.

Classical Poets Live with Andrew Benson Brown

Episode 6 Part 1 of 3: Against the Critics of Conservative Poetry

If you enjoy this video, please like and subscribe on YouTube to support the production.

.

.

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.

55 Responses

    • ABB

      Thanks, James. Part 2 of this episode is now up–I think you will like it even more than part 1!

      Reply
  2. Joseph S. Salemi

    This is an excellent production, presenting an articulate and clear defense of what the SCP has done. But alas — we could produce a second Iliad here and it would still be mocked and scorned by our enemies. Zoe’s critique is based on nothing except malice.

    Reply
    • ABB

      Thanks for the kind judgment, Joe. We just have to hope posterity will not be as dumb as our contemporaries.

      Reply
  3. David Hollywood

    An excellent, well balanced and fair presentation, which gives me a great lift to continue resisting the challenges all around which attempt to sway me away from traditional poetic script and presentation, and which I suspect is often due to either an inability or else a lack of desire by many to not make the effort themselves. Its easy to not try. Many thanks Andrew for this video.

    Reply
    • David Hollywood

      I got my meanings a little mixed up there. Please make allowances, as I am clearly overwhelmed.

      Reply
      • David Hollywood

        Indeed you have. Thanks again for a great presentation.

  4. Joshua C. Frank

    This is great!

    I’m afraid I have to agree with Joe’s comment, though. We have some of the best poets anywhere, and people hate us all because we’re one of the few conservative poetry sites out there. (There’s also Atop the Cliffs, for those who wonder if there are any others.) I had someone in another writing group really go after me for being “far right” (I use quotes because we’re just what used to be normal) after reading my poetry.

    With the haters, I’ve found that the only way to deal with them is to fire it right back at them, expose them for who they are, and show others who would attack us that if they test us, they will fail (a bit like the joke about the fourth little pig whose house was made of wolf skulls). They accuse us of being hateful and unreasonable; we need to show that it is they, not we, who are both. (See Susan’s poem “A Rebuttal to Michael Burch and my poem “The Certainty of Kelly Green”).

    Reply
    • ABB

      Glad I can always count on you to watch my vids, Joshua. I will have to check out Atop the Cliffs. And yes, I agree with you on the need to be as aggressive with them as they are with us.

      Reply
  5. Paul A. Freeman

    I noticed Zoe sits on the left side of the couch – her left, that is.

    As always, an interesting ride.

    The important thing is not to chase away or alienate aficionados of rhyming, metrical, traditional poetry, which I’ve seen happen several times over polarising political stuff.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      So we should follow Zoe’s advice, and just publish mild-mannered pastorals, love sonnets, and sickly-sweet pieties.

      Reply
      • Joshua C. Frank

        That’s exactly what he thinks, along with all his wretched ilk; I don’t even have to wait for his answer to know that.

        The day I let a leftist tell me what to do among my own kind is a sorry day. What arrogance they have, trying to dictate what we can and can’t say among our own, when they’re the intruders!

        We treat Paul as a guest, and here he is, acting like a marauder. You and Susan both wrote poems against Michael Burch, I took on Conor Kelly… which one of us should write one against Paul if he doesn’t behave himself?

      • Joshua C. Frank

        As if resorting to personal attacks weren’t pathetic.

        A lot of us are getting more than a little tired of you pushing your leftist agenda. If you don’t like how we operate, there are plenty of leftist poetry groups more to your liking.

      • Paul A. Freeman

        How hypocritical after labelling me an intruder and a marauder.

        Love the ‘go back to your own country’ riff, though.

        Maybe you should go and read the SCP’s ‘About Us’ page to remind you who ‘we’ are.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        Descriptions of what you do aren’t personal attacks. To say you’re acting like a marauder is a description of what you keep doing by trolling us with your leftism. And since an intruder is defined as one who intrudes, and you do intrude, that is similar. If I said, “I’m not going to take ethics lessons from a Nazi,” that would be a personal insult.

        You leftists bandy about the word “hypocrite” over nothing, when you people call yourselves the arbiters of right and wrong despite having the blood of billions on your hands (that’s not a typo, look up how many abortions there have been worldwide since 1980). You are in no position to judge right and wrong.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        On second thought, instead of continuing an argument that will never be resolved, I’ll just say: I’m honored that you think of me as pathetic, hypocritical, and all your favorite adjectives to hurl against conservatives. It means I’m on the right track. Thank you.

      • Paul A. Freeman

        Crikey, you don’t even know my thoughts on abortion, Frank. You just assume you know me and dismiss anyone not in lockstep with you as a ‘liberal’.

        You still haven’t addressed calling me an ‘intruder’ and a ‘marauder’, nor have you addressed telling me to go elsewhere when the SCP is above all else a site for those who like formal poetry.

        Again, check the ‘About Us’ page, Joshua, then you can resolve this debate.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        If you want those issues addressed, I can do so here. In exchange, I’d like you to address Joe’s comment.

        The About Us page: “ Such good, new poetry carries a message infused with the profound insights and lofty character of the poet. It touches on humanity’s quintessential quest for virtue over vice, epic over ephemeral, and beauty over baseness.” I have yet to see evidence of any of this from you or any other leftist. (This does not include classical liberals, some of whom have produced great poetry.)

        Your thoughts on abortion: you’ve stated those in other comment threads, and besides, abortion is a central issue to the leftist platform.

        Intruder/marauder: As a matter of fact, I have addressed it. See my comment above.

        Going elsewhere: That offer is always on the table. I was given the same offer by leftist writing groups, and I accepted it. You would be welcome if you didn’t take every opportunity possible to push your agenda against what a lot of members believe.

    • Joshua C. Frank

      Paul, I don’t think you understand how important some of that “political stuff” is. It includes such important issues as the right to life, the survival of the family, and other similarly important issues that demand that a person take a side. There is no middle ground in the question of abortion, for example: is it all right to cut up unborn children like chickens or not? It’s no different from the question of whether the Nazis’ “final solution” was morally right or not. Any conservative worth his salt therefore has even more contempt for liberals and their beliefs than he does for the Nazis. If he doesn’t, I question his allegiance.

      For the record, we didn’t “chase” them away. They came into our house, as it were, and attacked us verbally for holding ideas that are acceptable here but not to them, as you have done on multiple occasions. You liberals have plenty of groups of your own where you can abuse conservatives to your hearts’ content; you don’t need to turn the SCP into one more of those. We won’t allow it. Our patience for that kind of verbal abuse only goes so far, as evidenced by our poems about Michael Burch and Conor Kelly.

      Reply
  6. Paul A. Freeman

    I was interested in what you mentioned, or inferred, about poetry on the SCP (I must be careful with my wording here) often being personal recollections, etc., but not being quite up there with the calibre of the greats forgive me if I’ve misconstrued).

    Occasionally, I’ve come across pieces that are phenomenally well-written and should be regarded as classics, pieces that could jazz up school textbooks as documentary sources (especially history), or are so humorous (especially some of the longer pieces) they could be performed as stage entertainment.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Paul, we do have quite a bit of good material here at the SCP, along with our share of amateur or beginner stuff. In that sense we are much more democratic and accepting than most other websites, where the webmasters and their clique of favorites function as gatekeepers against work that they dislike or don’t appreciate.

      But it really is quixotic to expect this site to be totally apolitical, with space for nothing but uncontroversial hearts-and-flowers niceties. I’m always amazed when some people here post comments about how they wish the site had nothing argumentative or partisan, but only child-friendly pabulum of a feelgood nature.

      My own opinion is that the people who want that sort of gelded and denatured website are either elderly types who have come to poetry as a late-life second childhood occupation, or left-liberals who are afraid of the sharp polemics here, and wish to silence them by nudging us into harmless Hallmark versifying (that seems to be Zoe’s aim).

      Some persons may have left us because they are liberals who are angered and offended by our strong rightist-contrarian tendencies, and others because what they want is a child-friendly site that keeps everyone smiling and happy. But this isn’t the table at the Senior Citizens Center.

      These people are quixotic, as I say, because we now live in a world of fierce contestation and savage divisions. Trying to disregard them would make us irrelevant. And this is why we react violently when anyone tries to insert some kind of left-liberal comment or offhand remark — it is a slap in our faces, and we will always slap back. That is now part of the world in which we all must live.

      Reply
      • Paul A. Freeman

        Point(s) taken, Joseph. That said, not everything I write is neutral. We have our gatekeepers here too, and their decision, like a referee’s, I have to respect.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        Thank you, Joe. That’s a very clear and accurate explanation.

  7. ABB

    Paul – thanks for watching and commenting. I’m not intentionally trying to alienate people from formal verse, but I do think that outcome is somewhat inevitable in our era of hyper-polarization. I did try to be fair to Zoe–fairer than I probably should have been, given how unlikely it is that I’ll convince anyone on the opposite side. Will see if she responds to me, but I doubt it—she has 250,000 followers and would be punching way down in my case.

    Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      I think there’s one more issue we aren’t talking about: as some of our critics say, formal verse is inherently conservative. It’s one of the few things they say about our poetry that are true. It follows rules, constraints, and tradition, and it aims for artistic beauty and literary excellence. All of these things fit in with traditional values in a way in which they don’t fit in with leftism, which naturally hates all these things.

      Some may argue that this is not true because there are leftists who enjoy formal poetry. This is true; Paul is one of them. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. As an analogy, some of my poems are more popular with women than with men because the view expressed in them fits in with the female mindset far better than with the male mindset. That some of my male readers enjoy them as well doesn’t change this fact; rather, they enjoy them in spite of this fact.

      Reply
    • Paul A. Freeman

      250,000 could be accounted for by cat-lovers tuning in to see the cat’s antics.

      Anyhow, I still personally enjoy prose, free verse and structured verse, as long as they’re well written and interesting, and find it slightly absurd that I should be expected to choose between the latter two.

      For me, free verse helps me expand upon ideas I’m writing about, often through metaphor and alliteration, and this improves my prose. Equally, I might clamp down on the free verse forming in the grey matter by making it tighter, into blank verse, couplets, a sonnet, etc. But then that’s just me.

      (And to be clear, to avoid being misconstrued, I wasn’t actually calling anyone ‘absurd’ earlier in this comment, just an abstract idea.)

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Paul, I think we all agree that there can be excellent poems in the many different styles and approaches to composition. There is some free verse that is compelling, whether in the highly serious manner of T. S. Eliot, or in the frivolous comic manner of Ogden Nash. We on all sides of the spectrum can be honest enough to admit that.

        But Joshua does raise an important point. The structures and rules and constraints of formal poetry do mesh more easily with a conservative outlook, and are reflexively “traditional” by default. The late Paul Lake came to this conclusion after many years in the poetry world, and argued that formal poetry by nature tended towards non-leftist and non-radical positions, which is why most leftists instinctively hate and despise it. There are of course exceptions like Shelley and Neruda, but they are just that — exceptional.

        The problem right now is that we are in the incipient stages of a cultural civil war, and in war the combatants seize whatever they can use as ammo for their side. There’s no way around that, which is why I am impatient with those who would urge the SCP to become a place for nothing but lovely nature poems, praise-poems for pets, heartwarming nostalgia pieces, and saccharine sonnets.

  8. James A. Tweedie

    Joe, I have no interest in taking sides in this discussion, but I will say that as an SCP advisory member I have suggested that the the “About SCP” page make explicit the site’s conservative cultural orientation instead of shocking unsuspecting “marauders/interlopers” when they find their perceived liberal views resisted and attacked by sharp, pointed objects in the comments section!

    I continue to hold that inserting this sort of disclaimer/clarifier would be more honest than the non-or a-political tone of the current statement.

    On a related point, you recently argued fervently and eloquently that poems should be judged on the basis of their craft and aesthetics rather than their content. When Evan posts a well-written poem with, say, a narrative perceived as being of a liberal persuasion, it seems as if content suddenly more important than craft and aesthetics.

    Personally, I prefer the craft and aesthetics angle, but from the above comments, I suspect that at most poetry sites (including SCP) a poet’s socio-political position comes first. I’m curious as to how you approach and resolve the tension inherent in this seeming dichotomy.

    Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      The craft and aesthetics angle is a nice ideal, but as with all ideals, it sinks as soon as it comes into contact with reality.

      We’re in a war, which the left has already won. Not satisfied with winning, they want to assimilate us into our collective or, barring that, silence us. Any leftist who says otherwise is lying to himself or others about his intentions, or about being leftist in the first place.

      As a result, as Joe Salemi has pointed out, every group that is not explicitly conservative will become leftist. Sacrifice content to aesthetics and a leftist SCP will be the result. Non-leftists such as the same Joe Salemi, the Bryants, Brian Yapko, Russel Winick, Roy Peterson, and myself, will be given the boot.

      I wonder if all who preach tolerance towards leftists in the name of free speech would be doing the same for the Nazis. Yet, as I keep saying, the Abortion Holocaust alone, let alone the rest, is irrefutable proof that leftists are worse than Nazis. Therefore I submit that they would do exactly this if they lived at the time of World War II. They’d be saying craft and aesthetics are more important than questions of “politics” such as whether all ethnic groups are truly human and whether concentration camps are immoral.

      Yes, craft and aesthetics are very important (just look at how awful most “poetry” that gets published in other places is), but a line has to be drawn somewhere. If the line would exclude Nazi politics (which I hope it would), then if it doesn’t also exclude leftist politics, then the leftists are right about one thing: we are complete hypocrites. If the line would not exclude Nazi politics, then we become Nazi supporters, and how’s that good for free speech?

      Reply
  9. Joseph S. Salemi

    Oh boy –this is one of those dangerously unresolvable issues. Both Tweedie and Frank have raised difficult but highly pertinent points. They deserve answers.

    I’m going to have to do some very plain speaking here, and I hope it doesn’t throw gasoline on the fire. I’m not a polemical arsonist, despite what many persons think.

    I will post my comments here at this thread later today. I need time to put this tangled mess into some kind of coherent shape. Stay tuned, as the guy in the TV commercials used to say.

    Reply
  10. Joseph S. Salemi

    OK, let me begin.

    The basic flaw in what both Tweedie and Frank have said is this: They reflexively think of “conservatism” as a political phenomenon, opposed to contrary political phenomena like “liberalism,” “leftism,” “communism,” “socialism,” or any of the other mental diseases that have afflicted the West since the 18th century, and perhaps even earlier.

    When one thinks in this way, one falls easily into the trap of worrying about fairness, and equal time, and “hearing both sides,” and “avoiding bias.” Hence the American tendency to see serious cultural disputes as parallel to sports competitions, where one team works to defeat the other, and everything is governed by fair play and referees’ calls and equal playing fields and balance.

    It’s not like that at all, guys. Not in the slightest.

    “Conservatism” is NOT political. It may take part in politics as a necessity, and it may produce politicians and political movements. But the real truth is this: Conservatism is simply INTELLIGENCE and SANITY. It is the innate tendency in all human beings, regardless of race or nation or culture, to defend, protect, and cherish their traditions. It is a natural immune-system reaction that works to fight against anything that threatens a people’s folkways, habits, preferences, beliefs, and characteristic thoughts and reactions.

    Liberalism is the disease. Conservatism is the health that liberalism attacks and poisons. They are not equal competitors in a fair game. Liberalism is the love of death and dissolution. Conservatism is the championing of life and health.

    Conservatism only appears and becomes political when mental diseases like liberalism or communism grow powerful enough to infect the body politic and threaten its existence. We “conservatives” only become “political” when there is a war to be waged. Then we devote ourselves to defending our cultural identity and folkways — things which in the normal course of events would not need defending, because they are natural and accepted by all INTELLIGENT and SANE members of our culture.

    “Liberalism” is political all the time. This is recognized in common speech today. When people say that a school has been “politicized,” no one means anything else other than that it has been taken over by left-liberals with an agenda. When one says that a certain person is “very political,” it always means that he is some woke jackass, or some SJW activist, or a thug in Antifa, or a supporter of Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory.

    Therefore, in answer to Tweedie’s question about the SCP’s policy statement, I say this: If we were to make some kind of admission of a “conservative cultural orientation,” we would play directly into the hands of our enemies. They would immediately pigeonhole us as part of the political game, and then dismiss us. This is exactly what the left-wing activist Zoe tried to do, with her silly “graph” of the kinds of poems published here, counting which were “political” or involved with the “culture wars.” She simply wanted to pin a label on us, and thus prove that we were on the “wrong team.”

    We are not mere political gamesters. We represent the intelligence and sanity of Western culture, as manifested in our adherence to the norms of traditional verse-making. We are really non-political, except when liberalism makes it necessary for us to fight back.

    If some liberals and leftists show up here and are shocked and offended, so what? Why the bloody hell do we have to worry about THEIR feelings? Do they worry about ours? And please — no pious scriptural quotes. Christianity is not a suicide mission, no matter what the mainstream churches say. If the left doesn’t like what they see here, they can “take a powder,” as we say in Noo Yawk.

    Joshua Frank clearly sees that we are in a war, and that attempts by some troublemakers to come here and assail us are actually mop-up operations. They have largely won the larger war, and they think that getting rid of us is merely an easy finish.

    If we tolerate left-liberals here, they will overwhelm this site as quickly as termites undermine a wooden house. The left (being ESSENTIALLY AND ALWAYS POLITICAL) is genetically programmed to be activist, probing, argumentative, demanding, and critical. We are generally not that way, since we are not by nature political, and this puts us at a severe disadvantage.

    But I disagree with Joshua when he says “Sacrifice content to aesthetics and a leftist SCP will be the result.” That is an abstract possibility, but not a real-world probability. As poets leftists are deeply committed to experimentation and change and working “out of the box” and “pushing the envelope.” Very few of them are dedicated to inherited formal techniques of verse-craft. The free-verse writers among the left are excluded from publication here because of the SCP’s explicit commitment to rhyme and meter. And those leftist poets who produce formal work won’t come here because of our very vociferous defense of the cultural past.

    (I have more to say, but must stop now. I will continue later this evening.)

    Reply
    • ABB

      Very good points, thanks for this. I am reminded of Russell Kirk’s definition of the conservative person as “one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night,” and in his six principles of the conservative worldview as described in his first book–belief in a moral order, imperfectability, etc.

      Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      I think that’s an overly optimistic assessment of what leftists are like. Do you really think they’re incapable of using formal verse to infiltrate the SCP? They may be liars, cheats, thieves, homewreckers, etc., but obviously some of them are smart enough to fool us conservatives, otherwise they wouldn’t have assimilated so many like Star Trek’s Borg.

      Obviously some leftists do care about formal poetry, otherwise there wouldn’t be any here. We’ve already had a few; if enough come in, it’s not a question of if they take over the SCP, it’s a question of when. Assimilation always starts with them being offended by the conservative content. Then they bully us more and more until they’ve completely worn us down, we’re too exhausted to fight back, and they waltz right in and take over.

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Can you please wait till I finish my argument? I’ll be back shortly.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        Sorry about that, I assumed “more to say” to be a separate set of arguments.

  11. Joseph S. Salemi

    I need to comment a bit further on Joshua’s statement that concern for aesthetic quality over content will lead to a more leftish-liberal website. Once again, what I have to say may sound counterintuitive. I hope readers will be patient.

    First of all, if “content” were the basis on which poems are chosen for publication, then this website would become just another propaganda outlet for some party or sect. This is why I have always been angry when I sense that religionists are trying to move the SCP in a certain proselytizing direction. That would be no different from the Communist Central Committee deciding which books were allowed to be published in the USSR.

    A primary concern for aesthetic qualities is often expressed in the Latin motto “Ars gratia artis,” or “Art for art’s sake.” It was a popular idea among English writers in the late 19th century, who were trying desperately to produce art free from the shackles of Victorian conventionalities and pieties. But the idea is much older than the 1890s — it has always been the secret (and unspoken) motto of every independent and self-assured creator. Good artists do what they want, in accord with their own aesthetic principles and judgment.

    When you accept the motto “Art for art’s sake,” here is what you are saying to the world: “Nobody can tell me what to do, and nobody can criticize my work on non-aesthetic grounds.”

    I think many persons here have failed to recognize what a powerful weapon the art-for-art’s-sake position is for us in fighting left-liberalism. It is what used to be called a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. If we insist that poems are to be judged solely on their craftsmanship as literary artifacts, we can include WHATEVER CONTENT WE WANT IN OUR POEMS! And no stupid leftist like Zoe or Conor Kelly can raise the slightest objection to what we say. Let me explain.

    Our enemies are in thrall to Categorical Imperatives. They are robotic in their devotion (which is a very real religious devotion) to that which they hold to be “moral” and “proper” and “decent” and”progressive.” When you insist on the art-for-art’s sake position, you pull the plug on their entire worldview! They can’t criticize any poem at all, no matter how offensive and insulting they find it. Their Categorical Imperatives become inoperative. As a result, we are in no way obliged to defend or explain or apologize for any poem we write.

    Do you see how different that makes us from countless faux “conservatives” who are always on the defensive with the left, uncomfortably squirming and desperately trying to answer political charges? The left can scream bloody murder about what we write, but we can just tell them to bugger off.

    About left-liberals coming here to infiltrate and take over — individuals of that ilk have come here sometimes, but they have always been spotted quickly and whacked hard. And if one of them comes and posts a nice formal poem that has no tendentious political argument, he’s always been welcome. As a general rule, leftists who try to infiltrate and take over a website always tip their hand quickly, and they never succeed unless most of the website’s members are weak-kneed types who shrivel at any charge of “sexism” or “racism.” That’s not going to happen here, as long as our Murderers’ Row of very articulate rightists is in action. Persons who have come to the SCP and expressed outrage over what we have written have been told, in no uncertain terms, to go swive themselves.

    Do some try to infiltrate here? Sure. But how long do they survive? Conor Kelly was outed the moment he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about his real opinions. Others were here for a little while, and left when they realized they were going to be slammed if they tried to criticize our work politically rather than aesthetically. And suppose a left-liberal wrote a “conservative” metrical piece just to get published here, or if he made some rightist noises in the discussion threads. What exactly would that accomplish for him? Would he have done anything to advance his agenda?

    I know quite well what leftists are like. I have been fighting them for well over half a century. They simply cannot act in ways that contradict their Categorical Imperatives, just as they are enslaved by their animosities. They would make terrible spies or undercover agents, because they can’t put aside their “morality,” not even for a moment.

    I loved ABB’s presentation on YouTube, but I wish he hadn’t used the phrase “Conservative Poetry.” That was a mistake, because it generates an ambiguity that our enemies can easily exploit. Does “conservative” mean “dedicated to the traditions and examples of canonical metrical poetry,” or does it mean “fixated on certain subjects that are congenial to political conservatives”?

    My own practice is never to use the term “conservative” as a self-description. I prefer to be called a reactionary, a counter-revolutionary, an unapologetic defender or Western culture and traditions, and a robust hater of anything that smells of liberalism or leftism. My experience with “conservatives” is that most of them are cuckservatives or RINOs.

    One final point to James Tweedie — I don’t notice that Mr. Mantyk publishes many poems with a narrative “perceived as being of a liberal persuasion.” If you have a specific poem in mind that I attacked, let me know which it was. In the discussion threads that follow a poem here, sometimes it happens that talk will naturally drift to the poem’s subject, and once that occurs anything is likely to be said. One can still think a poem is well written, while disliking what it says.

    Reply
    • Joshua C. Frank

      I’ve been thinking about this. It makes sense that “art for art’s sake” can be the same kind of cover “as leftist writers did in righter times” (to use one of my own lines).

      But anyone who reads my poetry knows that a lot of it isn’t simply “art for art’s sake” like a nature poem. It’s as blatantly reactionary (I only use the word “conservative” because that’s what most people understand) as “transgressive literature” is blatantly radical. I’m open about my writing being an apostolate to lead people to think more in line with Catholic teaching, about me being an American version of the protest poets we hear about in Muslim and Communist countries.

      So, if I hide behind the label of “art for art’s sake,” wouldn’t that be a lie? No one would believe it anyway!

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Some art is purely aesthetic, and some is didactic and propagandistic. No one would mistake your art for one that is disengaged from current controversies. Therefore you personally do not have to ‘hide behind the label” of art for art’s sake.

        I brought the point up as a polemical tool. It’s very important in argumentation to cut off the supply-line, so to speak, that feeds the enemy. If an artist claims that his work is done merely for the sake of aesthetic satisfaction, and nothing else, he is immune to any critique from leftist moralists about what is “proper” or “decent” or ‘righteous.” He can tell them to drop dead.

        In any case, why are you so exercised about the possibility of lying? Are you also suffering from the disease of Categorical Imperatives?

        You will never defeat the left with “moral” arguments, or ethical appeals. This is why religionists will not be very helpful in the coming war.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        Without a fixed, unwavering code of ethics, why would we even want to defeat the left in the first place? Any answer assumes an unchanging assumption about what is good and what is bad. “We want to defeat the left to preserve X.” Well, why is X good?

        Without what you call categorical imperatives, we have no reason to fight for anything greater than ourselves, egoism (which the left has renamed “individualism”) guides all our actions, and we turn into a copy of the left, which defeats the purpose of fighting them.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m under no illusions that we can take back the culture. To use my own lines, “No more do they care for what’s good and what’s true/They don’t want to be saved anymore.” The culture will be restored on its own when it decays to the point where all that remains is, again to use my own lines, “Large families, small communities, the Church/The simple country life for which I search.” That will simply be natural selection, if Jesus doesn’t come before that can happen. I don’t write to change an entire culture; I write to help individuals escape the sinking ship, because a change of mindset is the first step.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Joshua, I have no desire to get into a fight with you. You are a good guy, you’re brave, and a devout Catholic — and that’s a lot to be said about anyone. But some of our deepest viewpoints are very divergent.

        You say “We want to defeat the left to preserve X. Well, why is X good?”

        I’m sorry, but from my perspective you have it all wrong. Spectacularly wrong. The question you have just asked is fatally flawed, and plays right into the hands of the enemy.

        We fight to preserve X because IT IS OURS, and WE LOVE IT, and IT REPRESENTS OUR IDENTITY, and we don’t give a flying hump if anyone has a different opinion! We fight to defend our culture, our race, our nation, our beliefs, our ways of thinking and acting — not because they are necessarily “good,” but because THEY ARE US, and because there is no goddamn reason on earth why we should be forced to change them!

        People don’t fight for “ideas” or “concepts” or “principles.” They fight for WHAT IS THEIRS, and for WHAT DEFINES THEIR RACIAL IDENTITY AND CULTURE. In short, they fight for primary loyalties and primary hatreds, not for some abstraction spelled out in a written document. Yeah, yeah, I know — everybody spouts nice speeches about how they are fighting for “justice” and “democracy” or some philosophical “good.” All the generals orate about “our noble cause.” That’s just chin-music. And the left is very good at chin-music.

        Do you think the vast majority of soldiers who fought in our Civil War gave a rat’s ass about the slavery question? The northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union; the southern soldiers fought to defend the sovereignty of their individual states. The only maniacs who wanted to fight for a “principle” or a “good” were those bloviating parsons in New England pulpits who went on and on about the Categorical Imperative of abolition.

        When you start asking the question about why what we are defending is “good,” you have unconsciously surrendered to the enemy. You have joined what Kevin MacDonald, in his brilliant series of books, has called “The Culture of Critique.” Asking that question invites debate and critique and dialogue, which are the wedges that an enemy needs to unman your courage, place doubts in your mind, and make you wonder whether the fight is worth it. Haven’t you ever considered why the left always starts out by saying “Let’s have a conversation”? That’s the Culture of Critique at work.

        When the forces of the Cossack rebel Pugachev came to demand the surrender of a Russian garrison, they sent four messengers on horseback to ride before its heavily defended gates. The messengers called for the garrison’s surrender, and then asked “Why should you fight and die for the Czarina Catherine? Shouldn’t you ask yourselves if it is worth it?”

        There was absolute silence from the Russian defenders for the space of two minutes. Then from the walls there came a shattering blast of hot grapeshot, which killed two of the horsemen and severely maimed the others. And the Russian commander shouted to those two bleeding survivors: “THAT is our answer to the rebel Pugachev! Drag yourselves back to him and tell him that we are loyal to the Czarina Catherine! And then you can bleed to death.”

        That’s what we are fighting for — what is ours, what we are loyal to, and what defines us. And it doesn’t matter whether it is “good” or “bad” or “indifferent” or not in accord with somebody else’s “Categorical Imperatives.” It is ours.

        Don’t argue with the enemy, Josh. Just fire grapeshot.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        I don’t want to fight you, either. I’m just trying to understand it all. You’re an academic of the humanities, and my field is math.

        I must be misunderstanding what a categorical imperative is, because according to my understanding of what it is, everything you describe is precisely that. “Because it is ours,” “because we love it,” etc. (with all of which I agree) seem to me to presuppose some deeper first principles, some reason these are important in the first place. From what you’re saying, though, it sounds as if those are first principles in themselves, and that this fact is somehow outside the category of categorical imperatives.

        I’ve never heard of the concept of a “categorical imperative” except from you, so I hope you can be patient with me as I try to understand what exactly that is.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        The Categorical Imperative was invented by the German Idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant. It’s a concept, an idea, a theoretical construct — just something that he cooked up in his head as a possible way to create an ethical system without any religious backing, and without any dependence on an unprovable hypothesis like Natural Law..

        The basic notion is that, when making a moral decision (about what to do in questions of right and wrong behavior), always act in such a way as to suggest to you that what you have done should become a universal law. No exceptions. No special cases. No issues of contingency or necessity. Just do what is “right,” period.

        It’s nothing but a complicated German verbal artifact, a pompous Teutonic way of saying “Thou shalt do it because it is righteous!” And yet liberals have leapt upon the Categorical Imperative as a way to trumpet their policies and establish their laws. They think it provides a secular reason for ethics.

        In other words, if you think something is the “right thing to do,” it must be done that way by EVERYBODY, everywhere else on the planet, without exception of mitigation.

        Take the case of this Categorical Imperative: “You must not lie.” Kant would say that if a terrified fugitive came to you and said “Please hide me! I’m being chased by a murderer!” you should hide him. But if the would-be murderer were to show up and ask you if you knew where the fugitive was hiding, you had the obligation to tell the truth and reveal the man’s hiding place. In other words, “Do the right thing” regardless of the consequences.

        Categorical Imperatives are wrecking the country right at this minute. Here are a few:

        1. Bail laws are immoral, because they penalize poor minorities! They should be revoked! IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

        2. Some children are gender dysphoric! They should be helped by transgender surgeries, no matter what their age! IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

        3. Poor helpless refugees need to be aided! We should open the borders! IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

        4. Looters are desperately poor and need things! They should not be arrested! IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

        Need I go on? All of the above is pushed without the slightest regard for consequences, because Kantian morality is UNIVERSAL and UNQUESTIONABLE.

        For me there is only one categorical imperative — preserve Europeans and Western civilization, defend their traditional beliefs and folkways and habits of thinking and speech, and fight and die if necessary in that struggle.

        An extreme right-wing Hindu nationalist in India would be precisely parallel with me, but he would be defending his culture, his religion, his civilization and identity. A tough Japanese nationalist like Yukio Mishima would be doing the same thing for his nation and race and civilization. In other words, ethnocentric defense of one’s identity is a world-wide phenomenon. And this is why liberalism wants to destroy ethnic and racial identity.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        It sounds as if a categorical imperative is, essentially, an unbreakable rule, akin to the Ten Commandments. Having categorical imperatives, then, is why the left is as horrified by inequality and constraints as a Christian is (or should be, anyway) by murder (war is not murder, in case anyone’s wondering), adultery, and idol worship.

        But if that’s it, then it seems that what you’re getting at is that Christians need to be willing to break the laws handed down from on high by God Himself to defeat leftism. In which case, you’re right, it’s not going to happen. A true Christian would rather die than be guilty of a grave sin. Hence the martyrs endured five minutes of burning to death to escape an eternity burning in Hell.

        Plus, Christianity and its morals are an important part of Western civilization. If we were to discard that, we’d be fighting to preserve the pre-Christian West. Personally, I believe Western civilization is dead, and no amount of fighting will bring it back to life.

        As a Christian, my primary categorical imperative is to attain Heaven; as one called to marriage, my second is to raise a family for the same Heaven. It’s a much smaller scale than yours. So, I suppose you’re right: some of our deepest viewpoints are very divergent.

        Oh, and I realize I forgot to thank you for your compliments a few comments back. So, thank you.

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        The Ten Commandments aren’t Categorical Imperatives, because several of them can be mitigated or qualified, depending on circumstances. For example, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” can qualified and relaxed in the following cases:

        The killing of an enemy combatant in war.
        The unintended and inevitable killing of non-combatants in war (what the military calls “collateral casualities”).
        The necessary killing of a violent attacker in self-defense.
        The police killing of a dangerous criminal in the middle of a crime.
        The state execution of a legally condemned criminal.
        The killing of trespassers on private and signposted property.

        Figuring out whether the Commandment can be elided in any particular case is the job of “casuistry,” or careful analysis of all the facts and circumstances. The Jesuits used to be famous for it.

        The same is true for the Commandment “I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have no strange gods before me.” This is somewhat qualified in Western society, where we still speak of pagan Graeco-Roman gods (Cupid, Venus, Mars, Diana, Apollo, etc.) as if they were real, either in our mythologies or in our poems. Nobody has a problem with it.

        “Honor thy father and thy mother” is a Commandment, but a good casuist could argue against it in cases where a person’s parents were so horribly cruel and abusive that they did not deserve honor.

        “Keep holy the Lord’s Day” is a commandment, but the way in which that respect is shown has always varied from place to place in Christian countries, with some holding to a stricter observance than others. And a good casuist could argue that the necessity of servile labor on that day might allow a poor person in need of funds to ignore it.

        But the Categorical Imperatives of left-liberals allow for no qualification or mitigation. None whatsoever. That is the big difference.

      • Joshua C. Frank

        I see. That makes sense. Because leftists can’t see how circumstances can change everything, they can’t understand why we can accept killing in self-defense but can’t accept abortion. They think that to call a thing evil, it must be evil in every circumstance (which some things are, like adultery). They call themselves moral relativists, but this is just a convenient label to justify all kinds of evil; in reality, they’re the most absolutist kind of people imaginable—no inequality, no constraints, no binding truth, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason… unless they’re making up a new rule to silence us (e.g., “Men aren’t qualified to have an opinion on abortion!”).

        I don’t know if categorical imperatives are the reason leftists think as they do, though, as they seem willing to discard these when it suits them to do so. One would think they’re absolutely against racism, for example, but they have no problem being racist against white people, or with the fact that abortion mills selectively target black communities.

        It seems that leftists really only have one categorical imperative: to assimilate everyone on the side of truth, goodness, etc., into their collective, in the manner of Star Trek’s Borg. This is why they do their best to silence those of us they can’t assimilate: we prevent them from accomplishing this.

  12. Mia

    I have watched the clip a few times, does she really say that she found evidence of celebrating the deaths of transgender people and something about genocide!? I think she said more but I will stop there. How can her assessment be concluded as being kind of fair!
    She describes herself as a writer, poet and content creator and she says that the cat is the brains of the operation. Well, cats are kind of cuddly but beware of their claws!
    You are right I have never heard of Jericho Brown, but I have heard of Covid, forced jabs, the closure of the Tavistock clinic and the Ukraine War – all factors that may have influenced poets in the last few years.
    I think it wise to refute manipulative discourse with facts! (in a way that is what the graph was all about, presenting opinion as fact)
    On re-reading this I am being kind of harsh but perhaps that’s the problem. We don’t want to offend anyone but there is a great deal at stake here.
    Mr Salemi is correct. As someone who has detested the terms “left” and “right,” in the political sense, since I was a child, I am so pleased that you clarified that it is all about being conservative. Fighting to keep what is good whilst working to change what isn’t. Also that, in a way, this doesn’t make people good at politics and puts them at a disadvantage. Whereas those that advocate outrageous things seem to have taken masterclasses in how to make evil look good and good look evil.

    Reply
  13. James A. Tweedie

    Joe, as I said when I asked my question, “I’m not interested in taking sides in this discussion.” I asked a question and you took the time to answer it. I want to thank you for taking the time to do that. Out of respect I will keep my response brief.

    Your Part 2 is one I can (for the most part) find common ground. The concept of “Ars gratia artis” (which features prominently on the iconic Metro-Golden-Mayer/Leo the lion clip) works for me, although how one defines “art” or “art’s sake”can make the phrase pliable enough to mean anything from libertarian within classical restraints (as you seem to suggest), completely anarchic, or so narrowly defined in political terms as to support Soviet, Chinese communist or German Nationalist control over what sort of art is acceptable and allowed in service to the ruling party.

    Part 1 is more problematic for me.

    Your definition of conservatism is laid out as follows:

    “(Conservatism) is the innate tendency in all human beings, regardless of race or nation or culture, to defend, protect, and cherish their traditions. It is a natural immune-system reaction that works to fight against anything that threatens a people’s folkways, habits, preferences, beliefs, and characteristic thoughts and reactions.“

    I think this is a marvelous distillation of a complex and wide-ranging subject—and one that can be usefully applied to any and every society, culture, tribe, nation, clan, etc.

    We diverge, however, with your subsequent argument that conservatism is inherently non-political except when acting in response to the threat of imposed change by liberal reformers,—I.e. a reactionary defense of the status quo.

    What follows from that argument makes reasonable sense, but only if one accepts the first principle that conservatism is inherently non-political.

    This is where we differ, since I would identify conservatism as being political in the purest sense of the word—as derived from the Greek word for city (polis) and its Latin derivative (polītīa) meaning citizenship, government and societal organization.

    As a result, unlike yourself, I do see the distinctions made between right and left, liberal/progressive and conservative—while imperfect and imprecise—to be useful in capturing a historic and repetitive clash between political opposites. To which I would add, that so-called middle ground or mutual concession always and without exception represents progressive gain and conservative loss.

    There are times, however, when conservative positions need to be challenged and changed for one reason or another. The American institution of slavery and the disenfranchisement of women and non-property owners can serve as arguable examples.

    This is not a debate in which I desire to engage, but I felt your well-articulated response to my question deserved one in return.

    We agree on much and where we don’t, it is the essence of why philosophy exists as we try to create sense and and order from a world that seems to be one small step short of both.

    Reply
  14. Susan Jarvis Bryant

    ABB, thank you for an engaging and beautifully edited presentation that is educative and highly entertaining.

    As the poet labeled a ‘TERF’ in Ms. Bee’s sneering indictment of all those veering from the pastoral, I believe you were too fair – an excellent quality, but one that leaves this poet bothered. When art critics start to accuse writers of “perpetuating racism and the genocide of trans people” using the highly charged term “stochastic terrorism” – the Western world begins to tread dangerous ground. Salman Rushdie has a fatwa hanging over his head for words the Iranian government didn’t agree with. He’s been savagely attacked with a knife for speaking freely. I certainly don’t agree with all he says, but I believe he has a right to speak freely. Zoe Bee is treading that same Iranian path with her accusations. She is calling for the erasure of writers whose ideas aren’t in keeping with her ideals. She only deems a poem worthy if it appeals to her political sensibilities, and if it doesn’t, the errant poet must be publicly pilloried for the crime of veering from her moral-code… a view that is as far from diverse as one could imagine… a view that is screaming for “immoral” poets to be silent… or else!

    Dr. Salemi’s reference to the Latin motto “Ars gratia artis,” or “Art for art’s sake” says everything. Poems are first and foremost “art” and should be judged as such, even if one disagrees with the content. The very nature of satire means it often elevates taboo topics to a level of humorous absurdity which is guaranteed to offend those who don’t agree. When I write a satirical poem nothing is safe from my critical eye – The Church, Government, Education, minority AND majority groups, but mainly those who attack free speech. This is art, and all should be fair game! It is when it comes to the richest living artist in Britain, Damien Hirst. One of his latest: “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” – a decaying cow’s head and a pool of blood, has art critics applauding his edgy skill. But that’s because there’s one rule for some and one for others and if you don’t know what those rules are, the arbiters of truth and beauty in art will soon let you know. They do this by damning all those who dare veer from their supreme doctrine.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Salemi

      Susan, once again your clear and direct language goes straight to the core of this debate. You prove that what we call “conservatism” is really INTELLIGENCE and SANITY.

      Our enemies are essentially irrational and emotion-driven, and as Tweedie admits, any compromise with them is always a net loss for our side. It makes no sense at all to engage with them in any manner. Will someone like the left-liberal activist Zoe be converted by logical arguments from Thomas Aquinas? Will a vicious little bitch like Ocasio-Cortez join us after reading Edmund Burke?

      We have to be able to say this to the left and all its parasites and camp-followers: “Call us whatever you like. We really don’t give a swiving hump what you think of us, or how you characterize us. And we will not engage you in dialogue over your precious Categorical Imperatives.”

      Reply
      • Joshua C. Frank

        Wait, if it makes no sense to engage with leftists, why are we trying to persuade them to accept our art as “art for art’s sake?” Won’t they just dismiss that the way they dismiss everything else we believe?

      • Joseph S. Salemi

        Joshua, we are not trying to “persuade” anyone of anything, dammit! That doesn’t work with the left. Nothing short of a major lobotomy would change the minds of Zoe and Ocasio-Cortez. We’re talking about polemics, not missionary work!

        I’m not “persuading” leftists with my art-for-art’s-sake position. I’m simply using it as a weapon in polemics, which is not about converting the enemy, but about attacking them and humiliating them and expressing scorn for their viewpoints.

        You’re quite right — leftists will “dismiss everything that we believe.” That is an absolute given. It is naive to think that, in the ferocious hatred that exists today, you are going to convince anybody of anything that they do not want to accept.

        Our job is merely this: to constantly lob artillery shells into the enemy camp, and watch them scream and bleed. OK?

      • Joshua C. Frank

        Understood. I just don’t see how “art for art’s sake” is much of an artillery shell. Your poem against Michael Burch and mine against Conor Kelly are artillery shells.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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