At the End of the Postwar World

 From Victor Davis Hanson at Freedom Frequency:

When fighting in Europe ends with the Nazi surrender on May 9, the continent is left in shambles, impoverished, and immediately threatened with both internal and external communist takeovers. Some 70 million to 85 million lives have been lost in this war. Perhaps 35 million died in Europe, on the Eastern Front, and in the Mediterranean. The traditional European economic powerhouse of Germany is flattened, occupied, and divided, with 30 percent of its territory under the control of the Soviet Union.

Many of the borders in Eastern Europe and the Balkans are radically altered, and these vast territorial changes will lead to some 20 million refugees. Perhaps up to 2 million displaced persons will have died of starvation, disease, or exposure by 1950. The vast majority of them are Germans expelled from Silesia, Prussia, and Pomerania to make way for the restoration of Poland. A quarter-million Jews who survived the Holocaust are homeless.

When the war ends, more than half of some 500 Soviet rifle divisions are occupying both Eastern Europe and East Germany—even as a broke Britain and a tired America are planning to collectively demobilize more than 3 million expeditionary troops eager to leave for home as quickly as possible.

The economies and infrastructure of the losing Axis-associated powers of Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia are ruined. Their political systems are near-nonexistent. Neutrals like Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland are still in the economic doldrums. The lands of formerly German-occupied Europe—especially the Netherlands and France—have seen their economies absorbed by Nazi mercantilism and are busy hunting down former internal collaborators.

Yet the ascendant Soviet Union is even more impoverished. Its western territories are ravaged. And it has suffered 26 million civilian and military deaths. (Read more.)

Share

A Medieval Castle in England Has 800 Years of Stories

 

 

From Mansion Global:

“There are gargoyles all the way around the parapet, so we suspect that if there are any ghosts, they have seen them off,” David said.

Despite the apparent lack of paranormal activity, Bishop’s Court has had plenty of other notable visitors in its near 800-year history. Nina Simone and Van Morrison stayed in the eight-bedroom mansion in the early 2000s when they performed at Bishopstock, a blues festival that ran on the estate for several years not long before the current owners bought the place.

Built in the 1200s, it was originally a country palace for Exeter’s bishops. Much of the medieval fabric of the building survives, including a tithe barn—used to store the local produce farmers paid to the church—and a stable block, thought to be one of the oldest in England. There is also a well within the main building that still supplies the couple with water today. “It goes down about 60 feet underground and the water is fantastic,” David said.

The story of Bishop’s Court reflects key moments in the history of British politics, the monarchy and the church, which is part of what made it so appealing. “The bishops were the real movers and shakers of their time,” David said. “Owning a house where a lot of very interesting people have lived over a long period of time, they become part of the ambience and environment.”

One of the bishops to live there was Walter de Stapledon, the treasurer in charge of England’s finances. Unpopular for raising taxes to support King Edward II, Stapledon was pulled from his horse and beheaded by a mob in the London uprising of 1326. His severed head was, reportedly, sent to the queen.

But in 1546, Henry VIII kicked the bishops off the estate as part of his dissolution of the monasteries, during which he seized land belonging to the Catholic church. The king gave Bishop’s Court to one of his trusted allies, the first Earl of Bedford, John Russell, as a reward for his help suppressing rebellions. (Read more.)

Share

Islamic State Wants to Use Libya as a Launchpad for Terrorism

 From Kyle Orton at It Can Always Get Worse:

The Naba 512 editorial seeks to legitimise IS grabbing territory in Libya by presenting it as a modern manifestation of the original Arab conquest that ultimately brought the Roman Christian province to Islam. The article is larded with theological argumentation drawn from the Qur’an and Tradition on this front, and these citations are intended as much as a roadmap for the future as they are justifications for the past. It is notable—and consistent with IS’s approach since its beginnings—that the enemies IS rails against most in the ideological portion of the article are not the “Crusader” West, but its Islamist rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.

When Al-Naba 512 shifts to more temporal analysis, there is an unmistakeable confession that IS shares the view of its Libyan “province” (wilaya) as being in a state of considerable disrepair at the present time—there is reference to a “prolonged stagnation and inertia”—coupled with a conviction that it need not remain so.

Libya effectively has two governments, one in the west and one in the east; both of these mutually-hostile polities are quite weak and predatory, the worst combination of all. As Al-Naba correctly notes, the failure of the Libyan political elites that emerged after Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi’s downfall in 2011 has made them unpopular, and Libya has historically been a hotbed of jihadism, a trend IS hopes to give new life to by offering jihadism as the only viable alternative to the current malaise. If IS sees hope in the Libyan political landscape, it sees even more in the operational situation of general instability, especially the vast ungoverned deserts in which IS thrives, and porous borders. The strategic value of an IS revival in Libya is spelled out: the country is situated in a crucial geographical nexus that can support IS’s jihad to the south, in West Africa and the Sahel, and to the north, in Europe.

IS concludes the Naba 512 editorial by goading its loyalists to be as brave as the asylum seekers who brave the Mediterranean to get to Europe, and once there IS instructs its legions to carry out terrorism on a scale sufficient at least to consume European attentional resources, the implicit idea being that if Europe is focused on domestic security threats from IS, Europe—and by extension the West as a whole—will cause less trouble for IS at the Centre, in Iraq and Syria, and in the other theatres where it operates, from Africa to Afghanistan. (Read more.)

Share

Hellbrew of Hate

From Mark Judge at Hot Air:

In his book The Red and the Black: American Film Noir in the 1950s, Ohio University professor Robert Miklitsch argues that some of the criticism of anti-communist films is not about quality, but politics. Films like I Was a Communist for the F.B.I. (1951), The Whip Hand (1951), Big Jim McLain (1952), and Walk East on Beacon! (1952) “tended to be made ‘on the cheap,’ [and] have been derogated by critics for their aesthetic quality. Since they appeared to promote a right-wing agenda unlike left, progressive pre-1948 noir, they have also been excoriated for their politics. In a word, these anticommunist films are—to invoke Daniel Leab’s verdict on I Married a Communist— ‘awful.’” Miklitsch notes that critic Arthur Lev was quite savage towards I Married a Communist. Miklitsch posits this: “Question: is it possible that Lev’s categorical judgment of I Married a Communist is an alibi for his real criticism—that the film is visually ‘undistinguished’ because it is politically reprehensible?”

 Of course it is. Many of these great pro-freedom films were blacklisted because they argued against “the new world coming” of communism. It’s still going on. Look how hard the media has been promoting  Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another, about a leftist “revolutionary” who wages a guerrilla war against conservatives. The film will lose $100 million, but don't tell Hollywood that.

    The best book about communism in Hollywood is still Hollywood Traitors: Blacklisted Screenwriters—Agents of Stalin, Allies of Hitler, by Allan H. Riskind. Riskind reveals how many communists were in Hollywood in the postwar years. One of them was director Abraham Polonsky, who once described a meeting for the founding of the Committee for the First Amendment (CFA) this way: “You could not get into the place. The excitement was intense. Every star was there.” He went on: “We Communists had not created the organization, but we believed in its usefulness and helped to organize its activities.” (Read more.)

Share

The Queen, the Dwarf, and the Orange Tree

 I had a small print of this painting in my room at home. From The National Gallery of Art:

Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henri IV of France and sister of King Louis XIII, exerted a strong influence on court fashion and protocol, and introduced continental fashions and Italianate gardens to England. Van Dyck portrayed her dressed for the hunt in a brilliant blue satin riding costume with a delicate lace collar instead of the stiff and formal Elizabethan ruff still widely in use. Whereas the queen's graceful pose and demure expression are at once regal and endearing, her stylish wide-brim feathered black hat and shimmering dress create a sense of vibrancy and vitality.

The queen's love of entertainment is symbolized by the presence of 14-year-old Sir Jeffrey Hudson and Pug the monkey, both royal favorites. Hudson's services had been offered to the queen when he was a young boy. He possessed a ready wit and became one of the queen's trusted advisors, even joining her in exile in France in the early years of the English Civil Wars (1642–1651).

This portrait superbly demonstrates Van Dyck's working methods and the reasons for his phenomenal success. Even though the portrait shows a tall woman with an oval face, pointed chin, and long nose, the queen was reportedly petite, with a round head and delicate features. Van Dyck greatly idealized her in the portrait—and this artistic flattery must have pleased her. To further accentuate her status Van Dyck revisited a compositional idea he first developed in Genoa during the early 1620s with his portrait of Marchesa Elena Grimaldi Cattaneo: he has portrayed the queen standing just beyond the portico of an imposing architectural structure. The fluted column emphasizes her already exaggerated height, and the crown and cloth of gold emphasize her royalty. In preparation for the portrait, Van Dyck must have done a careful study of Henrietta Maria's head, but as she probably posed only briefly for a sketch of the overall composition, he likely painted the actual portrait from a model or mannequin dressed in the queen's costume.

The orange tree behind Henrietta Maria, who was named after both her father, Henri IV of France, and her mother, Maria de' Medici, pays visual homage to her powerful Florentine ancestors. The Medici crest contains five gold balls, thought to represent oranges from the family's renowned citrus tree collection. A symbol of purity, chastity, and generosity, the orange tree was also associated with the Virgin Mary, Henrietta Maria's patron saint. (Read more.)

 

My novels on Queen Henrietta Maria are HERE and HERE.

Share

King Charles Receives Royal Confrater Title

 From Vatican News:

Ut unum sint – “That they may they one.” A horizon of “hope” for the future characterized the atmosphere in the Papal Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, during the ceremony conferring the title of Royal Confrater on King Charles III of England took place at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, during his state visit to the Vatican alongside Queen Camilla. The ecumenical celebration was presided over by Abbot Donato Ogliari, in the presence of Cardinal Archpriest of the Papal Basilica James Michael Harvey; the Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Stephen Cottrell; and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Rosie Frew.

The Royals entered the basilica through the Holy Door, then were accompanied down the aisle by Cardinal Harvey, Abbot Ogliari, Archbishop Cottrell, and Moderator Frew while the congregation sang Hosanna to the Son of David in the version of Orlando Gibbons, Gentleman of the Chapel Royal from 1605 to 1625. The music was performed by the Schola of the Abbey of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, the lay clerks of St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, and the children of St. James’s Royal Chapel in London; at the organ was Christian Almada, Titular Organist of the Papal Basilica.

After a brief stop in front of the altar, Cardinal Harvey and Abbot Ogliari led the monarchs in a moment of prayer at the tomb of the Apostle Paul. Here, Archbishop Cottrell prayed that the congregation may bear witness to the Gospel “in the darkness of our time.” King Charles and Queen Camilla then took their seats as the choir sang Sing Joyfully by William Byrd, also a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. (Read more.)

Share

It’s Time to Recover Emotion in Religion

It should be pointed out that part of the spiritual journey of serious Christians involves periods of aridity and dryness in which they feel little or no devotion and yet continue to pray and fulfill their temporal duties. Also, we live in an Anglo-Saxon culture in which my Irish ancestors were scolded for public displays of emotion. From Word on Fire:

It strikes me as ironic that oftentimes—especially among the crowd that champions an almost ecstatic, at times emotional, love of good academia—there exists an attitude of disregard for the role of emotion in religious expression. Being moved to tears while reading Dante is fine, but being moved to tears in prayer is immature. If we want to make a gesture of gratitude at a supra feast, accompanied by tears or raucous laughter, then raising our glass with gusto is commended. But if we dare to raise our hands in praise during the eucharistic feast, we are called at worst irreverent and at best poorly formed. Either way, we are made to feel that we ought to be ashamed for our spontaneous acts of love toward God. There is a place for the heights and depths of human emotion in academia, it seems, but when it comes to the thing that academia points to—Christ—we are told to sober up, to put our emotions in a box and shelve them. This seems not only logically fallacious but also dangerous. 

One way to reveal this double standard is to look again at the example of teaching. Imagine if a student shared that they had cried while reading a passage of Shakespeare. In response, the teacher looked at them with a sober expression and replied, “Well, that’s fine. Most people have that experience when they are still young in their literary life. But just remember, the important thing isn’t to feel like you love it. The important thing is just to read it.” Any teacher would (rightly so) laugh at the idiocy of such a response. A good teacher would be thrilled to hear that a student was profoundly touched by an assigned book! More importantly, they would look at the emotional response as valid proof of a genuine encounter with beauty. They wouldn’t disparage or discourage it. So why is it seen as acceptable to disparage or discourage emotions in the realm of religious experience? (Read more.)

Share

The Enchanted Cottage (1945)

Mrs. Abigail Minnett: Do you know what loneliness is, real loneliness?
Laura Pennington: [Heavy with sadness] Yes.
Mrs. Abigail Minnett: I thought you would.
~from The Enchanted Cottage (1945)

The Enchanted Cottage debuted towards the end of World War II, when men often came home to their families with severe injuries. It is one of the best films I have seen about the mystery of the sacrament of matrimony, and how authentic love overwhelms the transience of surface things. The wind that blows around the cottage, the crashing of the waves on the beach blend with the score to create a sense of the timelessness. According to Turner Classic Movies:

Robert Young plays a disfigured WWII veteran who is unable to cope with an ugliness that repels everyone. Seeking to retreat from the world, he travels to a New England cottage which he once visited with his fiancee at the time - before he was sent to war and disfigured. The cottage is all that remains of a vast estate on the Atlantic coast. The rest burned down long ago, and the owner of the cottage (Mildred Natwick), recognizing the magic spell the cottage seems to cast on young lovers, rents it out to couples on their honeymoons. She lets Young stay there, and he isolates himself from his family and friends. The only person he can talk to is Dorothy McGuire, a homely girl who helps Natwick run the place.

Young and McGuire marry, more out of convenience than love, but on their honeymoon night, a "miracle" occurs. They now look beautiful to each other. His disfigurement vanishes, and her dowdiness dissolves. Overjoyed at their newfound happiness, they explain what has happened to their blind neighbor Herbert Marshall, who encourages them to believe the miracle and to treasure it. But when Young's superficial parents come to visit and still see the two as they really are, the spell is broken - until the couple come to realize that it was their love, not the cottage, that made them see each other as beautiful in the first place.

Herbert Marshall plays the blind composer who, as he narrates the story, conveys to the viewer aspects of his own life, in which he has been able to draw immense benefits out of crushing losses. As it says on Classic Movie Review:

The two unfortunates are joined by Herbert Marshall as blind composer and piano player Major John Hillgrove. It’s through his metaphorical eyes that we’re given clues on how to view the film, and maybe even life itself. When his character explains how he only truly learned to see after he lost his actual sight, you begin to understand the depth of the story.

Hillgrove’s blindness isn’t the only reference to sight in the movie. In fact, the idea that sight is relative is at the heart of the story. Although they retain their physical sight, Oliver and Laura begin to see each other through new eyes, which is a revelation for both of them. This new vision — created by love — is then challenged by the outside world. Oliver and Laura almost succumb to other people’s vision of them, but in the end, they decide that the only view of life that matters to them is their own.

Anyone who enjoys romantic movies will relish The Enchanted Cottage. If I could design a dream house it would be just like the cottage in the film, complete with diamond-paned windows and an orchard garden, not far from the sea. Unlike many modern films, it is able to explore the essence of human passion through the music, screenplay and fine acting, without indulging in any gratuitous sensuality. The following commentary from Another Old Movie Blog sums it up:

We live in a world, several decades after this film was made, where being different is not so damning as it once was, but still comes at a cost. Perhaps this is what today’s old movie buffs see in this film, when it is taken as an allegory for all the outcasts among us. The possibility of being loved for who you are remains as irresistible as ever.

Share

For More Affordable Housing: ‘Build Baby Build’

 From Direct Line News:

Let’s start with facts, not fear. Institutional investors own roughly 2 percent of single-family homes in America.¹ Meanwhile, local governments and zoning boards control 100 percent of what can or cannot be built.

If you’re wondering why home prices and rents keep climbing, don’t look to Wall Street. Look to City Hall. Decades of red tape, arbitrary height restrictions, and “not-in-my-backyard” politics have strangled supply. When you outlaw density, you guarantee scarcity. And when you guarantee scarcity, you guarantee higher prices.

Republicans used to say it plainly: you can’t tax or regulate your way into prosperity. Well, you can’t regulate your way into affordable housing either.

Remember 2008? Neighborhoods were filled with foreclosed and abandoned homes. Ordinary families walked away. Government bailouts went to the banks, not the blocks.

Who stepped in? Investors-many of them private-equity firms, who bought distressed homes, fixed them, and turned them into livable rentals. They didn’t just flip properties; they restored neighborhoods. Crime dropped. Property values recovered.

That wasn’t predation. That was capitalism doing what it does best: seeing value where others see decay.

Today, these investors provide stable, professionally managed rentals for millions of Americans who can’t-or don’t want to-own right now. That’s not exploitation. That’s housing choice. (Read more.)

Share