“Munchausen women, and revanchistas.”
Scott in Pa, “Comment,”orthosphere.wordpress.com (February 13, 2023)
“Thither, full fraught with mischievous revenge,
Accurs’d, and in a cursed hour he hies.”
John Milton, Paradise Lost (1667), book 1.
I was pleased when Scott in Pa reminded me of the useful word revanchist, a word I first encountered in graduate school, where it was used in the typically stupid leftist sense. Revanchist is French, revanchista Spanish, and both signify a person, party or policy bent on revenge. Like bitter Satan expelled from heaven and winging his way towards earth, revanchists are “full fraught with mischievous revenge.”
Before proceeding, I must also say the phrase Munchausen women is inspired and, so far as I have been able to discover, original to Scott in Pa. Munchausen syndrome is an attention-seeking strategy in which a neglected nullity grabs the spotlight by ostentatious moaning and groaning about their aches and pains. When a mad and drab woman does this by way of her supposedly sickly child, it is called Munchausen by proxy. It is named for Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymus von Münchhausen, a German traveler and raconteur notorious for wild exaggeration. It is extremely plausible that the recent rash of bizarre sexualities are really a pandemic of Munchausen syndrome, and that this pandemic was triggered by the acute loneliness that has accompanied social media. This is why everyone who is eager to talk about his or her sexuality is a palpably crashing bore.
So Scott in Pa is right. Our world is crawling with Munchausen women, Munchausen men, Munchausen cats and dogs. The simple reason is that, in a world of ubiquitous smart phones, anyone who is not a freak, a genius, or smoking hot, will be utterly and absolutely ignored. But our world is also and more ominously crawling with revanchists (revanchistas) bent on revenge for real and imaginary historical crimes. In their gross exaggeration of these crimes, today’s revanchists bring a blush of shame to the cheek of the ghost of Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymus von Münchhausen.
The first revanchists to go by that name were, obviously, French, and were specifically the French party built on the program of revenging the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War by recovery of Alsace-Lorraine. In the stupid leftist usage I mentioned earlier, revanchism is a tendentious way of describing an effort to reverse some radical exaction on sanity, decency, and the logos of Creation.* The irony of this leftist usage is that leftism is itself nothing but organized revanchism in the name of misfits, stumblebums, warthogs, and bores.
When Scott in Pa speaks of revanchists, he is speaking of this botched, bitter and belligerent multitude; and this multitude is, like Milton’s Satan, “full fraught with mischievous revenge.”
Although men are said to be made in the image of God, the will to forgive does not seem to have been part of the deal. Some men are forgiving by nature, others by resolve; but most may be said to hold nothing so firmly as they hold a grudge. Especially an old and cherished grudge that has been magnified by long years of brooding and retelling. Retelling in the hyperbolic spirit of Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymus von Münchhausen. This is why the really terrible grudges are held by bitter peoples and not bitter individuals. This is why revanchism is built on cultural hatred.
Many today are in thrall to the idea that the bitter revanchists who hate us will be appeased and mollified if we give them power to rule over us. This is akin to the idea that a ranting derelict is most readily calmed by handing him a machete or a gun. I believe this idea is a very dangerous delusion because revanchists cannot be appeased or mollified, only satiated by slaking their cultivated thirst for revenge. Even when there is a kernel of truth in the morbid myths of a revanchist, his freight of mischievous revenge cannot be removed by reparations, restitutions, or the most craven displays of remorse.
This is why it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of revanchists who hate you: their freight of mischievous revenge will be removed by nothing but your blood and tears. This is something the Russians learned one hundred years ago.
“The Bolsheviks were for the most part not Russians at all, but Jews who had suffered persecution at the hands of the Russian government . . . and now came back determined to revenge themselves on the Russian educated classes . . .”**
“The Bolsheviks . . . . form relatively small privileged class which is able to terrorize the rest of the population because it has a monopoly both of arms and of food supplies. This class consists chiefly of workmen and soldiers, and included a large non-Russian element, such as Letts and Estonians and Jews ; the latter are specially numerous in higher posts. Members of this class are allowed complete license, and commit crime against other sections of society.”***
*“The consolidation of the revolutionary-democratic regimes and the increased number of countries oriented toward socialism threaten imperialism with the loss of such positions. Therefore, the great energy displayed by neocolonial revanchism is not astounding.” Boris Ponomanev, “Topical Problems in the Theory of the World Revolutionary Process,” Kommunist [Moscow]15 (Oct. 1972), in Lothar Metzl, Détante and the World Revolutionary Process (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1972), p. 38.
**) John Pollock, The Bolshevik Adventure (London: Constable and Company, 1919), p. 27.
***) Telegram from High Commissioner Alston to Earl Curzon, from Vladivostock, Jan 23, 1919. A Collection of Reports On Bolshevism (London: H.M. Stationary Office, 1919), p.
Revanchism is just another word for envy.
Envy and shame. Pride in the gifted is expressed as contempt. Pride in the giftless is expressed as envy and revanchism.
[T]the French party built on the program of revenging the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War by recovery of Alsace-Lorraine
In 1914, led by Paul Déroulède, they were the war party.
In the 40 years between 1871 and 1911, Germany’s birth-rate had grown by 60% (and Britain’s by 54%, whilst the French birth-rate had grown by a mere 8.6%, The Revnchistes knew they could not afford to wait another generation, if France were ever to recover the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and avenge the defeat of 1870.
Not a few of them had hoped for war at the time of the First Moroccan Crisis in 1905.
As a schoolboy, I talked to a number of French veterans of WWI and it is astonishing how many of them spoke of l’affaire de Saverne, (when a German officer in Alsace-Lorraine, beat a lame cobbler with his sabre for laughing at him), the march of the Strasbourg students passed Kléber’s statue and the young men who crossed the frontier at the great Bastille Day parade at Belfort to do their military service, knowing the German authorities would never allow them to return to their homes and families. They told, too, how after the first dash at Charleroi, soldiers on leave brought back the hated red, white and black frontier posts and piled them at the tomb of Déroulède.
Notwithstanding their war-time experiences, their youthful passion seemed quite undimmed.
I’m too tired to look it up right now, but Machiavelli warns princes against humiliating their enemies. If you beat them, they will fear you. If you humiliate them, they will hate you. A many will forget a physical injury long before he forgets injury to his honor.
Luke 11:14-26 looks far different when read as one piece without the modern heading. If Jesus is referring to things as a unified people, their spiritual plight is truly one of the worst imaginable. The demon was kicked out, and as a people, they were swept clean for 33 years, but then… Worse than ever.
I take parable as explaining what happens when a false religion is uprooted and true religion is not planted in its place. It also seems to describe what happens to the mind of an atheist. It is swept clean for a time and is then repossessed by a host of evil spirits.
I agree, but when you read the two next to one another, the stronger one overcomes the strong man, takes the goods as spoil, and then the house is left uninhabited… There are too many parallels there for me to ignore. Jesus drove out the strong man, divided the spoil, then the house was abandoned, with the invitation to join the kingdom of heaven, but those that remained with the old house… Things got a lot worse for them.
The immediate context is that Jesus is trying to dispel the rumor that he is a sorcerer using demons to drive out demons. The first half of the parable seems to dispel that rumor. The second half I take as a warning against Christian apostasy and a post-Christian society. C.S. Lewis somewhere says that post-Christian society is not a reversion to paganism, but to something much worse than paganism. Is this what you are saying? This reading seems to fit the actual behavior of post-Christian societies.
Luke 11:14-26 ESV
Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. [15] But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” [16] while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. [17] But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. [18] And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. [19] And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. [20] But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. [21] When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; [22] but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. [23] Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. [24] “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ [25] And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. [26] 26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”
“The immediate context is that Jesus is trying to dispel the rumor that he is a sorcerer using demons to drive out demons. The first half of the parable seems to dispel that rumor. The second half I take as a warning against Christian apostasy and a post-Christian society. C.S. Lewis somewhere says that post-Christian society is not a reversion to paganism, but to something much worse than paganism. Is this what you are saying? This reading seems to fit the actual behavior of post-Christian societies.”
In verse 20, Jesus communicates that He is casting out the demons with the power of God, and in context, the Kingdom of God “coming upon you” sounds very much like an assault. Jesus goes on to describe how a strong man loses when faced with one stronger than him. Jesus is saying He is stronger than the one currently in control of Israel. He describes how He is going to take away the armor in which the strong man trusted, and divide the spoil.
Ephesians 4:8 ESV
Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”
He then goes on to describe when happens after this occurs. “Whoever is not with me” are the people of Israel who do not become Christian, and they are scattered. Then, the old Judaic religion is co-opted by the original spirit that the Pharisees etc. were following and was made far worse.
In this reading, the old Judaic religion is the empty house.
Jesus laid everything out for them when they accused Him of casting out demons by Beelzebub. He told them everything that was going to happen.
And they still rejected Him, because they thought they knew more. Maybe their pride was why He just laid it all out in front of them at this point, knowing that they would not hear even when it was right in front of their faces
I think a parable is like a myth insofar as it speaks to different circumstances. If this parable speaks only to the Jews, it’s a waste of my time to read it. I’m going to stick to the reading that post-Christianity is worse than Paganism.
The whole Old Testament was written to the Jews, and it’s not a waste of time to read.
There are certainly different ways a parable can be read, and applied.
It is a waste of time if it is not applicable to people in other circumstances. Or rather, it turns the Bible into a merely historical document. If God does not speak to everyone through the Bible, then the Bible is just another old book.
The Church is the New Israel, so it’s likely anything relevant to the Jews is also to us.
And our circumstances, which are similar but also profoundly different.
“. . . and now came back determined to revenge themselves on the Russian educated classes . . .”
Having read portions of ‘200 Years Together’ it seems their primary reason for exacting revenge was for the Tsar’s crime of gifting them farmland instead of distilleries.