OK. I started to wonder what was the last malapropism, thought I remembered and checked. Van Rijn's very last piece of dialogue begins with "'Hokay...'" and mentions a "galliard" but this is a genuine word. See Galliard. The reference for this is:
Poul Anderson, Mirkheim IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2011), pp. 1-291 AT p. 288.
Turning back one page, we find, as I had expected:
"'You take the Long Trail with me!... A universe where all roads lead to roaming. Life never fails us. We fail it, unless we reach out.'"
-op. cit., p. 287.
A perfect statement of van Rijn's philosophy, encapsulated in a perfectly appropriate malapropism.
In the above linked post, I referred to what I described as van Rijn's "political speech into the sunset." It is addressed to only one person so is not a "speech" properly so called and is to be found on p. 286:
"'No more important private decisions,' he predicted. 'Instead, authority takes over. Slogans substitute for thinking, beginning with the intellectuals but soon percolating down to the ordinary working man. Politicians appoint themselves magicians, who by passing laws and jacking up taxes and conjuring money out of thin air can guarantee everyone a soft ride through life. The favored businesses and institutions divide up the territory and strangle out anybody what might have something new. For every shipwreck what government brings about, the cure is more government. Power grows till its appetite is too great for a single planet. Also, maybe troubles at home can be exported on bayonet points. But somehow, the real barbarians is never those that is fought, until too late....
"'War. War. War.
"'I would advise we pray to the saints, except I wonder if the saints is left us.'"
-op. cit., p. 286.
Private decisions but also economic pressures have led to the cartels which van Rijn decries. Intellectuals are not mere sloganeers but they are divided because society is. Money is conjured out of thin air every time a business borrows from a bank. A soft ride through life? No. Increasing poverty in rich countries? Equally, no. Strangling out the new? That certainly happens. Exporting troubles on bayonets? A foreign enemy is always a distraction from problems at home. Even the saints not left us? This recalls the end of James Blish's Black Easter where a demon claims Hellish victory in Armageddon. But there is a sequel. And Mirkheim ends by looking forward. Adzel and Chee Lan plan ahead while morning approaches.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I mostly agree with Old Nick's "Last Speech." The past century has seen the rise of the administrative state, with more and more power concentrated in it. And my belief is that the more power is concentrated in gov't like that, the more incompetent (as well as oppressive) it becomes.
And Nicholas van Rijn was talking about how gov't conjures money out of nothing via inflation. And I disagree that a legitimate business borrowing money to expand or improve its operations does that. Mind you, banks can be badly run, as history shows.
And we do have politicians in the States promising voters a soft ride thru life via a "guaranteed" income and "universal health care" from the gov't. With curmudgeons like me asking HOW are you going to pay for such things and cope with the inevitably monstrous growth of the bureaucracy that causes. I see nothing but even higher taxes, run away inflation, and a yet more oppressive gov't being the result.
So, yes, MIRKHEIM was in many ways a prophetic book! But I do like how, even in this somber moment, the story ends with a bit of hope.
Of course everyone should know that malapropism about "...all roads lead to roaming" was a play on "All roads lead to Rome"! And I agree with that line "Life never rails us. We fail it, unless we reach out." And that explains why I hope so much Elon Musk succeeds in getting to Mars! It's a reaching out for new life, seeking new things.
Sean
Sean,
I think that all speculation leads to inflation and that industrial/technological society can easily afford health care and the elimination of poverty.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree. Because I believe in Gresham's Law, bad money drives out good money. And bungling and incompetent gov't gets in the way of an industrial/technological oriented society making those goods available.
Sean
@ Sean:
ISTM you advocate a libertarian, constitutional monarchy as a a better way to organize 21st Century Western society.
Can you:
1) elaborate on some of its features?
2) cite current or historical examples or at least examples tending in the direction?
-kh
Kaor, Keith!
Actually, I'm not dogmatic about FORMS of gov't. My view is that LEGITIMACY is the first necessity of any gov't, whatever its form, if it's to have any hope of lasting. I discussed such points in far greater detail, using the works of Poul Anderson, in my article "Political Legitimacy In The Thought of Poul Anderson."
Briefly, a legitimate gov't not only believes itself to have the right to exist, but its people also believe. But, again, see my above cited article for details.
I cannot think of any current MAJOR nations (or many minor ones) who have not gone FAR down the road leading to the almighty centralized state. The US, for example began as a FEDERATION of states in which the states, not the General Gov't in DC, ran most matters. Unfortunately, since at least FDR's time, beginning in 1933, the reverse has been the case, with Washington more and more taking over functions which had hitherto been left to the states, with disastrous consequences. All that FDR's New Deal or LBJ's Great Society has done is to not only fail to solve the problems they aspired to solve, but we ended up with a functionally bankrupt and oppressive administrative state.
Sean
Post a Comment