Apes of God

APES OF GOD 

Windham Lewis

Books for Bigots

In my quest for Books for Bigots, my next consideration is APES OF GOD by Windham Lewis.  I really can't answer why it became a 'next' read.  It simply appeared at the top of a stack of books and looked interesting.  I will say it is not  easy with lots of foreign words, words from the art world, references to painters and painting old and new (after all Windham was a painter first and novelist second).

With some preliminary introduction of characters with not much continuity, the main action is at Lord Osmund's Lenten Party - - a costume party, lasting much of the day with a very lengthy and weighty meal at which all participants are actively engaged in biting comments, slander and slurs toward each other  which seem to be the normal course of eating a meal with others of the same sort and all of whom are acquainted with everyone else.  No offense seems to be taken.

Windham doesn't think much of his characters who presumably are the referenced Apes of God.  How Windham arrived at this description of his characters, the diners - - the costumed arrivals, is unknown.  The Lenten Party is of 250 page duration in which no indication appears Windham had any affinity for any of his characters.  They are indeed rich apes.  The book is touted as a satire and indeed it is a satire on the aristocracy of English life in the 1920s.  The participants of the Lenten Party are clearly well-healed, idle, and bored.  How do Bigots fit into this narrative?  They don't.  This book is so far out of the reach of the normal bigot that one might wonder why put it in the category of Books for Bigots.  First, all books are Books for Bigots - - even Mein Kampf would give the Bigot reading it another perspective.  Perspectives are anathema to Bigots.  The key to Bigotry is maintaining one and only one perspective - - one's own.

With THE APES OF GOD we have life as whimsy.  Whatever comes to mind is followed, is acted upon.  The Lenten party have no context other than each other and clearly do not enjoy the others' company except as spectacle nor find any particular amusement in the event in which they are participating.  It really is just life as whim.  They are people with money and without purpose.  

I will say Bigots are not whimsical; they have no whimsy; they are indeed purpose driven.  Bigots have purpose and they insist that their families and  acquaintances have purpose.  Not just any purpose mind you, but the purpose or purposes that they themselves possess are to be a universal purpose or universal purposes.  Not an ounce of whimsy for them.  

A little whimsy would not be a bad thing really - - not life controlled by whimsy,  but a moderate amount.  It could bring some fun into one's life, another anthema with Bigots - - fun.  They normally don't exude fun; fun is one of those things lacking in most Bigots.  It's entirely too bad; a little whimsy would lighten things up tremendously and possibly, just possibly, make it possible to interact with a Bigot.  But, alas, wishful thinking.  

So, in a form of conclusion, APES OF GOD  is not a Book for Bigots.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Flatulence

 FLATULENCE

Contrary to popular belief, flatulence does not cause disfigurement, organ malfunction, or other infirmities.  Some of us live in households where these beliefs prevail.  This circumstance is not only annoying, but totally without justification which alone makes it annoying.  The question is how can one, one who contributes to the household flatulence, avoid the complaints and illogical reactions of household members who hold these popular, unfounded, and unscientific beliefs.

There are currently several popular methods in use to combat flatulence.  One is incense.  I find the use of incense disturbing.  It puts into the air substances that can not possibly be good for the lungs.  These proponents of incense commonly are the same opponents of anything resembling cigarette smoke.  Second hand smoke is, by current standards, harmful to one's health.  It apparently can damage a person's lungs.  The effect of cigarette smoke, now forbidden in most middle and working class households on up the social ladder, is deemed not only harmful but deleterious to one's social activities.  For instance, the circumstance of one  not being able to enjoy a smoke while at the local pub imbibing one's favorite drink seems unnecessary and really over the top.

But not with incense.  Incense smells good, hence it must be good for you.  Not so.   A second alleviation of the harmful effects of flatulence is the fresh air vent.  This device may be used with or without the accompaniment of incense depending on the household view of the dangers of flatulence.  The more fear, the more devices are employed to defeat its essence.

The use of incense does not dispel the dangers of disfigurement, organ failure, or other infirmities; it merely camouflages it.  One is not avoiding these imminent dangers, but as with many things in our current living arrangements,  merely masking it.  With the vent, no imminent danger is involved, merely discomfort.  Why, and I ask this seriously, why would one prefer cold air blowing on you while one does their business in a small, enclosed space.  One can not even enjoy some solitude with a paper under such circumstances.

In conclusion, one must state unequivocally that this attitude toward flatulence is unwarranted, unnecessary, and annoying.  Buck up folks.  It will not kill you; it is a necessary biological process caused by other living organisms and will continue as long as there is life on the planet.  I say "Get over it already!"

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Justification

  JUSTIFICATION

One always knows, when one of our elected representatives sends out reports to their constituents justifying their latest vote in congress, that what they have done is somewhat suspect.  In this case Representative Ms. Miller-Meeks has acted to "safeguard" our elections.  Now we are to prove we are a citizen to be able to vote.

To my understanding, there has never been an allegation anywhere within the United States that any election has ever been decided by non-citizens voting.  If some such allegations exist, I would appreciate someone enlightening me.  Otherwise, my doubt of it ever happening will continue.

This new statute, which our representative lauds, is called the SAVE ACT and it will apparently decrease the "vulnerability" of the "integrity" of our elections and increase our "trust" in their results.  I, for one, never did not trust our elections.  It never occurred to me that hordes of Hondurans were deciding who our congress people are or who the president of the United States will be.  I'll have to bone up on current events; maybe Fox can enlighten me further.

It seems to me that anyone who is affected by our elections should be able to vote in them - - seems only fair.  For instance, if one candidate wants to eject all non-citizens from the country and one candidate wants to welcome non-citizens as people who might actually  benefit our economy such as roofing our houses, cutting up hogs in a meat packing plant, or otherwise doing jobs most Americans don't want, they should be able to vote too.  After all, if I am some illegal Haitian cutting your steak in some meat-packing plant in the middle of Iowa, working, paying into social security, adding to the economy of rural Iowa from where most born-Americans flee as soon as able, I should be able to vote.

Of course, once again, it's Biden's fault that we have this fictional crisis by allowing hordes of illegal immigrants to "pour into our country".  You would think these "hordes" are all voting to hear Miller-Meeks exclamations of distress.  We can't even get many of our own citizens to vote let alone these millions of illegal and legal immigrants.  Of course, in the mind of Rep. Miller-Meeks, they are all voting democratic, not republican.  Otherwise, why complain.

Which brings me to another issue, best left for another time:  If the people are in charge, which is the usual understanding of a democracy, how is it that the government can decide who can vote?  If a person is convicted of a felony, they can not vote and there are new felonies every year which means fewer and fewer
"citizens" can vote.  So not only non-citizens are prohibited from voting, so are citizens.  Apparently, if I have been convicted of a crime, the integrity of an election is imperilled if I vote.

Our current efforts have been, both state and federal, to make voting more difficult.  This is not good.  Voting should be easy: the day or days set aside for voting in federal elections should be federal holidays; people should be encouraged to vote, not discouraged.  Contrary to Ms. Miller-Meeks declarations of concern, elections have integrity only if everyone is welcome at the polls, not persona non grata until proven otherwise.  "Hey, you can't vote until you prove to me you are an American" Half the population won't either know how to do that or take the time to do it.  This is not "integrity".

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo