• 2016 American Election
  • 2016-2017 Trump transition
  • 2017-2021 Trump Presidency
  • about this site
  • AUTUMN IMAGES
  • BIGFOOT/SASQUATCH
  • books of note
  • cinemagic
  • commonplace book
  • cooking for poor poets
  • creepy sci-tech
  • depression
  • Dispatches
  • fictions by S.A. Bort
  • films of note
  • Four Blood Moons
  • FREE JUSTINA !
  • Future Shock
  • global chessboard
  • gratitudes
  • homes and destinations
  • honors of heart, mind and courage from the great OZ
  • let’s dance!
  • liberte!
  • living cheaply with style
  • love & marriage
  • Parkinson Disease Journal
  • people of note
  • po’try by s.a.bort (and others)
  • Readings
  • Scalia cover up?
  • self-improvement
  • songs of note
  • SPRING IMAGES
  • Summer Images
  • TAYLOR CALDWELL
  • TEXAS!
  • the sixties
  • watch your language!
  • WINTER IMAGES
  • word therapy
  • words of note
  • zen of writing

when is a party not a party ?

~ when you're not invited

when is a party not a party ?

Tag Archives: greed

Steve Bannon: unplugged

16 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by essaybee2012 in Benjamin Harnwell, Cardinal Raymond Burke, center-right populist movement, crisis of capitalism, crisis of Judeo-Christian West, enlightened capitalism, global nationalist vision, Human Dignity Institute, militant church, Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism, party of Davos, Pax Americana, state-sponsored capitalism, Steve Bannon, wealth creation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2008 financial crisis, 20th century, Acton Institute, American domestic politics, Anglosphere, antaganism, anti-abortion, anti-Semitism, assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinard, atheism, Ayn Rand, bank bailouts, barbarity, BBC, beliefs, Benjamin Harnwell, big government, Boeing, Boko Haram, Breitbart Media, Breitbart News, Brexit, British National Front, BuzzFeed News, caliphate, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Catholic Church, center-left perspective, center-right populist movement, center-right revolt, centralized government, chief strategist, Christian Democrat perspective, Christian voice, civilization, CNN, commandos, commodities, Conservative Party, Conservatives, corporatists, crisis of capitalism, crisis of Judeo-Christian West, crony capitalism, crowdsourcing, development aid, divine providence, Donald Trump, Drudge Report, elitists, enlightened capitalism, entrepreneurial capitalists, entrepreneurial spirit, Eric Cantor, Eurasianism, European Parliament, European religious right, evangelical Christians, Export-Import Bank, Facebook, faith, far right parties, fat cats, Financial Times, Fox News, free market capitalism, French National Front, fringe organizations, General Electric, global conflict, global nationalist vision, global revolt, global tea party movement, globalization, God, Goldman Sachs, governing class, greed, Hank Paulson, Harvard Business School, hedge fund securitization, heroism, High Church of England, Human Dignity Institute, identitarians, imperialist power, investment banks, ISIS, Italian fascism, J. Lester Feder, jihadist Islamic fascism, job creation, Julius Evola, Karl Marx, kleptocracy, kleptocrat, libertarian economists, libertarianism, Marine Le Pen, media companies, middle America, militant church, militias, millennials, Modi, monopolistic power, nationalism, neo-nativist movement, new Dark Age, Nigel Farage, Nirj Deva, objectified people, Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism, pan-European Union, party of Davos, Pax Americana, peace, personal freedom, Politico, Pope Francis, popular culture, populist movement, populist revolt, poverty, pragmatic capitalist, purpose, racism, Reaganesque principles, Republican establishment, resistance fighters, revolution, right-wing groups, rising middle class, secularization, senior counselor, social conservatives, socialist perspective, sovereignty, state-sponsored capitalism, Steve Bannon, technological transfer, The Economist, trade, traditional marriage, traditional values, tribalists, Twitter, UKIP movement, under employment, value creation, Vatican, Victorian era, Vladimir Putin, Wall Street, wealth creation, wealth distribution, West, working class, World War I, Zenit News agency

Buzzfeed.com

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.jjm4M80dD#.qgWv5eB3W

World

This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World

The soon-to-be White House chief strategist laid out a global vision in a rare 2014 talk, one where he said racism in the far right gets “washed out” and called Vladimir Putin a kleptocrat.  BuzzFeed News publishes the complete transcript for the first time.

Originally posted on Nov. 15, 2016, at 2:40 p.m.  Updated on Nov. 16, 2016, at 12:49 p.m.

J. Lester Feder

J. Lester Feder

BuzzFeed News Reporter

Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

Donald Trump’s newly named chief strategist and senior counselor, Steve Bannon, laid out his global nationalist vision in unusually in-depth remarks delivered by Skype to a conference held inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014.

Well before victories for Brexit and Trump seemed possible, Bannon declared there was a “global tea party movement” and praised European far-right parties like Great Britain’s UKIP and France’s National Front.  Bannon also suggested that a racist element in far-right parties “all gets kind of washed out,” that the West was facing a “crisis of capitalism” after losing its “Judeo-Christian foundation,” and he blasted “crony capitalists” in Washington for failing to prosecute bank executives over the financial crisis.

The remarks — beamed into a small conference room in a 15th-century marble palace in a secluded corner of the Vatican — were part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute, which BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right.  The group was founded by Benjamin Harnwell, a longtime aide to Conservative member of the European Parliament Nirj Deva to promote a “Christian voice” in European politics.  The group has ties to some of the most conservative factions inside the Catholic Church; Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the most vocal critics of Pope Francis who was ousted from a senior Vatican position in 2014, is chair of the group’s advisory board.

BuzzFeed News originally posted a transcript beginning 90 seconds into the then-Breitbart News chairman’s remarks because microphone placement made the opening mostly unintelligible, but we have completed the transcript from a video of the talk on YouTube.  You can hear the whole recording at the bottom of the post.

Here is what he said, unedited:

Steve Bannon:  Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this.  We’re speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles.  Um.  I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis.  And it’s really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world.  Principally in the west, but we’re expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

It’s ironic, I think, that we’re talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we’re talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind’s history.  Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace.  There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians.  Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that:  We’re children of that barbarity.  This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people — whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it’s the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right?  The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal.  It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth.  And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana.  It was many, many years and decades of peace.  And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.

“I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.”

And we’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

Now, what I mean by that specifically:  I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies:  One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

I see that every day.  I’m a very practical, pragmatic capitalist.  I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get.  I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it’s a very, very tough environment.  And you’ve had a fairly good track record.  So I don’t want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, “Let’s all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ around capitalism.”

But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

One is state-sponsored capitalism.  And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia.  I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people.  And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.  And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism.  I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West.  It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive.  And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

“Look at what’s happening in ISIS … look at the sophistication of which they’ve taken the tools of capitalism … at what they’ve done with Twitter and Facebook.”

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West.  And I know we’ve talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

Now that call converges with something we have to face, and it’s a very unpleasant topic, but we are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism.  And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.

If you look at what’s happening in ISIS, which is the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, that is now currently forming the caliphate that is having a military drive on Baghdad, if you look at the sophistication of which they’ve taken the tools of capitalism.  If you look at what they’ve done with Twitter and Facebook and modern ways to fundraise, and to use crowdsourcing to fund, besides all the access to weapons, over the last couple days they have had a radical program of taking kids and trying to turn them into bombers.  They have driven 50,000 Christians out of a town near the Kurdish border.  We have video that we’re putting up later today on Breitbart where they’ve took 50 hostages and thrown them off a cliff in Iraq.

That war is expanding and it’s metastasizing to sub-Saharan Africa.  We have Boko Haram and other groups that will eventually partner with ISIS in this global war, and it is, unfortunately, something that we’re going to have to face, and we’re going to have to face very quickly.

So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution?  It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth?  What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things.  But also to make sure that we understand that we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries that this conflict is only going to metastasize.

They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a “river of blood” if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad.  And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.  That is going to come to Central Europe, it’s going to come to Western Europe, it’s going to come to the United Kingdom.  And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.

“With all the baggage that those [right-wing] groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially— but we think that will all be worked through with time.”

Benjamin Harnwell, Human Dignity Institute:  Thank you, Steve.  That was a fascinating, fascinating overview.  I am particularly struck by your argument, then, that in fact, capitalism would spread around the world based on the Judeo-Christian foundation is, in fact, something that can create peace through peoples rather than antagonism, which is often a point not sufficiently appreciated.  Before I turn behind me to take a question —

Bannon: One thing I want to make sure of, if you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.  They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did.  And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored.  I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity.  People are looked at as commodities.  I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.

Harnwell: Over the course of this conference we’ve heard from various points of view regarding alleviation of poverty.  We’ve heard from the center-left perspective, we’ve heard from the socialist perspective, we’ve heard from the Christian democrat, if you will, perspective.  What particularly interests me about your point of view Steve, to talk specifically about your work, Breitbart is very close to the tea party movement.  So I’m just wondering whether you could tell me about if in the current flow of contemporary politics — first tell us a little bit about Breitbart, what the mission is, and then tell me about the reach that you have and then could you say a little bit about the current dynamic of what’s going on at the moment in the States.

Bannon:  Outside of Fox News and the Drudge Report, we’re the third-largest conservative news site and, quite frankly, we have a bigger global reach than even Fox.  And that’s why we’re expanding so much internationally.

Look, we believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement.  We’ve seen that.  We were the first group to get in and start reporting on things like UKIP and Front National and other center right.  With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time.

The central thing that binds that all together is a center-right populist movement of really the middle class, the working men and women in the world who are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos.  A group of kind of — we’re not conspiracy-theory guys, but there’s certainly — and I could see this when I worked at Goldman Sachs — there are people in New York that feel closer to people in London and in Berlin than they do to people in Kansas and in Colorado, and they have more of this elite mentality that they’re going to dictate to everybody how the world’s going to be run.

I will tell you that the working men and women of Europe and Asia and the United States and Latin America don’t believe that.  They believe they know what’s best for how they will comport their lives.  They think they know best about how to raise their families and how to educate their families.  So I think you’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, DC, or that government is in Brussels.  So we are the platform for the voice of that.

 “Putin’s … very, very very intelligent.  I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of.”

Now, with that, we are strong capitalists.  And we believe in the benefits of capitalism.  And, particularly, the harder-nosed the capitalism, the better.  However, like I said, there’s two strands of capitalism that we’re quite concerned about.

One is crony capitalism, or what we call state-controlled capitalism, and that’s the big thing the tea party is fighting in the United States, and really the tea party’s biggest fight is not with the left, because we’re not there yet.  The biggest fight the tea party has today is just like UKIP.  UKIP’s biggest fight is with the Conservative Party.

The tea party in the United States’ biggest fight is with the the Republican establishment, which is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules of how they’re going to comport themselves and how they’re going to run things.  And, quite frankly, it’s the reason that the United States’ financial situation is so dire, particularly our balance sheet.  We have virtually a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities.  That is all because you’ve had this kind of crony capitalism in Washington, DC.  The rise of Breitbart is directly tied to being the voice of that center-right opposition.  And, quite frankly, we’re winning many, many victories.

On the social conservative side, we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement, and I can tell you we’re winning victory after victory after victory.  Things are turning around as people have a voice and have a platform of which they can use.

Kirk Irwin / Getty Images

Harnwell: The third-largest conservative news website is something to be extremely impressed by.  Can you tell for the people here who aren’t within the Anglosphere and they might not follow American domestic politics at the moment — there seems to be a substantial sea change going on at the moment in Middle America.  And the leader of the majority party, Eric Cantor, was deselected a couple of weeks ago by a tea party candidate.  What does that mean for the state of domestic politics in America at the moment?

Bannon: For everybody in your audience, this is one of the most monumental — first off, it’s the biggest election upset in the history of the American republic.  Eric Cantor was the House majority leader and raised $10 million.  He spent, between himself and outside groups, $8 million to hold a congressional district.  He ran against a professor who was an evangelical Christian and a libertarian economist.  He ran against a professor who raised in total $175,000.  In fact, the bills from Eric Cantor’s campaign at a elite steak house in Washington, DC, was over $200,000.  So they spent more than $200,000 over the course of the campaign wining and dining fat cats at a steak house in Washington than the entire opposition had to run.

Now, Eric Cantor, it was a landslide.  He lost 57-43, and not one — outside of Breitbart, we covered this for six months, day in and day out — not one news site — not Fox News, not Politico, no sites picked this up.  And the reason that this guy won is quite simple:  Middle-class people and working-class people are tired of people like Eric Cantor who say they’re conservative selling out their interests every day to crony capitalists.

“That center-right revolt is really a global revolt. I think you’re going to see it in Latin America, I think you’re going to see it in Asia, I think you’ve already seen it in India.”

And you’re seeing that whether that was UKIP and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, whether it’s these groups in the Low Countries in Europe, whether it’s in France, there’s a new tea party in Germany.  The theme is all the same.  And the theme is middle-class and working-class people — they’re saying, “Hey, I’m working harder than I’ve ever worked.  I’m getting less benefits than I’m ever getting through this, I’m incurring less wealth myself, and I’m seeing a system of fat cats who say they’re conservative and say they back capitalist principles, but all they’re doing is binding with corporatists.”  Right?  Corporatists, to garner all the benefits for themselves.

And that center-right revolt is really a global revolt.  I think you’re going to see it in Latin America, I think you’re going to see it in Asia, I think you’ve already seen it in India.  Modi’s great victory was very much based on these Reaganesque principles, so I think this is a global revolt, and we are very fortunate and proud to be the news site that is reporting that throughout the world.

Harnwell: I think it’s important to understand the distinction that you’re drawing here between what can be understood as authentic, free-market capitalism as a means of promoting wealth that [unintelligible] involves everybody with a form of crony capitalism which simply benefits a certain class.  And we’ve watched over the course of our conference, we’ve watched two video segments produced by the Acton Institute about how development aid is spent internationally and how that can be driven away from — it damages people on the ground but it also perpetuates a governing class.  And the point that you’re mentioning here, that I think that you’re saying has driven almost a revolution movement in America, is the same phenomenon of what’s going on in the developing world, which is a concept of government which is no longer doing what it is morally bound to do but has become corrupt and self-serving.  So it’s effectively the sa—

Bannon:  It’s exactly the same.  Currently, if you read The Economist, you read the Financial Times this week, you’ll see there’s a relatively obscure agency in the federal government that is engaged in a huge fight that may lead to a government shutdown.  It’s called the Export-Import Bank.  And for years, it was a bank that helped finance things that other banks wouldn’t do.  And what’s happening over time is that it’s metastasized to be a cheap form of financing to General Electric and to Boeing and to other large corporations.  You get this financing from other places if they wanted to, but they’re putting this onto the middle-class taxpayers to support this.

“I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that [right-wing parties] have had some aspects that may be anti-Semitic or racial … My point is that over time it all gets kind of washed out, right?”

And the tea party is using this as an example of the cronyism.  General Electric and these major corporations that are in bed with the federal government are not what we’d consider free-enterprise capitalists.  We’re backers of entrepreneurial capitalists.  They’re not.  They’re what we call corporatist.  They want to have more and more monopolistic power and they’re doing that kind of convergence with big government.  And so the fight here — and that’s why the media’s been very late to this party — but the fight you’re seeing is between entrepreneur capitalism, and the Acton Institute is a tremendous supporter of, and the people like the corporatists that are closer to the people like we think in Beijing and Moscow than they are to the entrepreneurial capitalist spirit of the United States.

Harnwell:  Thanks, Steve.  I’m going to turn around now, as I’m sure we have some great questions from the floor. Who has the first question then?

Bannon:  First of all, Benjamin, I can tell you I could hardly recognize you, you’re so cleaned up you are for the conference.

[Laughter]

Questioner:  Hello, my name is Deborah Lubov.  I’m a Vatican correspondent for Zenit news agency, for their English edition.  I have some experience working in New York — I was working for PricewaterhouseCoopers auditing investment banks, one of which was Goldman Sachs.  And considering this conference is on poverty, I’m curious — from your point of view especially, your experience in the investment banking world — what concrete measures do you think they should be doing to combat, prevent this phenomenon?  We know that various sums of money are used in all sorts of ways and they do have different initiatives, but in order to concretely counter this epidemic now, what are your thoughts?

“For Christians, and particularly for those who believe in the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West, I don’t believe that we should have a [financial] bailout.”

Bannon:  That’s a great question.  The 2008 crisis, I think the financial crisis — which, by the way, I don’t think we’ve come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks.  My old firm, Goldman Sachs — traditionally the best banks are leveraged 8:1.  When we had the financial crisis in 2008, the investment banks were leveraged 35:1.  Those rules had specifically been changed by a guy named Hank Paulson.  He was secretary of Treasury.  As chairman of Goldman Sachs, he had gone to Washington years before and asked for those changes.  That made the banks not really investment banks, but made them hedge funds — and highly susceptible to changes in liquidity.   And so the crisis of 2008 was, quite frankly, really never recovered from in the United States.  It’s one of the reasons last quarter you saw 2.9% negative growth in a quarter.  So the United States economy is in very, very tough shape.

And one of the reasons is that we’ve never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008.  Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis.  And in fact, it gets worse.  No bonuses and none of their equity was taken.  So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that’s one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we’re seeing as the tea party.  So I think there are many, many measures, particularly about getting the banks on better footing, making them address all the liquid assets they have.  I think you need a real clean-up of the banks balance sheets.

In addition, I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they’ve all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy.  So I think it’s a whole area that just — and I will tell you, the underpinning of this populist revolt is the financial crisis of 2008.  That revolt, the way that it was dealt with, the way that the people who ran the banks and ran the hedge funds have never really been held accountable for what they did, has fueled much of the anger in the tea party movement in the United States.

Questioner:  Thank you.

Bannon:  Great question.

Questioner:  Hello, Mr. Bannon.  I’m Mario Fantini, a Vermonter living in Vienna, Austria.  You began describing some of the trends you’re seeing worldwide, very dangerous trends, worry trends.  Another movement that I’ve been seeing grow and spread in Europe, unfortunately, is what can only be described as tribalist or neo-nativist movement — they call themselves Identitarians.  These are mostly young, working-class, populist groups, and they’re teaching self-defense classes, but also they are arguing against — and quite effectively, I might add — against capitalism and global financial institutions, etc.  How do we counteract this stuff?  Because they’re appealing to a lot of young people at a very visceral level, especially with the ethnic and racial stuff.

Bannon:  I didn’t hear the whole question, about the tribalist?

“One of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department, 35 [bank] executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on.”

Questioner: Very simply put, there’s a growing movement among young people here in Europe, in France and in Austria and elsewhere, and they’re arguing very effectively against Wall Street institutions and they’re also appealing to people on an ethnic and racial level.  And I was just wondering what you would recommend to counteract these movements, which are growing.

Bannon:  One of the reasons that you can understand how they’re being fueled is that they’re not seeing the benefits of capitalism.  I mean particularly — and I think it’s particularly more advanced in Europe than it is in the United States, but in the United States it’s getting pretty advanced — is that when you have this kind of crony capitalism, you have a different set of rules for the people that make the rules.  It’s this partnership of big government and corporatists.  I think it starts to fuel, particularly as you start to see negative job creation.  If you go back, in fact, and look at the United States’ GDP, you look at a bunch of Europe.  If you take out government spending, you know, we’ve had negative growth on a real basis for over a decade.

And that all trickles down to the man in the street.  If you look at people’s lives, and particularly millennials, look at people under 30 — people under 30, there’s 50% really under employment of people in the United States, which is probably the most advanced economy in the West, and it gets worse in Europe.

I think in Spain it’s something like 50 or 60% of the youth under 30 are underemployed.  And that means the decade of their twenties, which is where you have to learn a skill, where you have to learn a craft, where you really start to get comfortable in your profession, you’re taking that away from the entire generation.  That’s only going to fuel tribalism, that’s only going to fuel [unintelligible]…  That’s why to me, it’s incumbent upon freedom-loving people to make sure that we sort out these governments and make sure that we sort out particularly this crony capitalism so that the benefits become more of this entrepreneurial spirit and that can flow back to working-class and middle-class people.  Because if not, we’re going to pay a huge price for this.  You can already start to see it.

Questioner:  I have a question, because you worked on Wall Street.  What is the opinion there on whether they think bank bailouts are justified?  Is there a Christian-centered [unintelligible] that they think should be bailed out?  The crisis starts earlier than 2008.  What was the precedent then? What was the feeling on Wall Street when they bailed out the banks?  How should Christians feel about advocating or being against that?

Bannon:  I think one is about responsibility.  For Christians, and particularly for those who believe in the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West, I don’t believe that we should have a bailout.  I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong.  And I think, you look in hindsight, it was a lot of misinformation that was presented about the bailouts of the banks in the West.

And look at the [unintelligible] it.  Middle-class taxpayers, people that are working-class people, right, people making incomes under $50,000 and $60,000, it was the burden of those taxpayers, right, that bailed out the elites.  And let’s think about it for a second.  Here’s how capitalism metastasized, is that all the burdens put on the working-class people who get none of the upside.  All of the upside goes to the crony capitalists.

The bailouts were absolutely outrageous, and here’s why:  It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable.  The shareholders were accountable for one simple reason:  They allowed this to go wrong without changing management.  And the management team of this.  And we know this now from congressional investigations, we know it from independent investigations, this is not some secret conspiracy.  This is kind of in plain sight.

In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on.  Because even with the Democrats, right, in power, there’s a sense between the law firms, and the accounting firms, and the investment banks, and their stooges on Capitol Hill, they looked the other way.

So you can understand why middle class people having a tough go of it making $50 or $60 thousand a year and see their taxes go up, and they see that their taxes are going to pay for government sponsored bailouts, what you’ve created is really a free option.  You say to this investment banking, create a free option for bad behavior. In otherwise all the upside goes to the hedge funds and the investment bank, and to the crony capitalist with stock increases and bonus increases.  And their downside is limited, because middle class people are going to come and bail them out with tax dollars.

And that’s what I think is fueling this populist revolt.  Whether that revolt is in the midlands of England, or whether it’s in Middle America.  And I think people are fed up with it.

And I think that’s why you’re seeing — when you read the media says, “tea party is losing, losing elections,” that is all BS.  The elections we don’t win, we’re forcing those crony capitalists to come and admit that they’re not going to do this again.  The whole narrative in Washington has been changed by this populist revolt that we call the grassroots of the tea party movement.

And it’s specifically because those bailouts were completely and totally unfair.  It didn’t make those financial institutions any stronger, and it bailed out a bunch of people — by the way, and these are people that have all gone to Yale, and Harvard, they went to the finest institutions in the West.  They should have known better.

And by the way:  It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out.  And they’ve never been held accountable today.  Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.  You’re seeing this populist movement called the tea party in the United States.

Harnwell:  Okay, I think we’ve got time for just one or two more questions for Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of Breitbart Media, third-largest news organization in the States.  I know you’re a very, very busy man, so we’re very grateful for the time that you’ve agreed to put aside for this, to close this conference.

“I certainly think secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals, right?”

Bannon:  I’m never too busy to share with a group that can do as much good as you guys can.

Questioner:  What do you think is the major threat today, to the Judeo-Christian Civilization?  Secularism, or the Muslim world?  In my humble opinion, they’re just trying to defend themselves from our cultural invasion.  Thank you.

[Question restated by Harnwell]

Bannon:  It’s a great question.  I certainly think secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals, right?

If you go back to your home countries and your proponent of the defense of the Judeo-Christian West and its tenets, often times, particularly when you deal with the elites, you’re looked at as someone who is quite odd.  So it has kind of sapped the strength.

But I strongly believe that whatever the causes of the current drive to the caliphate was — and we can debate them, and people can try to deconstruct them — we have to face a very unpleasant fact:  And that unpleasant fact is that there is a major war brewing, a war that’s already global.  It’s going global in scale, and today’s technology, today’s media, today’s access to weapons of mass destruction, it’s going to lead to a global conflict that I believe has to be confronted today.  Every day that we refuse to look at this as what it is, and the scale of it, and really the viciousness of it, will be a day where you will rue that we didn’t act [unintelligible].

“The way that the people who ran the banks and ran the hedge funds have never really been held accountable for what they did has fueled much of the anger in the tea party movement in the United States.”

Questioner:  Thank you very much.  I’m [unintelligible].  I come from Slovakia.  This is actually the source of my two very quick questions.  Thank you very much for the work that you do to promote the Judeo-Christian values in the world.  I really appreciate it, and I also feel that the danger is very high.  I have two minor questions, because you have mentioned, in terms of UKIP and Front National [unintelligible].  From the European perspective, listening to the language which has become more and more radical from these two parties, especially before the European Parliament elections, I’m just wondering what are your plans on how to help these partners from Europe to maybe focus on the value issues and not with populist?  And also it goes in terms — you have mentioned the involvement of state in capitalism as one of the big dangers.  But these two parties you’ve mentioned, they actually have close ties with Putin, who is the promoter of this big danger, so I’d like to know your thoughts about this and how you’re going to deal with it.

Bannon:  Could you summarize that for me?

Harnwell:  The first question was, you’d reference the Front National and UKIP as having elements that are tinged with the racial aspect amidst their voter profile, and the questioner was asking how you intend to deal with that aspect.

Bannon:  I don’t believe I said UKIP in that.  I was really talking about the parties on the continent, Front National and other European parties.

I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that they have had some aspects that may be anti-Semitic or racial.  By the way, even in the tea party, we have a broad movement like this, and we’ve been criticized, and they try to make the tea party as being racist, etc., which it’s not.   But there’s always elements who turn up at these things, whether it’s militia guys or whatever. Some that are fringe organizations.  My point is that over time it all gets kind of washed out, right?  People understand what pulls them together, and the people on the margins I think get marginalized more and more.

I believe that you’ll see this in the center-right populist movement in continental Europe.  I’ve spent quite a bit of time with UKIP, and I can say to you that I’ve never seen anything at all with UKIP that even comes close to that.  I think they’ve done a very good job of policing themselves to really make sure that people including the British National Front and others were not included in the party, and I think you’ve seen that also with tea party groups, where some people would show up and were kind of marginal members of the tea party, and the tea party did a great job of policing themselves early on.  And I think that’s why when you hear charges of racism against the tea party, it doesn’t stick with the American people, because they really understand.

I think when you look at any kind of revolution — and this is a revolution — you always have some groups that are disparate.  I think that will all burn away over time and you’ll see more of a mainstream center-right populist movement.

“Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand.”

Question:  Obviously, before the European elections the two parties had a clear link to Putin.  If one of the representatives of the dangers of capitalism is the state involvement in capitalism, so, I see there, also Marine Le Pen campaigning in Moscow with Putin, and also UKIP strongly defending Russian positions in geopolitical terms.

[Harnwell restates, but unintelligible]

Harnwell:  These two parties have both been cultivating President Putin [unintelligible].

Bannon:  I think it’s a little bit more complicated.  When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism.  A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country.  They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States.  They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.

“You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, DC, or that government is in Brussels.  So we are the platform for the voice of that.”

I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy.  However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing.  I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character.  He’s also very, very, very intelligent.  I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of.  Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand.  However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first.

Questioner:  One of my questions has to do with how the West should be responding to radical Islam.  How, specifically, should we as the West respond to Jihadism without losing our own soul?  Because we can win the war and lose ourselves at the same time.  How should the West respond to radical Islam and not lose itself in the process?

Bannon:  From a perspective — this may be a little more militant than others.  I think definitely you’re going to need an aspect that is [unintelligible].  I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam.  And I realize there are other aspects that are not as militant and not as aggressive and that’s fine.

If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places… It bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.

And I would ask everybody in the audience today, because you really are the movers and drivers and shakers and thought leaders in the Catholic Church today, is to think, when people 500 years from now are going to think about today, think about the actions you’ve taken — and I believe everyone associated with the church and associated with the Judeo-Christian West that believes in the underpinnings of that and believes in the precepts of that and want to see that bequeathed to other generations down the road as it was bequeathed to us, particularly as you’re in a city like Rome, and in a place like the Vatican, see what’s been bequeathed to us — ask yourself, 500 years from today, what are they going to say about me?  What are they going to say about what I did at the beginning stages of this crisis?

Because it is a crisis, and it’s not going away.  You don’t have to take my word for it.  All you have to do is read the news every day, see what’s coming up, see what they’re putting on Twitter, what they’re putting on Facebook, see what’s on CNN, what’s on BBC.  See what’s happening, and you will see we’re in a war of immense proportions.  It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that.  But our forefathers didn’t do it either.  And they were able to stave this off, and they were able to defeat it, and they were able to bequeath to us a church and a civilization that really is the flower of mankind, so I think it’s incumbent on all of us to do what I call a gut check, to really think about what our role is in this battle that’s before us.

Listen to the unedited audio of the event here:

[see:  https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.jjm4M80dD#.qgWv5eB3W%5D

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #9 of 22

15 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by essaybee2012 in Dialogues With The Devil (1967), evil, God, goodness, Heaven, hell, Lucifer, mankind, Michael the Archangel, Taylor Caldwell

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adultery, angels, archangels, creation, Damon, death, demons, dreams, Eden, enticements, envy, equality, equity, existence, faith, flesh, forbidden tree, free will, gluttony, grace, greed, habit, happiness, heirarchy of heaven, individuality, injustice, innocence, labor, leisure, lies, Lilith, lust, malice, material needs, mistrust, murder, nature, Pandara, Paradise, penance, piety, repentance, saints, salvation, seduction, sin, sloth, soul, spirit, suspicion, temptation, Terra, theft, theologians, virtue

Jean Jullien, artist

Jean Jullien, artist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Caldwell, Taylor.  Dialogues With The Devil.  New York:  Doubleday & Co., 1967. pp 46-56.]  Please see Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #1 of 22 for an introduction to this serialization.

GREETINGS to my brother, Lucifer . . .

We are excessively pleased that you have informed us that you will send Damon to Pandara, to seduce her six women. . . .

. . . we have taken precautions against Damon and Lilith.  Unfortunately, we had to introduce suspicion into that vast paradise.  We should have preferred that entire innocence prevail, but one remembers that Our Father set, in the midst of Eden, a Forbidden Tree.  Suspicion, entering into Pandara, will awaken the power of free will, and a healthy mistrust.

. . . I appeared to the wives of Pandara, the innocent treasures!–and informed them that they were with child, which pleased them mightily.  However, I mourned . . . A beautiful female demon, one Lilith, who destroyed the souls of millions upon millions of other men, would soon enter the azure light of their planet to seduce their husbands and lead their husbands into unspeakable pleasures and lust, thus insuring that for a time, at least, those husbands would forget their wives and abandon their little nestlings.  The husbands would romp with Lilith, neglectful of the duties of hearth, home and bed and field, and they would love her with madness and be so smitten of her charms that they would regard their wives with distaste and possibly revulsion.  Worse still, the harvests would be neglected, the cattle unfed, the roofs unsealed . . .

A woman may forgive her husband a romp in the shadowy forests, but she will not forgive him the sufferings of her children, nor will she forgive the great insult to her own beauty and desirability.  The ladies said to me, “Is this Lilith fairer than I?”  And I replied, “Assuredly, she is the fairest of women, for all she is a demon, and are not maddening women demons?  Though you are lovely to behold, my little ones, Lilith in contrast will cast a dust of ugliness upon you in your husbands’ eyes.  But above all, she will shatter the peace and joy of your planet, and bring age upon your faces, and wrinkles, and dim the green fire of your eyes, and she will bring death upon your children and disease and storms and darkness and furies.”

“What, then, shall we do, to preserve our planet, our homes, our youth, and our life and our children?” the ladies implored me.

“Ah,” I told them, “men are susceptible to ladies of no virtue and no matronly attributes!  They are like adorable children, wanton at heart but in need of protection, and the careful supervision of alerted wives.  They will stretch forth their hands for the flying hair of a woman of no sturdy consequence, and they will dance with her in the moonlight and garland her head with flowers and press their cheeks against her breast, and drink of wine deeply with her.  She will laugh, and sing and play, and a wise matron understands how these things can lure men from their duties.  She will becloud the minds of your husbands so that they will think of pleasure and not the granaries, laughter in the sun and not of weak roofs, roses in the glades and not of wool to be sheared.  There is a certain weakness in men that inclines them to frivolity and dallying, and Lilith will exploit that weakness and entice your husbands from your sides. . . .

“We will be watchful, O, Lord Michael!” the wives promised me . . . is this not better than death and sin and age and disease and sorrow, not to mention the harsh tongues of betrayed wives?  I have observed that men can endure great hardships and adversities with considerable calm, but they cannot endure for long the smite of a woman’s less affectionate remarks, and her acid conversation at midnight when they would prefer to sleep. . . .

I then repaired to the husbands of Pandara, and when they had risen from their knees at my consent, I said to them, “Glorious is your planet, beloved sons of God, my dear brothers, and fair are her skies and rich are her fields and splendid will be your cities.  Handsome are your faces and strong are the rosy muscles of your arms, and your wives rejoice in you.”

“It is so, Lord!” they cried in jubilation, and I smiled at the happiness in their eyes and loved them dearly for the male spirit is a little less complicated than the female and somewhat more naive.  It has an innocence, even in paradise, beyond the innocence of women who, even in paradise, are given to reflection, and are less trusting.

“But alas,” I said to the boys, “your joy is threatened, for you have free will, as you know, and alas again, so do your wives. . . . Men are often slave to habit, virtuous or unvirtuous, but women have few habits at all and so are easily led astray into novelties.  Your wives, though with child, will not always be with child.  They will have moments of leisure.  While leisure for a man is a quiet resting or an innocent pastime or a running after balls or a climbing of trees for the fruit, or just sleeping, leisure for a woman is the veriest temptation. . . . Have you not already discovered this for yourselves?”

. . .

“Your wives will all have dreams very soon,” I told them, “and none of them will be virtuous.  None of them will be concerned for the husband who labors in the fields and the forests and who tends cattle and returns dutifully home to his children and sits soberly on his hearth.  On the contrary!  They will be dreams which I hesitate to speak of, for women’s minds are somewhat less decorous and guileless than men’s, even on Pandara.  The indelicacy of a woman’s thoughts would bring a flame to the cheek of even the burliest man.  You have observed that nature is not always delicate?”

. . .

“And women are far closer to nature than are you, for all you labor in the fields and the forests.  There is a certain earthiness in women which is sometimes an embarrassment to husbands, a certain lustiness of the flesh that is not always easily satisfied.  If I am incorrect, I beg your forgiveness.”

“You are correct, Lord,” said the simple ones.

. . . “For unto your wives there will be sent from the very depths of hell an evil but most beautiful male demon, one Damon.  I know him well!  He has seduced endless millions of women on other planets, as fair and as matronly as your own, and as busy–with dreams.  He is full of novelties and enticements, and adores women and finds them overwhelmingly fascinating–which you not always do.  Their conversation never wearies him; he is attentive and glorious.  As he never labors, except to do mischief, he is not weary at sundown, as you are weary.  As he is a demon and not a man, he does not sleep, and women are notable for being active at night.  And dreaming.  He converses.  You have no idea what a menace to husbands is a conversing man!  But women find it distracting.

“You love your wives.  Soon, they will bear children.  However, when Damon comes to seduce them with fair words, with exciting discourse, with flatteries and ardencies, and will shine the beauty of his countenance upon them and jest with them until they are weak with laughter and adoration, they will forget you and your children, and will race with him to flowery dells and into dim lush spots–and will then betray you for his kisses and his lusts.  Then will your children cry for a maternal breast, and then will there be no dishes upon the table to appease your hungers, and no arms to sustain you in your beds.  You will be veritable orphans, abandoned and alone, left to weep among the wreckages of your households, and the uncleaned pots and the stale bread.  Is that not a fate to weep about, and to pray never afflicts you?”

. . .

. . . Damon has a voice that is irresistible, and what woman can resist a musical voice if it is also masculine?  Damon is all masculinity; he is never weary.  His muscles never ache.  His foot never lags.  He never frowns, if dinner is a little late.  He is also never hungry, as you are hungry, and you know how impatient wives are with the honest hunger of a man.  They remark that men’s bellies seem bottomless.  Correct me if I am wrong.”

“You are correct, Lord,” they said, with dismalness and alarm.

As Damon does not seek a woman with forthrightness, and with sleep in mind thereafter–as you do–he will dally with a woman after love, until she is ready and eager for his embraces again.  Whereas you, my dear little ones, wish to turn on your pillows in preparation for the next day’s work.  Damon never asks, “Do you love me?” as your wives ask, until you yawn for very boredom.  He constantly assures the creature of his immediate affection that never has he loved a woman so before, and how rapturous are her kisses and perfumed her flesh.  Do you say all this to your wives?”

“No, Lord,” they said dolorously.

. . .

. . .

“Be patient.  For one comes who will have all the patience in the world and will never weary.  Not only will he seduce your wives, so that all the horrors I have described will come upon you, but he will bring old age and death to you, and flagging of strength, and disease and pain.  Worse, he will sharpen your women’s tongues, and nothing is more deadly.”

“How can we escape such a dreadful fate?” they cried.

. . . Men are trustful, when it involves women, and that is a momentous mystery which I will not even attempt to explore.  I do not advise distrust as a general climate of the mind.  That can inspire eventual cynicism and lovelessness.  But a reasonable distrust is prudent.  And one knows the weaknesses of women.  Do we not?”

“Certainly!” they exclaimed, positive that they had always known female weaknesses, though the fact had only just occurred to them, alas.

“Then, be watchful for Damon.  Never leave your wives long unguarded, especially in the soft eventides and when the moons are shining.  Do not dally in the fields and the forests and the hills and the meadows as the sun begins to go down.  Do not let anything draw you aside, even if it appears exciting and wondrous and new–and, probably beautiful, itself.  For, if you delay, Damon will appear on your thresholds at home, and you may return to an empty household.  A moment’s delight can cost you a whole life’s industry and hope and peace.  And, again, it will bring you death and suffering.”

. . .

. . .

It is not sensible, as you know, Lucifer, to describe a handsome man to a woman or a lovely woman to a man, human nature being what it is, even on the Eden which is Pandara.

“We will guard our honor and the honor of our households and the safety of our children and the purity of our wives!” shouted the innocent ones, raising their fists high in a solemn oath.  “Ever shall we be watchful of our women, understanding their weaknesses and their frail natures and their susceptibilities to temptation!”

I gave them my blessing and departed.  They have been warned.  Suspicion has been introduced into the turquoise daylight and the silver and lilac nights. . . . In Heaven we are unequally perfect, in accordance with the ability to be perfect inherent in our natures  And that brings me to another subject you discussed in your last letter:  Equality, which pervades hell.

In Heaven, there is Equity, which is an entirely different matter.

. . . The same situation prevails in hell–equality of treatment no matter the soul.  However, in Heaven, as I have mentioned, there is Equity, based on the Natural Law that some men are superior to others, and some angels less than others, in virtue, in devotion, in piety, in dedication, love and courage and goodness.  Equity does not abolish law; it intelligently deals with it, and its inflexibility.

Therefore, spirits in Heaven, angel or man, are rewarded in direct ratio to their accomplishments, which are governed by their will.  Man, as we know, cannot earn merit during his lifetime on the grosser material of the planets, unless he has not fallen.  But fallen men are incapable of earning merit, for their sin has thrown a wall of human impotence between them and their Creator.  Only the Grace of Our Father can give merit to fallen men, and that merit is given by the men’s own acts, through their faith and their desire to receive Grace, through their repentance and their penance, through their acceptance of Grace, itself.  You know this; it is a matter which has enraged you through time . . .

The saved among men, who desired to be saved and therefore had placed themselves in a position to receive Grace, differ enormously in the degree of their natures and their virtues, as well as in their wills and their sins.  A murderer in hell, and a wanton thief, are treated equally with the pains and the uselessness of existence.  But in Heaven a saint is worthier than a man of merely mild virtues, for the saint has labored long and hard in the stony fields of his life and has loved God more than himself, and the lives of his fellow sufferers more than his own.  A man who has valiantly struggled with temptation during his lifetime and has contemplated all the worldly delights you have offered him, Lucifer, and has even desperately yearned for them, but who has gloriously resisted you in his soul and in his living, is worthier of more reward in Heaven than a man who has been merely mildly tempted by you or through some accident has not been much tempted at all, or lacked the terrible vitality to sin, or was afraid of the consequences on his own world.  The first man is a hero; the second man is one who has had little opportunity to be either a hero or a sinner.  Our Father takes note of the human weaknesses of His creatures.  He will not permit you to tempt a man beyond his total ability to resist, but He does permit you to tempt His saints more fiercely and more insistently because they are men of greater valor and nobler mind.  Our Father, as we have observed before, does not create men equal, but He has established Equity, based on the Natural Law which He ordained Himself.  There is no injustice in Him Whom we both love so passionately, and you have never denied your love nor can you destroy it.

Were you the ruler of Heaven the saint and the weaker man would receive equal reward, but that is manifestly unfair.  Archangels, who have vaster powers than angels, are more in possession of free will and therefore the temptation to use that will in defiance of God is infinitely higher in degree than in the lesser angels.  Archangels are given enormous responsibilities and thrones and crowns throughout the endless universes, because of their nature, and it is they who see the Beatific Vision more frequently than the lesser spirits, and the spirits of men.  “To each according to his merits,” is the Law of Heaven, whereas on Terra, and other darkened worlds, there appears to be some mangling of the moral law to the effect that “to each according to his material needs.”  And that, we know, is infamy, injustice, cruelty, and a display of malice to the more worthy. Greed is the ugliest of the detestable sins, for it feeds on its own appetite and is never filled, and its rapacity is increased by its rapaciousness.  It gives rise to the other sins, envy, theft, sloth, lies, adulteries and murder, and gluttony.

There is happiness in Heaven, as you know, but that happiness is in degree, except for the knowing that God loves completely to the extent of an angel’s or man’s worth.  That happiness is compounded by labor, for none are idle in Heaven, and there is a task for all.  That, too, is Equity.

While each task is approached with joy and with the hope–but never the absolute surety–that it will be completed, its completion, when accomplished, leads to higher tasks, worthy of a tempered spirit.  There is always a progression in the Hierarchy of Heaven.  No spirit remains as it was.  And, always, there is a possibility, constantly reiterated, that as the spirit retains its free will, it can will to sin.  This is something the theologians, in their little darkness on their worlds, have never understood or acknowledged–that there is always the hazard that a spirit may fall to you, even in the golden light of Heaven.  For God does not remove free will from His creatures, no matter their degree.  If He did so, He would abrogate their individuality, their very existence, both of which are eternally precious to Him, for they are of His own Nature and Essence.

. . . You have asked me if God pursues the lost soul in your hells.  That I cannot and will not tell you.  Is it possible for the lost to feel repentance?  You have said not–but do you know all minds?

. . .

Your brother, Michael

Taylor Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil (1967) #10 of 22

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

RECEIVE INSTANT NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW POSTS

Join 81 other followers

What’s being read now

  • No Wind Blows in Favor of a Ship Without Direction?
  • Banned in Bangkok: The Hunger Games and its libertarian themes
  • The Trouble With...Trumples

From newest to earliest

  • The Twelve Days Of Epstein
  • Something Touched Me Deep Inside
  • The last day of Spring / Ten photos
  • Doing the math
  • What five books would you preserve (in case of digital erasure)?

Previous by year

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Blog Stats

  • 76,046 hits

Blogroll

  • Abe Books
  • AMAC/Association of Mature American Citizens
  • AXS-TV
  • Carter, Sara/Investigative Reporter
  • Catholic Herald
  • diGenova, Joe & Victoria Toensing/Op-Eds
  • Dylan, Bob
  • Film Noir Foundation
  • Gatestone Institute
  • Hanson, Victor Davis/Writer
  • Hemingway, Mollie/The Federalist
  • Hillsdale College/Free online courses
  • Hoover Institution
  • Imprimis/Hillsdale College free periodical
  • Judicial Watch/Tom Fitton
  • KLVZ 810 AM Pop Classics in HD
  • Levin, Mark/Commentator, writer
  • Middle East Forum
  • NeilMed Sinus Rinse
  • Old Farmer's Almanac – Since 1792
  • Premiere Collectibles/signed, just-published books
  • RADIOHEAD
  • Solomon, John/The Hill
  • Souls of Animals
  • Strassel, Kimberley/Wall Street Journal
  • Tea Party
  • Turner Classic Movies (TCM) Database
  • Uncle Sam Cereal – Since 1908
  • Walking Dead
  • Whatfinger
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 81 other followers

LIKE on FACEBOOK

LIKE on FACEBOOK

Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: