Great post by AKH on a group of people in our society who need all the help we can give them:
We have a huge problem in the largely unrecognised plight of special pleaders, especially when we include the government, MPs, lawyers, landlords, bankers, the arms industry, large charities, the BBC, the NHS, high street retailers, the CBI, house builders, landowners, local government, trade unions, quangos, minorities, car makers, energy companies, green businesses, climate scientists, environmentalists, the EU, the UN, developing countries and major political parties.
So the next time you have free and unfettered access to logic, reason and facts, try to remember those who have none of these natural advantages. Try to remember those unfortunates who must resort to special pleading.
Special help to leave the planet, that is. I asked a mate yesterday what the onset of age was allowing him to do less well at work and he promptly replied – patience with those not doing their job and taking the p*** along with it.
If we were to make a list of the things which annoy us most, people making lists being one of them, that would have to be near the top. The trouble is – so much annoys these days and far more annoys than doesn’t annoy. Were I to make two lists – things which annoy and those which don’t … w-e-e-e-l-l-l, you know what I mean.
It’s always seemed to me that the grand gestures, e.g. trashing a man’s car, taking out a billboard on the motorway, those sorts of things – they can be counterproductive and garner sympathy for the one peeved over. Better to do what a lady I knew overseas did – she’d place his teacup just out of range or set the knife and fork the wrong way or forget the teaspoon or accidentally leave a mark down the back of the shirt etc., only to be discovered at the point of departure.
In short, it’s the little things which are far more likely to niggle and aggravate. Then there are the grand gestures meant to annoy, e.g. the Hirst sculpture of the naked pregnant chav and where it is set up – in a place supposedly of natural beauty. That’s more than annoying, it’s evil in a very real sense.
It’s cultural marxism in the Marcusian sense:
Of the other top Institute figures, the political perambulations of Herbert Marcuse are typical. He started as a Communist; became a protégé of philosopher Martin Heidegger even as the latter was joining the Nazi Party; coming to America, he worked for the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and later became the U.S. State Department’s top analyst of Soviet policy during the height of the McCarthy period; in the 1960’s, he turned again, to become the most important guru of the New Left; and he ended his days helping to found the environmentalist extremist Green Party in West Germany.
For him to ask, along with others: “Who will save us from western civilization?” that is so sick, so pathological, so presumptuous – they know what’s best for us – and yet such men are feted worldwide – Huxley, Adorno, Russell, Keynes, Leary, Zappa.
It’s one think to provoke to think – hell, I can go along with that and that, supposedly, is what art does – but it’s another to try to deliberately blight your society, to make it unlivable for other people, on the grounds that that’s necessary first in order to establish the new utopia.
That is pure evil and stems from evil with a smiling face. If you look at the photos of those men in their final years, they were bitter, twisted excuses for humans.
Adorno and Benjamin did great damage:
By making creativity historically-specific, you rob it of both immortality and morality. One cannot hypothesize universal truth, or natural law, for truth is completely relative to historical development. By discarding the idea of truth and error, you also may throw out the “obsolete” concept of good and evil; you are, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “beyond good and evil.”
Benjamin is able, for instance, to defend what he calls the “Satanism” of the French Symbolists and their Surrealist successors, for at the core of this Satanism “one finds the cult of evil as a political device … to disinfect and isolate against all moralizing dilettantism” of the bourgeoisie.
The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker’s eye that “loosens and entices things out of their familiar world.” In music, “it is not suggested that one can compose better today” than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and “the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure….The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society … appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt … negatively, as ‘destruction.’ “
This is sick. Why? Why do they wish to do this in the first place? I’ll never understand minds like that which essentially wish to destroy, to make bad. I’ll never understand it unless I can apply a biblical perspective and then the source of the evil is clearly understood. But of course, the joke is that today, the very existence of this is rejected, unknown by the world at large, particularly the young.
A marxist is a very sick person in his head. I looked at a couple of marxist sites – let’s not split hairs, they call it some other name today, it’s always repackaging itself – and they were so far into it, they just assumed the necessity for the destruction and had endless arguments about who was being true to the cause, who was currently being splintered off or exorcized etc. – a monumental waste of the human spirit.
They could be out building something, repairing the fabric, giving succour to the poor. Do you see any evidence of it from this lot? Not likely. They are the destroyers and they think somehow that this makes them higher, worthy of note.
And noted they were – they are still huge names in the corridors of universities, in lecture theatres, in the hubble-bubble of intellectual pursuits. Respected names too.
How TF can they be? Adorno/Benjamin, Benjamin/Adorno:
The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. “To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images.”
Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt (“estrangement effect”), Brecht’s attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.
Rebel without a cause, pointless hatred, destroying for destroying’s sake, blighting the land a la Hirst, the Cutty Sark and the Titanic in Belfast, substitution of the bureaucratically bland formulaic for the creative, substitution of the shock of the new for the thought-provoking but with integrity.
Top of my list of the annoying – these people. They sap the soul, they embrace schlock and think it high and noble, a worthy pursuit. And in the end, the source of it all is spitting on humanity as he always has done, having twisted it and turned it into unnatural preoccupations, instead of allowing the human spirit to soar in order to advance and celebrate mankind.
But the greatest crime of all is the celebration of the untalented everywhere – in the media, in film, in art, in hospitals, on the football field, wherever we have to interface with the public sector and get some petty bureaucrat – it saps the soul in the end.
I rebel against all of this, all of them. It’s time for a new renaissance arising from a pre-PoMo time of greatness.
But it’s also a time for a return to simple pleasures – a drink and a smoke in good company, walks in the forest without a CCTV camera, for ideologues just to leave us alone and so on.