’t have a computer. He always comes up with some excuse as to why he can’t read something, or why he can’t click onto links, or why he won’t answer one’s objections. Get off it, Monty. You’re lying through your teeth again. If you have no computer access how can you come here, visit this website, and post comments? (By the way, lying seems to be natural to you — you confessed here that you lied to the German authorities in order to get a flight out of India two weeks ago).

    Since you “don’t have a computer” (excuse us all as we laugh), how do you know that the Socialist Review is a worthless “two-bob magazine”? How do you know anything about the facts concerning Larkin that are outlined in that magazine’s article, if you can’t access them and read them?

    And since “you don’t have a computer,” I guess you won’t be able to read F.W. Neumann’s lengthy essay on Larkin (“The Poet of Political Incorrectness”), wherein he points out the man’s profound anti-modernism, his hatred of the 1960s sexual revolution and the cultural dislocations of that period, his contempt for the Labour Party, and his love for Rudyard Kipling as the poet of British imperialism, world order, and Anglo-Saxon superiority. As another critic has written, “Larkin energetically hated the labour movement and was appalled at the arrival of immigrants from the Caribbean and Asia.”

    Larkin cheered when Margaret Thatcher broke the back of Scargill’s coal miners’ union. He totally supported the prescient views of Enoch Powell’s “blood” speech. His own father was strongly sympathetic to Hitler.

    Yes, he declined the offer of the Poet Laureate position, because he knew that it was a meaningless honor that would involve him a poetry world of left-wing wankers whom he despised. He refused it also because he loathed the stupid formalities and expectations that would have come with the job, which is exactly why Thomas Gray turned down the job in the eighteenth century. See my essay on Gray at expansivepoetry.online. (Oh, I forgot — you “don’t have a computer”).

    Monty, let’s get something straight in front of everybody here at the SCP. You’re simply LOOKING FOR A FIGHT. This thread had nothing to do with you, but you came here searching to find any comment by me. You found the short one I made to Nalini. You jumped on it to start this argument. You tried to silence Mike Bryant, and you failed. You tried the smarmy tactic of trying to sweet-talk his wife Susan, and that failed. You tried whining and moaning to Evan Mantyk, and that failed. Do you actually think you’re going to silence me? YOU? A drug addict, a loser, and a self-confessed petty criminal?

    Reply
  14. Joseph S. Salemi

    Wow. Nearly twenty tedious paragraphs of self-justification, plus the revelation that he is regular user of a wide range of drugs besides marijuana. So yes — the phrase “drug addict” is now seen to be perfectly appropriate when discussing the problems of Monty Philips. Too bad he couldn’t bring himself to admit it previously.

    In addition, he thinks he knows how much money I make, he admits that he refuses to click on any link that might dispel his image of Philip Larkin as a “leftist” (God forbid he should read something that might question his misplaced hero-worship), he psychoanalyzes me from a short poetry reading, he once again presumes to give me orders about what words I can or cannot use, and then he utterly ignores my references to his petty criminality in Britain and his recent lying to the German authorities. Then he digs up that old garbage posted by that hillbilly left-liberal Mike Burch, without even referencing the larger dispute at The Pennsylvania Review that prompted it, where Burch’s duplicity and misrepresentations were exposed by me.

    He first claims that he “does not have a computer,” but now he crows that of course he has “computer access” via his i-pad. How typical! He lies to pretend that he can’t click on a link, and then uses a technicality to answer that he DOES have computer access and CAN click on links, but “chooses not to do so.” Monty always uses ambiguity and technicalities to avoid answering the main question, which in this case is: Why won’t he read anything that undermines his mythology about Larkin’s “leftism”?

    He’s not going to stop this manic campaign, as he obviously has a major psychological commitment to its continuation. I’ll answer him whenever I have to, but it will be very much like talking to a hopeless schizophrenic in a mental asylum.

    Reply
    • Instaurare

      “hence I know longer have any concerns”
      Great Scott, Monty! That was worse than your gonnas and your wannas. It was positively harrowing. Might we expect a ritual suicide?

      Reply
    • Monty

      Well spotted, Instaurare. I always thoroughly re-read everything I write, and did so with the above missive: and STILL it escaped my attention. Hence, I can’t deny that I’m mildly disappointed with myself. Still, these things happen: and rather than suicide, I’ll console myself by imagining how many people would be overjoyed if they wrote as many words as I did above . . and only got one wrong. But, as glaring an error as it was, I’m sure you don’t expect any reader to believe that you truly found it to be “positively harrowing”.

      I appreciate that my usage of ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ ain’t everyone’s cup o’ tea.. but it’s truthful. The older I’ve got, the more intent I’ve become in trying to write in a way which, where possible, is true to my natural speech. In speech, I say: “I’m gonna be late”. I promise you faithfully that not once in my life have I ever said: ‘I am going to be late’. I couldn’t even form the words, it’s that unnatural to me. And I ask you to ask yourself, Instaurare: if you were calling a friend to say you’ve been delayed, would you really say: ‘I am going to be late’? No.. you’d simply say, as would most people, ‘I’m gonna be late’. Of course there would be many instances – if I was writing an essay, for example – where I couldn’t use such words, we know that . . but in the informal setting of the comments pages here at SCP, it’s entirely harmless and, more importantly, unambiguous. And if it came to the crunch, one could always cite ‘poetic license’.

      Thus, unless you’re one of the few who actually says: ‘I am going to be late’, then you’re not really in a position to question my usage of such abbreviations; and you can’t expect any readers to believe that you truly find them damaging enough to comment upon them.

      Reply
    • Instaurare

      Don’t worry about me, Monty. I’ll get on, somehow, despite it all. In fact, I’ve already forgiven you. I only hope you can forgive yourself!

      On a serious note, you may rest assured that it is only because of your own reputation as an iron-fisted examiner of grammar and orthography that I felt you merited a little good-natured prodding. Nobody else, save Mr Anderson, could have deserved it so well.

      Reply
    • Monty

      That’s a beautiful way of putting it, Inst: “a little good-natured prodding”. I can now see that that’s exactly what it was.

      Apart from the fact that I had to look-up ‘orthography’ (and I’m glad I did: what a lovely word), I wasn’t aware that I had a reputation as an ‘iron-fisted examiner of grammar and (that word)’ on these pages. But if I have, then of course it naturally followed that I should’ve been subject to such prodding.

      I readily admit to being a real stickler for ‘grammar and (that word)’, so if I’ve unwittingly portrayed myself to be an ‘iron-fisted examiner’.. so be it. But let me tell you how it is: and at the same time why I was mildly disappointed with my glaring error . . . Regardless of whatever writing ability I’ve got, I’ve always been a good reader: I read speedily, fluidly and clearly (if reading aloud), but above all, when reading I seem to be able to spot a spelling-mistake from a mile off. Words are like pictures to me: once I know how a word’s spelt, it becomes a picture in my head. And when reading, I seem to know when a picture is not as it should be: so I stop, look a little closer, and sometimes it may take another few seconds till I see what the actual error is . . but I knew instantly that the picture had been altered, that it somehow didn’t look right.

      If I’ve got the reputation that you describe above, then I assume others may think that I read stuff on these pages with the sole intention of looking for such errors, but I really don’t. I don’t have to look for them, I just see them. If I was to actually read something with the intention of finding such errors, I’d probably miss some ‘coz I wouldn’t be in my normal reading-mode: not in the zone, as it were.

      Thus, given that I said above I always assiduously re-read anything I write (even text-messages: I can’t help myself!), then THAT was the real reason for my self-disappointment with my error. Not that I MADE the error, but that I didn’t SPOT the error when re-reading it. I make many errors when writing, but I always spot them during the re-read (well, not always, as you’ve shown: but you know what I’m saying). So, if I single someone out on these pages for an elementary error, it’s not a case of “you’ve-made-an-error-and-I’ve-spotted-it-aren’t-I-clever”.. it’s more a case of me saying: “If you’d have re-read the piece thoroughly after writing it, you’d have probably spotted the error yourself”.

      I’ve let it be known before on these pages of my firm belief that when one’s finished a poem, a thorough re-reading of it is as important as the writing of it. I see so many poems on these pages with the sort of basic errors which would seem to indicate that once the author completed the final line, it was: “Right, that’s that finished”.. and they submit it here immediately. Well I say it’s not finished, and it’s never finished until the author has kept re-reading it exhaustively until they’re satisfied. It should be a matter of duty. If someone like me, who grew up as a street-urchin with no education, can spot such errors, then there’s no excuse for others (just in the last few days on these pages, someone declared in a comment that they’d been writing poetry for 40 years . . and didn’t know that a question-mark should always be followed by a capital letter [except in dialogue]; I was flabbergasted).

      So, in the above sense, Inst.. yeah, I am a stickler for such things. But my stickler-ness isn’t by design, it’s just there . . whether I want it to be or not. If I’ve gained a reputation for it, that’s just unfortunate . . I didn’t seek it.

      Reply
  15. Joseph S. Salemi

    Since brevity is the soul of with, let me quote myself:

    “He’s not going to stop this manic campaign, as he obviously has a major psychological commitment to its continuation. I’ll answer him whenever I have to, but it will be very much like talking to a hopeless schizophrenic in a mental asylum.”

    Meanwhile, YAAWW-WWN.

    Reply
    • Monty

      Félicitations, you’ve actually got something right: I’m NOT gonna stop.

      I dearly wish it WOULD stop, and I’ve tried my hardest to MAKE it stop: but, alas . . the point has been reached where YOU are now the only one who can make it stop (by accepting my two month-old truce). But, as you’ve already made clear to the readership, you’re not interested in the truce; so on we go. You’re not gonna stop, so I’m “not gonna stop”. It’s all very simple.

      Keep yawning . .

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Go right ahead, Monty. All of us here are fascinated by what a confessed addict to several drugs (marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, and God knows what else) has to say.

        By the way, do the German authorities know about how you lied to get that flight to Frankfurt?

      • Monty

        I’ve told you before about saying “all of us here (at SCP) are..” You’re not “here” at SCP, you’re a member: and like all other members, you must refer to the powers-that-be at SCP as “they”. Only the SCP staff have the right to say “all of us here are..” When YOU say “all of us here”, other members will assume that you must be referring to other(s) people in your own household; and I’m sure they don’t care to know the views of your family member(s).. if any. You’re just too thick to see that when you try to give a false impression of your status at SCP, it shows nothing but weakness, and an inferiority-complex. And still you try it . . . have you got no pride.

        Would you also refrain from implying that ‘they’ at SCP are “fascinated” by me when it’s simply not true. If anything, ‘they’ are probably as sick to the teeth with my comments as they are with yours. YOU are the only one who’s fascinated by me: infatuated with me: obsessed with me. I’m a thrilling novel that you just can’t put down, ‘coz it affords you glimpses into the world of those who live, when you yourself only exist (that’s why you’re besotted with the Frankfurt flight). No one but you at SCP is “fascinated” by me, so don’t put that word into other people’s mouths.

        You’ve now made two consecutive comments in which you’ve actually got something right . . I do tell lies. I’m good at it: really good. Anyone who’s lived a rich and varied life will tell you that it’s impossible to do so without telling the odd white-lie along the way – “He who has a daring eye tells downright truths and downright lies”: J. Lavater. I don’t make a habit of it, and I certainly don’t lie just for the sake of lying, or to give a false impression of myself; but if ever I/we have had to tell a harmless white-lie to get something I/we dearly wanted.. I/we have never hesitated, and never will – “As one knows a poet by his fine music, so one can recognise the liar by his rich, rhythmic utterance”: O. Wilde. When I/we look back at some of the truly memorable moments in our lives which would never’ve happened if we hadn’t have told a white-lie . . phew! Who needs truth. When one lies, one can attain the best of everything; when one doesn’t lie, one settles for what they’re given, which is often second best. I’m a liar, I’m a liar, I’m a liar, but “A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself a liar”: M. Twain.

        Can we now assume that your reply to this missive will contain the words: ‘Wow, not only is Monty a self-confessed drug-addict, we now know he’s a self-confessed liar’. The following aphorism, also from Mr Wilde, may show you how lacking the world would be without lies:
        The crude commercialism of America, its materialising spirit, its indifference to the poetical side of things, and its lack of imagination and of high unattainable ideals . . are entirely due to that country having adopted for its national hero a man who, according to his own confession, was incapable of telling a lie; and it’s not too much to say that the story of George Washington and the cherry tree has done more harm, and in a shorter space of time, than any other moral tale in the whole of literature.”

        p.s. One gets the impression that if you had the necessary phone-number, along with my full details, you wouldn’t hesitate to give the German authorities a call. That’s what a sub-human failure you are. How I raise my beret to all those who bullied you at school.

    • Monty

      Of course I clicked on the puppet’s link immediately, as I do with all his links. And of course I read every word of it, as I do with all his links. And of course I’ll save it in case I wanna re-read it in the future, as I do with all his links.

      How comforting and reassuring it is to know that someone out there is prepared to use their own time in taking the trouble to send me articles which truly enhance my whole existence.

      Keep ‘em comin’ . . an’ I’ll keep on clickin’.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        You read the article??? What a transparent attempt to hide this glimpse into your past! So, so funny. When you realize what a laughing stock you have become, I hope you can find someone to share your grief and utter humiliation with. I truly pity you, Mr. UltraCRAPadarian. Go in peace… but please… just go.

      • Monty

        Why don’t you believe me when I say that I read your article? Would I lie to you? I really did read it: I swear on Trump’s life.
        And how foolish of you to ask me to “just go”, when you need me so much. What would you do without me? You’d have no one to send links to, and if you had no one to send links to, you’d have nothing with which to scour the internet.

        You know on what side your bread’s buttered: so keep sending the links like a good little pinocchio.

  17. Joseph S. Salemi

    Notice how Monty keeps trying to give the rest of us orders. “You have to do this! You have to do that! You’re not allowed to say such and such!” Does he think that he’s Hitler, and the rest of us are the Wehrmacht?

    All we sane persons here at the SCP know that we aren’t obliged to take orders from a hopeless pot-head. And we won’t.

    Reply
    • Monty

      “You must stop” wasn’t an order, it was to help you. Historically, you’ve always tried to falsely portray that you hold a position of authority at SCP, when everyone knows you’re merely a member like the rest of us. So I suggested that you MUST stop this pretence for your own sake, ‘coz your hole’s getting ever deeper. Others are slowly beginning to see for themselves. You MUST stop for your own sake.

      So, you refer to yourself as “sane”. Well, that’s three days running you’ve made an honest statement in a comment. It’s true: you really are sane. I’m not, shudder the thought. If I was, I’d be a normal member of society, and I would’ve worked for the last 40 years, and washed my car every Sunday.. and had two weeks a year in the sun.

      That’s not to say I’m insane . . but I’m in that real privileged position of being on the edge of sanity and insanity: or, as others like to call it, madness and genius. There’s no other place to be but on that edge, as long as one can somehow remain there, without slipping fully into one or the other.

      Being totally sane may be the single biggest obstacle to leading a truly exciting and varied lifestyle.

      Reply
      • Mike Bryant

        You really are a genius, Monte… a comedic genius… I have never suffered such convulsions of laughter… when I recover I shall thank you…

      • Monty

        You really needn’t lavish such praise upon me: I’m a tad embarrassed, ‘coz you’re already doing so much for me by sending me all these links. It’s so positively altruistic of you to send me – during my enforced house-arrest – so much reading material. You’re so sensitive to my needs.

        Every time I notice you’ve sent some more red-coloured letters, my eyes just sparkle: and I stop whatever I’m doing on the spot.. and press eagerly on the red-letters. And may I add what a lovely shade of red they are: that’s the icing on the cake.

Leave a Reply to Joseph S. Salemi Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Captcha loading...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.