Here’s the interview with Andrew Tate I mentioned. The Milgram study. The article calling Jonah Hill’s texts “monstrous.” Excellent conversation between Hasan Minhaj and Obama. That Fluidstance contraption I mentioned. Intro music “Brightside of the Sun,” by Basin and Range. Outro: “Global House,” by
Read enough social science/psychology books, and you learn one fact. All social science research....is driven by an agenda. Day one, undergrad, Psych 100 the professor says "The purpose of research is knowledge production. Is the hypothesis proven or dis proven by the experiment." I respectfully call BS. The method of data collection/presentation proves the agenda. Even if its subconscious.
For example.....it is often quoted.."Climate change will lead to armegadden. 90% of scientists agree to that." Which is true. What they leave out....is mentioning that its 90% of scientists who responded to the 'survey' (google it, the name escapes me at the moment.) ONLY 30% responded....one way or the other. So 90% of 30% is 27%. 27% of social scientists surveyed agreed that climate change leads to armageden. Not exactly a consensus.
Very quickly, BS research on the Right. "US debt will cripple our country!!" FOX News likes to sputter. A. The top 5 countries in terms of GDP are each over 100% GDP/Debt ratio. So, debt is a westernized country thing, not a US thing. Moreover, B. Debt.....is only meaningful if repayment can be inforced. The US is #1 in terms of GDP, and our debt exceeds our GDP.. So, if our debt was called in....and we collapsed because of it.....the entire world would collapse. Economies don't shift places over night. If China or America collapses, for whatever reason, everyone is screwed. Thus......US debt won't be "called" in our lifetime at least. Meanwhile........I continue to pay off my credit cards because no one else is effected nor cares If I go bankrupt!
"Always question the premise.....especially from those we hold in the highest regard."
“The only thing standing in the way of that mob, that unthinking cruelty, is your individual authentic voice of truth and authenticity. Your estimation, not as told to you by someone else, including me”
I'm late to the party here, but felt compelled to comment mostly in regards to the Jonah Hill thing. Do people weaponize psychology or therapy talk? Absolutely. Was Jonah Hill doing that? Ehh maybe... but the extent to which everyone is frothing at the mouth reminds me of when everyone wanted to cancel Johnny Depp when Amber Heard came out with her accusations. Then the trial happens and, go figure, there's more than one side to the story! (And, what do ya know!? Turns out she was actually literally physically and emotionally abusing him!) How quick we were to want to cancel him and then when the facts are given a chance to be shown, we get a more accurate view of the situation and our opinions shift.
I get a very similar feeling with this Jonah Hill thing. Just look at what Jonah's ex said when releasing the texts, "Keeping it to myself was causing more damage to my mental health than sharing it could ever do." Give me a fucking break. Melodramatic attention seeking much? She wants to accuse him of "emotional abuse", people use that term so often these days it has no fucking meaning anymore. Same how everybody's ex is magically a "narcissist" and now the word means nothing anymore. Or everybody's favorite new accusation, say it with me now, "gaslighting!!!" It's a fucking joke. An argument is not emotional abuse. Somebody getting their feel feels hurt, doesn't automatically mean they were gaslit by their ex. From what I saw, at worst, Jonah laid some overly rigid, poorly thought out boundaries that were almost certainly coming from a place of fear and insecurity. Nothing that I saw in those text screenshots was tantamount to "emotional abuse". It looks more like two people who don't know what a healthy relationship is and they're both stumbling through it, but I didn't see any "emotional abuse" or "monstrous texts". If anything, she seems to be acting very petty and immature by releasing these texts to the world.
Is the number of mandatory vaccines different in the US? In Canada, our vaccine schedule has a total of like eight vaccines? You get boosters throughout your life at specific life stages, but it's only eight, not 80. This is coming from my partner who's in school to be an NP.
Chris's message on ROMA 66 was to avoid blindly following a public figure or a side. But... what do you think the big ideas were that Chris resonated with from the Tate interview? I listened to the first part of it and got bored of them going in circles. Maybe there are things Tate says that are important and insightful, but they didn't stand out to me. I have heard of Tate in the news but never listened to him before. I found him to be long-winded, shallow, and maybe not as smart as the interviewer kept giving him credit for being. It is provocative for Chris to say he agrees with Tate on some things. I'm left wondering what those ideas are.
I listened to the whole thing and the only thing that I can think of that Tate said that was agreeable was that he is massively famous. Other than that it seemed to be a whinge about being taken out of context, then, having explained the context, confirmed the justification for the criticism of him.
Whether it's Tate, JBP or Jonah Hill, popular figures serve as a tautology in our culture for individuals to either consume or reject.
It's worth noting that these figures achieve their status not because a bunch of people agree with them, but also because a bunch of people don't; both at the same time.
How do you get the most views possible? Get the eyes of supporters, haters, and everyone in between. Tate for sure knows this well.
The Jonah Hill story served as a cultural moment not because people are hyper-obsessed with celebrities (although they are), but because it was a circumstance from which people of all different experiences could use their celebrity to hammer home the validity of their own experience.
Women who have been controlled by narcissistic men. People who have had psychology speak weaponised against them. Men who believed they were doing the right thing only to have the world turn against them.
Relationships falling apart when new boundaries are stated.
The list goes on. All of these experiences are valid, and have indeed been experienced.
People need to not ask who is right and who is wrong, who is bad and who is good, but instead question their impulsive need to project their own experiences onto public figures, and announce it to social media for the sake of validation.
Largely, the three of them are barely worth even considering. I doubt any of these men have had thoughts we haven't had ourselves. We just use them to bring legitimacy to our own opinions. In real life, I've never really encountered anyone who took issue with me saying "I'm not a fan of Tate, but I've listened and heard a few things I do agree with". On the internet, it's a different story. We've all become chronically online and confused lines between the two realities.
We need to all grow up, listen more, and stop waving around celebrity figures we know fuck all about to validate our shitty, half thought-out opinions on things.
Tate may be committed serious crimes. So we may reserve judgement until “proven guilty” or exonerated, but from charges, witness statements, etc. it’s potentially on a much different level than Peterson or Jonah Hill. So I don’t group him w them. Tates explanations of what he did indicate at best manipulation a la Iceberg Slim/pimp game/“brainwashing” and at worst false imprisonment, rape, etc. Keep in mind he got press initially when he was kicked off UK Big Brother for beating a woman with belt. His subsequently pleaded it was consensual, but the staff monitoring the feed were alarmed and disagree. They claim she was not consenting and highly alarmed by Tate’s alleged attack, but he subsequently convinced the woman to later corroborate his story so she could lessen her embarrassment or lack of apparent agency.
Very well said. Reading this, I thought of how famous people serve our mythic structure. They're mythological figures signifying characteristics and motivations we find familiar and, as you say, we all hit our tuning forks and listen to ourselves resonate. They are, sometimes literally, human sacrifices who die (or are tormented by their fame and power) so that we have something to talk about. In some countries, it's the royal family. For us, it's BradJolina and Kanye.
Yay on the guitar order! Congrats! I have a Martin and have been messing with different tunings, after ten plus years of being a 'guitar owner' but not really a 'guitar player'. It feels so good to play again after so long.
Have you heard of a jaw harp? so funky and fun to watch.
Also, I agree that Jonah Hill seems insecure. Have you heard of 'the wheel of power and control'? It outlines behaviors that are not abusive per say but rooted in control/power over others. While controlling tendencies may not be abusive, they often lay a foundation for further insecure behavior that negatively impacts others and can lead to abuse.
I agree with your point that she is free to say 'ha no fuck that bye' and she is probably wise to. The wheel of power and control, when applied to government policy is extremely eye opening.
One might also ask how so many things these days are: racism, fascism or whatever hair-on-fire buzzword is being wielded as a political tool at the moment.
Yes, buying packages is a lousy idea, unless you've earnestly scrutinized each item first. You might decide that, on balance, it's still worth the purchase even if you don't like them all. That's politics.
Am thrice-jabbed & long wore a mask in crowded indoor conditions. I wasn't convinced about either, but figured it was Probably in my cost-benefit interest. Now I know otherwise, that a Truly monstrous fraud was thrust upon us. But hindsight always has 20/20 vision.
RFKjr benefits from having been right about the covid vaccine, but he was right by dint of prejudice — he didn't really know.
Kennedy must realize he has absolutely zero chance of winning. The Dems will rig whatever they have to (see Sanders) to prevent that. And this is what makes me really doubt RFK — why is he doing this? If he wants to make a point, he should run as an independent. He’d have no less a chance as an independent than he has as a Dem (namely 0). But he’d distance himself from a totally corrupt party (namely the Dempublicans).
By the way, Cornel West makes many of the same points as RFK. So it isn’t true that RFK is saying what nobody else will. West also has zero chance (rigged system). But at least he’s being honourable about it.
This has grown into a sustained rant, but what the hell.
(Ritual disclaimer: I’m not pro-GOP — both “parties” disgust me.)
People — many of them disillusioned 2X Obama-voters — voted for Trump because:
1) the fall-out (under Obama) from the 2008 WallStreet Meltdown had revealed to them it’s not Dems’n’GOP but rather the Dempublicans, & both were their Enemy;
2) Trump was viewed as filthy rich & therefore immune from the corruption that pervades both parties;
3) Trump’s opponents would be appalled at having to take that horrid Working Class seriously, whereas Trump spoke directly to them (bullshit though it was);
3) Trump was not Hillary Clinton.
Voting for Trump constituted one gigantic FuckYou gesture at the ruling elite. And in fact it Was — the ruling elite (& the deep state that represents its interests) absolutely hate Trump, one big reason being that he too often blurts out the Truth (example: “We left troops [in Syria] only for the oil. The oil is secure”). That’s why they have conducted a 6-year legal battle to disqualify him from running.
Good points about what motivated Trump voters. I don’t buy the “derp state” idea, though, as he has so many active supportives at all levels of government from the majority of the Supreme Courts, scores of Federal judges, Senators, members of Congress , Governors, state and local leaders, members of law enforcement, and other government officials and staff on his side his interests are supported by so many deeply embedded in the state. One could argue that he’s part of the “deep state” and so is Biden but with different folks in government. Personally, I think the “deep state” is part of a GOP victimhood narrative to create an illusion that he’s not serving the interests of the elite by claiming unfair persecution and cleverly pretending to be for working class folks. Someone said the information he claims is false but his emotion seems real and the information by the Dem leadership has much more objective truth but the emotion of delivery seems/reads false. It’s measured, wimpy, guarded, not committed like Trump. And it’s also not like the fiery and often called polarizing rhetoric of the left of the party (defund the police, abolish ice, etc.).
Jul 18, 2023·edited Jul 18, 2023Liked by Chris Ryan
On the deep state, the term is many decades old. Practically all countries have a deep state, to some extent. Call it Vested Interests. Why was “Yes, Minister” Margaret Thatcher’s favourite TV programme? Because it sent up the absurdities of government so well, in particular, the wily civil servants who manage to block changes they don’t approve of (i.e. practically all changes) & against whom she thought she was constantly battling. To stay with the UK, Tony Benn, when he was a minister, complained in his diary “I am in office, but not in power.”
In fact, “bureaucratic inertia” is nothing but one feature of deep state.
“all levels of government from the majority of the Supreme Courts, scores of Federal judges, Senators, members of Congress , Governors, state and local leaders, members of law enforcement, and other government officials”
Here’s a question: Who actually wields POWER in the US? The president? Congress? The judiciary?
No. Power, as Mao said, comes out of the barrel of a gun. Or, in a “democracy”, from whoever gets the ruling politicians by the balls. In other words, the wealthy elite in the form of the corporations. You can’t win an election in the US without plenty of money. The latest figure I saw was $16,200 that a sitting senator has to raise Per DAY to get re-elected. Where on earth is that money going to come from if not from the wealthy? And if you don't rule to their liking, they'll turn off the tap.
As for “government officials”, the term “revolving door” describes the system in all those alphabet agencies.
If you’re an FDA official & you mind the interests of Big Pharma, you’ll be rewarded with a cushy job in the pharma industry paying a big fat salary. (see vaccine scandal)
If you’re a Pentagon general, behave yourself & you’ll get same with General Dynamics or Raytheon or whoever. (see perfectly obscene “defense” budgets)
FAA? Boeing (see 737Max)
Etc.
As for Trump, his promise to “drain the swamp” came to nothing because he’s a bullshitting dumbass. But also because he was firmly blocked by The Apparatus, the deep state.
Any effort he did make — stop the Forever Wars for example (assuming he tried) — was totally blocked by “The Blob” aka “the foreign policy establishment”.
The same thing happened to Obama, by the way. Remember how he promised in 2008 to close Guantanamo Bay? Well, after 8 years in “power”, the place was still running when he left office in 2017.
And it still is.
Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech about “the military/industrial complex” (yes, Ike’s own coinage). Kennedy tried to defy that complex, vowed to “smash the CIA into a thousand pieces”.
And look what happened to Kennedy. Indeed, every president to this day has been mindful of Kennedy’s fate, & has toed the line.
So the GOP can’t possibly claim victimhood, since it’s very much part of the deep state; it’s funded by the same donors, basically, as the Dems. Make both “parties” financially dependent on you & you rule the country.
Then let everybody argue endlessly about abortion & guns & religion & racism. Those are the subjects that absorb Americans because it’s stone obvious nothing else will ever change; that the military will enjoy ever bigger budgets; that the health care that so many Western countries offer their citizens will never come to average Americans; & that the wealth gap will just go on widening.
“the left of the party (defund the police, abolish ice, etc.)”
I don’t regard those people as leftists, not by my measure anyway (I’ve now taken to describing myself as a paleo-lefty). Those people are fanatics teleguided by sterile “identity politics” ideology.
And the white-supremacy aspect of woke is fully embraced by DemCentral & corporate America. This makes perfect sense because if you can get people endlessly bickering about the limited interests of Tribe, they’ll never be able to unite against You, the 1%.
Excellent reply and comment, Rod! Paleo-lefty? Funny. I think that way. More about getting things done vs. sloganeering. I was a public school teacher on the border in SW San Diego/Imperial Beach, so I saw first-hand the effects of the Bush n Obsma’s love of standardized tests (no science, social studies/civics, art, pe, etc.) Trump’s wait in Mexico split up our families because are in the years long process of getting their papers/green card approved. Yelling “abolish ice” doesn't help but turns centrists and moderates away. Left and Dems are both bad at messaging and spend so much time at reacting to the right. Letting them set the agenda. Did bargaining team for 2 decades. Had to learn when to compromise and how to develop support for a fight. Power only yields to power. Retired now and sad we’re in such a state. Thought we’d be further along not going backward but unionism is coming back!
Right, unionism. In other words, people have to stop relying on politicians & take matters into their own hands. When they stop voting for "the lesser of two evils" & plumb boycott the election en masse, & instead hit the streets in irresistible numbers, bring the country to a standstill — then things will change.
On a complete tangent from all the topics you touched in this Chris, but if you want to check out more funky music featuring didgeridoos have a listen to Jamiroquai’s early stuff! Great vibes
Balance is VERY IMPORTANT especially the older you get. My friends father has fallen 2 times in the last 18 months and his mother 3 days ago fell down and broke her hip.
Surely there are less odious people than Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson who are making the points that you agree with? Incidentally, what are those points?
Well, that's just it. How do I know they're odious, just cause they annoy me? I'm also annoyed by anyone who wears his jeans halfway down his ass, but they can't ALL be morons, can they?
In the abstract, for example, starting from the normative assumptions of reason and compassion, it is possible to lay out a continuum of positions on any particular issue. Certainly we are able to delude ourselves about our ability to be reasonable and pragmatic… but if we engage in this exercise in good faith, then what “annoys” us is likely to represent significant deviations from what is reasonable and compassionate.
It seems to me that people like Peterson and Tate draw in their audiences by taking positions that have prima facie validity (some of which are genuinely valid). But they also take up specious positions, engage in dog whistling , undergo algorithmic capture, etc.
It gets difficult to discuss this further without making some concrete claims, and in that respect the balls are in your court. What points do they make that you think are worth debating?
I’m genuinely interested to know. Not so as to put you “on the spot”, but because I find it generally unpleasant to listen to either of these guys for extended periods of time and would like to understand the attraction.
Once we have identified some of these points/positions it then becomes possible to ask whether we need Peterson or Tate in order to reach them.
All of that might be true. Funny you mention memory. Sweden just joined NATO. Their memory of Russia goes back centuries. It is why they are well armed and very, very capable. Much like the US, Russia as an imperial power has used and abused its neighbors for a long time. Not doubting the current facts of your book and not vilifying Russian people. Their sacrifice in WW2 was massive. But I had Lithuanian grandparents. This goes way further back than 2008.
Sure, there's a fraught history between Russians & other eastern Europeans, just as there is between the US & Latin America. For much the same reasons, actually.
So you can't blame them for being wary. However, behaving in direct opposition to their own interests is not being wary, it's being suicidal.
All Ukraine ever had to do was practise Neutrality. Instead, Ukraine (by which I mean the far-right lunatics — aka nazis — actually calling the shots there) insisted on joining NATO.
I'm Canadian. If my "sovereign" country joined a Peking-led military alliance with the promise of Chinese missiles & troops being stationed on the US border, do I think the US would Respect Our Sovereignty & resist taking military action? I'm afraid I don't.
This is just How It Is with big powers. Russia spent four decades viewing NATO as an existential threat. Having it right up close in a huge country sticking into the Russian heartland was unacceptable. And they made this crystal clear way back in 2008 when Dubbya drove the plan through.
All I can say is that in exchange for its willingness to join NATO, Ukraine is now being comprehensively impoverished, depopulated & wrecked. At least 8 Million people have fled the country (three million of them to Russia, by the way). Hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian soldiers have been made permanent casualties (dead or so badly wounded they'll end up, sometimes horrifically, crippled). Ukraine is getting its ass kicked but good, uselessly backed by the US, which is determined to fight them Roose-keys to the last Ukrainian.
My stepfather's father was a Russian Jew who fled pogroms & emigrated to the US. So I know what you mean. But letting your emotions be your guide is pretty damn stupid.
There certainly are many free thinkers I just find that those that seem to declare themselves as such these days are really just just trying to be contrarian
I can refute that instantly in that I strive to think as freely as I can (am therefore, to me, a "free thinker") yet I somehow do NOT agree with the first claim.
And I regard (judging from the evidence available) that it's possible the vaccines had some limited effect for a short period (btw am 3X vaxxed myself), but nothing even approaching the claims made to us full-channel.
As for "Putin" (as if it's only him & not the whole Russian elite), the evidence is Extremely Clear (for those with the eyes to see it) that he was provoked into it from 2008 onward but that, even up to a couple of days before the invasion he continued to hope he could avoid it, but his hand was forced by attacks on civilians in the Donbas by far-right Ukrainian forces working in cahoots with the US. A book is just out by Jacques Baud, ex-colonel in the Swiss Army, ex-intelligence-analyst for the Swiss government, & ex-top-peace-keeping official at the UN. He describes in detail Exactly what I've just written, reminding us how the West has conveniently memory-holed all this.
I understand and appreciate your point about Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. People who annoy us (Peterson) and people we thank are hateful (Tate) can still make interesting points. And we’ve been too tribal lately—fair and reasonable points.
You preface your statements by saying that Tate is a hateful douchebag in your opinion. I agree, but more important is what he does rather than what he says.
Did you read/hear of his arrests for rape, false imprisonment, human trafficking, etc.?
As Morgan notices at the start of the interview, it is pretty apparent Tate obfuscates many of his views. He does believe women can be property, as is shown by his actions as an enslaver and rapist of women (looks more than “allegedly”).
You make an interesting point about taking away clever insights from awful or (Tate) or annoying (Petetson) people. It reminds me a fascinating book I’m listening to called “Monsters” about enjoying/consuming the art of awful people like Picasso, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, Wagner, etc.
Thanks. Yes, I read about it, and saw him interviewed about it (by Tucker Carlson, another example of someone I find annoying and yet, who asks good questions sometimes. According to him (and he'd be a fool to lie while under house arrest, awaiting trial), the charges are a frame-up to further deplatform him. No women have testified against him, no "victims" have corroborated the prosecution's case. He's never received any money from Tik-Tok (the charges are that he "groomed" girls to perform on Tik-Tok and give him the money. Hence, "human trafficking," and he used "charm tactics" to manipulate the women into bed. Again, according to him, ZERO women have claimed he raped or trafficked them.
The stuff about "women as property" is something I've written about extensively, and it's true that western societies believed that for centuries, until the late 20th century, in the case of the US. In many cultures, that's still the case. So while it may seem outrageous to say that, it's hardly out of the blue.
If you know of evidence that he's "an enslaver and raper of women," then clearly, that's a big problem. But I'd want to see the evidence, before presuming guilt.
Lastly, do we KNOW that Woody Allen is an "awful" person? The accusations from a totally freaked-out woman in the midst of a very bitter divorce proceeding have never stood up in court, he's got no other known history of child sexual abuse (no porn on his computer, no secret journals have come to light). He's still married to Soon-Yi all these years later, apparently happily. Where's the evidence? And yet, we toss him on to the heap of human sacrifices.
Good points, Chris. Though Tate has at least two accusers who provided testimony and will continue cooperating w the Romanian courts despite harassment from Tate supporters. (They allege Tate encourages this but hasn’t proved it yet.) Links:
There are indeed copious obsessive notes and scripts about illegal May December relationships that go on for years. Not just the script for Manhattan.
There are indeed copious obsessive notes and scripts about illegal May December relationships that go on for years. Not just the script for Manhattan.
You may see the section on Allen in the book “Monsters” about these notes. In the years old film “Wild Man Blues” documenting Allen’s trip to Europe, he comes across as a shitty person. He’s ungrateful and dismissive to his mother who won’t let him off the hook. He jokes about Soon Yi eating out of garbage cans in Korea. We watch a controlling man who married his common law step-daughter (who he met when she was nine) and made his carer. A subordinate to “the great man.” It’s all about him. This is one of questions in “Monsters” is it more acceptable for “geniuses” to dominate/use their partners? Should it be? Have already given that away? If we discount the work of Ronan Farrow and believe the child sexual assault charges were encouraged and developed by the Mia Farrow, then is Allen a “monster” or just a creep? Should we celebrate the work of virulent anti-semite Richard Wagner and his articles against Jews. Hitler attended the Wagner Beyrouth festival yearly from 1933 and lionized Wagner for use of Germanic culture and his hatred of Jews. Wagner fan and secular Jew Stephen Fry laments Wagner’s anti-semitism and tries to minimize it with sonething like if only he hadn’t published that first thesis. Wagner wrote about it his disgust for Jews at length for decades in his journals. Should it matter? Or should we just enjoy his art for it’s own sake? Picasso was a cruel man with a habit of putting cigarettes out on his partner's skin including their faces. Should we “cancel” him? Willa Cather’s racism in My Antonia? Part of it’s time? Virginia Woolf’s anti-semitism? Does any that matter? What’s your take, Chris and friends. Is there a line? Or should separate art from artist? Many of us pick and choose. Personally, I stopped watching/renting/streaming Allen’s movies or films with Mel Gibson, but listen to Wagner. I don’t change the music if Beat It or Billie Jean comes on, but find it very disturbing when children love it. California changed laws on compelling the testimony of minors and a litany of other actions because the Santa Barbara DA’s office was convinced he was an abuser. Assistant DA said due to sloppy handling of evidence by police and vast sums of money (depleting his fortune) were spent on challenging each piece of evidence. The ADA stated the evidence the jury saw and what the public has been allowed to have access too was “tip of the iceberg” of the evidence reccovered. The parents were often hostile and unsympathetic witnesses, forced to testify. Jackson and Quincy Jones put together a body of work that’s stood up for decades (post-Jones musicnot so much). Is that ok because he wasn’t found guilty but R. Kelly was convicted? What do you all think? (Sorry if this is too long. I have a new to us dog and I’m punchy, rambling)
"Wagner wrote about it his disgust for Jews at length for decades in his journals. Should it matter? Or should we just enjoy his art for it’s own sake?"
I think that is the core of your comment, so I'll respond to that. I don't think it's either/or. I think we listen to the music WITH the knowledge of the ideas we find abhorrent and that may well lead to deeper thinking. I don't know Wager's music well, so let me swap him out for Mahler, whose music I love deeply. Mahler wasn't an anti-semite, he was Jewish, and persecuted for it. He was orphaned at an early age, and raised his siblings. He was obsessive, suspicious, controlling, sometimes violent, demanding, and I imagine a pretty unpleasant guy to be around. But the music is sublime. So what is the nature of genius? Can we transmit feelings we cannot share? Can we express what we cannot comprehend?
I think so.
Having written some stuff that people have passionate reactions to, I've learned that they have a relationship with the book that is separate from their relationship with me, or my relationship to the book. This happens all the time: someone's who's just read Sex at Dawn wants to debate some point with me THAT I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WRITING. I wrote that book 15 years ago and haven't read it since. This guy just read it last week. I step back and let him have his relation with the book. It doesn't involve me.
So there's Mahler. There's Mahler's music. And there's me. I may hate Mahler but love his music. Or I may love Mahler but not love his music. Why do we need to conflate these two clearly distinct relations? Not all ugly food tastes bad, and not all beautiful food tastes good. Why can't we view artists and their art with the same understanding?
I find Sting to be arrogant and kind of obnoxious. But I love his songs. So I have a relationship that's -/+ with Sting the artist. Peter Gabriel: +/+. Freddy Mercury: +/-. Marilyn Manson: -/-. And so on.
Read enough social science/psychology books, and you learn one fact. All social science research....is driven by an agenda. Day one, undergrad, Psych 100 the professor says "The purpose of research is knowledge production. Is the hypothesis proven or dis proven by the experiment." I respectfully call BS. The method of data collection/presentation proves the agenda. Even if its subconscious.
For example.....it is often quoted.."Climate change will lead to armegadden. 90% of scientists agree to that." Which is true. What they leave out....is mentioning that its 90% of scientists who responded to the 'survey' (google it, the name escapes me at the moment.) ONLY 30% responded....one way or the other. So 90% of 30% is 27%. 27% of social scientists surveyed agreed that climate change leads to armageden. Not exactly a consensus.
Very quickly, BS research on the Right. "US debt will cripple our country!!" FOX News likes to sputter. A. The top 5 countries in terms of GDP are each over 100% GDP/Debt ratio. So, debt is a westernized country thing, not a US thing. Moreover, B. Debt.....is only meaningful if repayment can be inforced. The US is #1 in terms of GDP, and our debt exceeds our GDP.. So, if our debt was called in....and we collapsed because of it.....the entire world would collapse. Economies don't shift places over night. If China or America collapses, for whatever reason, everyone is screwed. Thus......US debt won't be "called" in our lifetime at least. Meanwhile........I continue to pay off my credit cards because no one else is effected nor cares If I go bankrupt!
"Always question the premise.....especially from those we hold in the highest regard."
“The only thing standing in the way of that mob, that unthinking cruelty, is your individual authentic voice of truth and authenticity. Your estimation, not as told to you by someone else, including me”
I'm late to the party here, but felt compelled to comment mostly in regards to the Jonah Hill thing. Do people weaponize psychology or therapy talk? Absolutely. Was Jonah Hill doing that? Ehh maybe... but the extent to which everyone is frothing at the mouth reminds me of when everyone wanted to cancel Johnny Depp when Amber Heard came out with her accusations. Then the trial happens and, go figure, there's more than one side to the story! (And, what do ya know!? Turns out she was actually literally physically and emotionally abusing him!) How quick we were to want to cancel him and then when the facts are given a chance to be shown, we get a more accurate view of the situation and our opinions shift.
I get a very similar feeling with this Jonah Hill thing. Just look at what Jonah's ex said when releasing the texts, "Keeping it to myself was causing more damage to my mental health than sharing it could ever do." Give me a fucking break. Melodramatic attention seeking much? She wants to accuse him of "emotional abuse", people use that term so often these days it has no fucking meaning anymore. Same how everybody's ex is magically a "narcissist" and now the word means nothing anymore. Or everybody's favorite new accusation, say it with me now, "gaslighting!!!" It's a fucking joke. An argument is not emotional abuse. Somebody getting their feel feels hurt, doesn't automatically mean they were gaslit by their ex. From what I saw, at worst, Jonah laid some overly rigid, poorly thought out boundaries that were almost certainly coming from a place of fear and insecurity. Nothing that I saw in those text screenshots was tantamount to "emotional abuse". It looks more like two people who don't know what a healthy relationship is and they're both stumbling through it, but I didn't see any "emotional abuse" or "monstrous texts". If anything, she seems to be acting very petty and immature by releasing these texts to the world.
Is the number of mandatory vaccines different in the US? In Canada, our vaccine schedule has a total of like eight vaccines? You get boosters throughout your life at specific life stages, but it's only eight, not 80. This is coming from my partner who's in school to be an NP.
Chris's message on ROMA 66 was to avoid blindly following a public figure or a side. But... what do you think the big ideas were that Chris resonated with from the Tate interview? I listened to the first part of it and got bored of them going in circles. Maybe there are things Tate says that are important and insightful, but they didn't stand out to me. I have heard of Tate in the news but never listened to him before. I found him to be long-winded, shallow, and maybe not as smart as the interviewer kept giving him credit for being. It is provocative for Chris to say he agrees with Tate on some things. I'm left wondering what those ideas are.
I listened to the whole thing and the only thing that I can think of that Tate said that was agreeable was that he is massively famous. Other than that it seemed to be a whinge about being taken out of context, then, having explained the context, confirmed the justification for the criticism of him.
Thanks. I'll address this in an upcoming ROMA.
☯️
Whether it's Tate, JBP or Jonah Hill, popular figures serve as a tautology in our culture for individuals to either consume or reject.
It's worth noting that these figures achieve their status not because a bunch of people agree with them, but also because a bunch of people don't; both at the same time.
How do you get the most views possible? Get the eyes of supporters, haters, and everyone in between. Tate for sure knows this well.
The Jonah Hill story served as a cultural moment not because people are hyper-obsessed with celebrities (although they are), but because it was a circumstance from which people of all different experiences could use their celebrity to hammer home the validity of their own experience.
Women who have been controlled by narcissistic men. People who have had psychology speak weaponised against them. Men who believed they were doing the right thing only to have the world turn against them.
Relationships falling apart when new boundaries are stated.
The list goes on. All of these experiences are valid, and have indeed been experienced.
People need to not ask who is right and who is wrong, who is bad and who is good, but instead question their impulsive need to project their own experiences onto public figures, and announce it to social media for the sake of validation.
Largely, the three of them are barely worth even considering. I doubt any of these men have had thoughts we haven't had ourselves. We just use them to bring legitimacy to our own opinions. In real life, I've never really encountered anyone who took issue with me saying "I'm not a fan of Tate, but I've listened and heard a few things I do agree with". On the internet, it's a different story. We've all become chronically online and confused lines between the two realities.
We need to all grow up, listen more, and stop waving around celebrity figures we know fuck all about to validate our shitty, half thought-out opinions on things.
Tate may be committed serious crimes. So we may reserve judgement until “proven guilty” or exonerated, but from charges, witness statements, etc. it’s potentially on a much different level than Peterson or Jonah Hill. So I don’t group him w them. Tates explanations of what he did indicate at best manipulation a la Iceberg Slim/pimp game/“brainwashing” and at worst false imprisonment, rape, etc. Keep in mind he got press initially when he was kicked off UK Big Brother for beating a woman with belt. His subsequently pleaded it was consensual, but the staff monitoring the feed were alarmed and disagree. They claim she was not consenting and highly alarmed by Tate’s alleged attack, but he subsequently convinced the woman to later corroborate his story so she could lessen her embarrassment or lack of apparent agency.
Very well said. Reading this, I thought of how famous people serve our mythic structure. They're mythological figures signifying characteristics and motivations we find familiar and, as you say, we all hit our tuning forks and listen to ourselves resonate. They are, sometimes literally, human sacrifices who die (or are tormented by their fame and power) so that we have something to talk about. In some countries, it's the royal family. For us, it's BradJolina and Kanye.
Yay on the guitar order! Congrats! I have a Martin and have been messing with different tunings, after ten plus years of being a 'guitar owner' but not really a 'guitar player'. It feels so good to play again after so long.
Have you heard of a jaw harp? so funky and fun to watch.
Also, I agree that Jonah Hill seems insecure. Have you heard of 'the wheel of power and control'? It outlines behaviors that are not abusive per say but rooted in control/power over others. While controlling tendencies may not be abusive, they often lay a foundation for further insecure behavior that negatively impacts others and can lead to abuse.
I agree with your point that she is free to say 'ha no fuck that bye' and she is probably wise to. The wheel of power and control, when applied to government policy is extremely eye opening.
Hadn't heard of the wheel. I'll look it up. Thanks.
It would be great to hear you and rfk jr have a valuable conversation on either or’s podcast!
"How is it abuse!?"
One might also ask how so many things these days are: racism, fascism or whatever hair-on-fire buzzword is being wielded as a political tool at the moment.
Yes, buying packages is a lousy idea, unless you've earnestly scrutinized each item first. You might decide that, on balance, it's still worth the purchase even if you don't like them all. That's politics.
Am thrice-jabbed & long wore a mask in crowded indoor conditions. I wasn't convinced about either, but figured it was Probably in my cost-benefit interest. Now I know otherwise, that a Truly monstrous fraud was thrust upon us. But hindsight always has 20/20 vision.
RFKjr benefits from having been right about the covid vaccine, but he was right by dint of prejudice — he didn't really know.
Kennedy must realize he has absolutely zero chance of winning. The Dems will rig whatever they have to (see Sanders) to prevent that. And this is what makes me really doubt RFK — why is he doing this? If he wants to make a point, he should run as an independent. He’d have no less a chance as an independent than he has as a Dem (namely 0). But he’d distance himself from a totally corrupt party (namely the Dempublicans).
By the way, Cornel West makes many of the same points as RFK. So it isn’t true that RFK is saying what nobody else will. West also has zero chance (rigged system). But at least he’s being honourable about it.
This has grown into a sustained rant, but what the hell.
(Ritual disclaimer: I’m not pro-GOP — both “parties” disgust me.)
People — many of them disillusioned 2X Obama-voters — voted for Trump because:
1) the fall-out (under Obama) from the 2008 WallStreet Meltdown had revealed to them it’s not Dems’n’GOP but rather the Dempublicans, & both were their Enemy;
2) Trump was viewed as filthy rich & therefore immune from the corruption that pervades both parties;
3) Trump’s opponents would be appalled at having to take that horrid Working Class seriously, whereas Trump spoke directly to them (bullshit though it was);
3) Trump was not Hillary Clinton.
Voting for Trump constituted one gigantic FuckYou gesture at the ruling elite. And in fact it Was — the ruling elite (& the deep state that represents its interests) absolutely hate Trump, one big reason being that he too often blurts out the Truth (example: “We left troops [in Syria] only for the oil. The oil is secure”). That’s why they have conducted a 6-year legal battle to disqualify him from running.
Good points about what motivated Trump voters. I don’t buy the “derp state” idea, though, as he has so many active supportives at all levels of government from the majority of the Supreme Courts, scores of Federal judges, Senators, members of Congress , Governors, state and local leaders, members of law enforcement, and other government officials and staff on his side his interests are supported by so many deeply embedded in the state. One could argue that he’s part of the “deep state” and so is Biden but with different folks in government. Personally, I think the “deep state” is part of a GOP victimhood narrative to create an illusion that he’s not serving the interests of the elite by claiming unfair persecution and cleverly pretending to be for working class folks. Someone said the information he claims is false but his emotion seems real and the information by the Dem leadership has much more objective truth but the emotion of delivery seems/reads false. It’s measured, wimpy, guarded, not committed like Trump. And it’s also not like the fiery and often called polarizing rhetoric of the left of the party (defund the police, abolish ice, etc.).
On the deep state, the term is many decades old. Practically all countries have a deep state, to some extent. Call it Vested Interests. Why was “Yes, Minister” Margaret Thatcher’s favourite TV programme? Because it sent up the absurdities of government so well, in particular, the wily civil servants who manage to block changes they don’t approve of (i.e. practically all changes) & against whom she thought she was constantly battling. To stay with the UK, Tony Benn, when he was a minister, complained in his diary “I am in office, but not in power.”
In fact, “bureaucratic inertia” is nothing but one feature of deep state.
“all levels of government from the majority of the Supreme Courts, scores of Federal judges, Senators, members of Congress , Governors, state and local leaders, members of law enforcement, and other government officials”
Here’s a question: Who actually wields POWER in the US? The president? Congress? The judiciary?
No. Power, as Mao said, comes out of the barrel of a gun. Or, in a “democracy”, from whoever gets the ruling politicians by the balls. In other words, the wealthy elite in the form of the corporations. You can’t win an election in the US without plenty of money. The latest figure I saw was $16,200 that a sitting senator has to raise Per DAY to get re-elected. Where on earth is that money going to come from if not from the wealthy? And if you don't rule to their liking, they'll turn off the tap.
As for “government officials”, the term “revolving door” describes the system in all those alphabet agencies.
If you’re an FDA official & you mind the interests of Big Pharma, you’ll be rewarded with a cushy job in the pharma industry paying a big fat salary. (see vaccine scandal)
If you’re a Pentagon general, behave yourself & you’ll get same with General Dynamics or Raytheon or whoever. (see perfectly obscene “defense” budgets)
FAA? Boeing (see 737Max)
Etc.
As for Trump, his promise to “drain the swamp” came to nothing because he’s a bullshitting dumbass. But also because he was firmly blocked by The Apparatus, the deep state.
Any effort he did make — stop the Forever Wars for example (assuming he tried) — was totally blocked by “The Blob” aka “the foreign policy establishment”.
The same thing happened to Obama, by the way. Remember how he promised in 2008 to close Guantanamo Bay? Well, after 8 years in “power”, the place was still running when he left office in 2017.
And it still is.
Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech about “the military/industrial complex” (yes, Ike’s own coinage). Kennedy tried to defy that complex, vowed to “smash the CIA into a thousand pieces”.
And look what happened to Kennedy. Indeed, every president to this day has been mindful of Kennedy’s fate, & has toed the line.
So the GOP can’t possibly claim victimhood, since it’s very much part of the deep state; it’s funded by the same donors, basically, as the Dems. Make both “parties” financially dependent on you & you rule the country.
Then let everybody argue endlessly about abortion & guns & religion & racism. Those are the subjects that absorb Americans because it’s stone obvious nothing else will ever change; that the military will enjoy ever bigger budgets; that the health care that so many Western countries offer their citizens will never come to average Americans; & that the wealth gap will just go on widening.
“the left of the party (defund the police, abolish ice, etc.)”
I don’t regard those people as leftists, not by my measure anyway (I’ve now taken to describing myself as a paleo-lefty). Those people are fanatics teleguided by sterile “identity politics” ideology.
And the white-supremacy aspect of woke is fully embraced by DemCentral & corporate America. This makes perfect sense because if you can get people endlessly bickering about the limited interests of Tribe, they’ll never be able to unite against You, the 1%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&ab_channel=BBCComedyGreats
Excellent reply and comment, Rod! Paleo-lefty? Funny. I think that way. More about getting things done vs. sloganeering. I was a public school teacher on the border in SW San Diego/Imperial Beach, so I saw first-hand the effects of the Bush n Obsma’s love of standardized tests (no science, social studies/civics, art, pe, etc.) Trump’s wait in Mexico split up our families because are in the years long process of getting their papers/green card approved. Yelling “abolish ice” doesn't help but turns centrists and moderates away. Left and Dems are both bad at messaging and spend so much time at reacting to the right. Letting them set the agenda. Did bargaining team for 2 decades. Had to learn when to compromise and how to develop support for a fight. Power only yields to power. Retired now and sad we’re in such a state. Thought we’d be further along not going backward but unionism is coming back!
Right, unionism. In other words, people have to stop relying on politicians & take matters into their own hands. When they stop voting for "the lesser of two evils" & plumb boycott the election en masse, & instead hit the streets in irresistible numbers, bring the country to a standstill — then things will change.
Not that I'm holding my breath....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOIs9wCuf-0&t=3s&ab_channel=GreggTomlinson-Bell
Will watch. Thanks!
On a complete tangent from all the topics you touched in this Chris, but if you want to check out more funky music featuring didgeridoos have a listen to Jamiroquai’s early stuff! Great vibes
Appreciate you 🙏
Thanks for the music tip. It is called Tangentially Speaking after all!
Balance is VERY IMPORTANT especially the older you get. My friends father has fallen 2 times in the last 18 months and his mother 3 days ago fell down and broke her hip.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA My brother has 1 of those tennis racket mosquito zappers.
Surely there are less odious people than Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson who are making the points that you agree with? Incidentally, what are those points?
Well, that's just it. How do I know they're odious, just cause they annoy me? I'm also annoyed by anyone who wears his jeans halfway down his ass, but they can't ALL be morons, can they?
In the abstract, for example, starting from the normative assumptions of reason and compassion, it is possible to lay out a continuum of positions on any particular issue. Certainly we are able to delude ourselves about our ability to be reasonable and pragmatic… but if we engage in this exercise in good faith, then what “annoys” us is likely to represent significant deviations from what is reasonable and compassionate.
It seems to me that people like Peterson and Tate draw in their audiences by taking positions that have prima facie validity (some of which are genuinely valid). But they also take up specious positions, engage in dog whistling , undergo algorithmic capture, etc.
It gets difficult to discuss this further without making some concrete claims, and in that respect the balls are in your court. What points do they make that you think are worth debating?
I’m genuinely interested to know. Not so as to put you “on the spot”, but because I find it generally unpleasant to listen to either of these guys for extended periods of time and would like to understand the attraction.
Once we have identified some of these points/positions it then becomes possible to ask whether we need Peterson or Tate in order to reach them.
We have such first world problems don’t we?
Who can we trust; virologists, climate scientists, law professors, biologists, historians?
“Do your own research”
“I’m a free thinker”
(Ever notice all the “free thinkers” tend to think the same things)
Less wealthy countries seem to just take the medicine when needed and move when the water comes up.
I don’t know, maybe it’s all TMI.
"the 'free thinkers' tend to think the same things"
Such as?
Man hasn’t contributed to global warming
Vaccines weren’t effective
Putin was forced to attack
All of that might be true. Funny you mention memory. Sweden just joined NATO. Their memory of Russia goes back centuries. It is why they are well armed and very, very capable. Much like the US, Russia as an imperial power has used and abused its neighbors for a long time. Not doubting the current facts of your book and not vilifying Russian people. Their sacrifice in WW2 was massive. But I had Lithuanian grandparents. This goes way further back than 2008.
Sure, there's a fraught history between Russians & other eastern Europeans, just as there is between the US & Latin America. For much the same reasons, actually.
So you can't blame them for being wary. However, behaving in direct opposition to their own interests is not being wary, it's being suicidal.
All Ukraine ever had to do was practise Neutrality. Instead, Ukraine (by which I mean the far-right lunatics — aka nazis — actually calling the shots there) insisted on joining NATO.
I'm Canadian. If my "sovereign" country joined a Peking-led military alliance with the promise of Chinese missiles & troops being stationed on the US border, do I think the US would Respect Our Sovereignty & resist taking military action? I'm afraid I don't.
This is just How It Is with big powers. Russia spent four decades viewing NATO as an existential threat. Having it right up close in a huge country sticking into the Russian heartland was unacceptable. And they made this crystal clear way back in 2008 when Dubbya drove the plan through.
All I can say is that in exchange for its willingness to join NATO, Ukraine is now being comprehensively impoverished, depopulated & wrecked. At least 8 Million people have fled the country (three million of them to Russia, by the way). Hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian soldiers have been made permanent casualties (dead or so badly wounded they'll end up, sometimes horrifically, crippled). Ukraine is getting its ass kicked but good, uselessly backed by the US, which is determined to fight them Roose-keys to the last Ukrainian.
My stepfather's father was a Russian Jew who fled pogroms & emigrated to the US. So I know what you mean. But letting your emotions be your guide is pretty damn stupid.
There certainly are many free thinkers I just find that those that seem to declare themselves as such these days are really just just trying to be contrarian
I can refute that instantly in that I strive to think as freely as I can (am therefore, to me, a "free thinker") yet I somehow do NOT agree with the first claim.
And I regard (judging from the evidence available) that it's possible the vaccines had some limited effect for a short period (btw am 3X vaxxed myself), but nothing even approaching the claims made to us full-channel.
As for "Putin" (as if it's only him & not the whole Russian elite), the evidence is Extremely Clear (for those with the eyes to see it) that he was provoked into it from 2008 onward but that, even up to a couple of days before the invasion he continued to hope he could avoid it, but his hand was forced by attacks on civilians in the Donbas by far-right Ukrainian forces working in cahoots with the US. A book is just out by Jacques Baud, ex-colonel in the Swiss Army, ex-intelligence-analyst for the Swiss government, & ex-top-peace-keeping official at the UN. He describes in detail Exactly what I've just written, reminding us how the West has conveniently memory-holed all this.
So please.
I understand and appreciate your point about Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. People who annoy us (Peterson) and people we thank are hateful (Tate) can still make interesting points. And we’ve been too tribal lately—fair and reasonable points.
You preface your statements by saying that Tate is a hateful douchebag in your opinion. I agree, but more important is what he does rather than what he says.
Did you read/hear of his arrests for rape, false imprisonment, human trafficking, etc.?
As Morgan notices at the start of the interview, it is pretty apparent Tate obfuscates many of his views. He does believe women can be property, as is shown by his actions as an enslaver and rapist of women (looks more than “allegedly”).
You make an interesting point about taking away clever insights from awful or (Tate) or annoying (Petetson) people. It reminds me a fascinating book I’m listening to called “Monsters” about enjoying/consuming the art of awful people like Picasso, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, Wagner, etc.
Thanks. Yes, I read about it, and saw him interviewed about it (by Tucker Carlson, another example of someone I find annoying and yet, who asks good questions sometimes. According to him (and he'd be a fool to lie while under house arrest, awaiting trial), the charges are a frame-up to further deplatform him. No women have testified against him, no "victims" have corroborated the prosecution's case. He's never received any money from Tik-Tok (the charges are that he "groomed" girls to perform on Tik-Tok and give him the money. Hence, "human trafficking," and he used "charm tactics" to manipulate the women into bed. Again, according to him, ZERO women have claimed he raped or trafficked them.
The stuff about "women as property" is something I've written about extensively, and it's true that western societies believed that for centuries, until the late 20th century, in the case of the US. In many cultures, that's still the case. So while it may seem outrageous to say that, it's hardly out of the blue.
If you know of evidence that he's "an enslaver and raper of women," then clearly, that's a big problem. But I'd want to see the evidence, before presuming guilt.
Lastly, do we KNOW that Woody Allen is an "awful" person? The accusations from a totally freaked-out woman in the midst of a very bitter divorce proceeding have never stood up in court, he's got no other known history of child sexual abuse (no porn on his computer, no secret journals have come to light). He's still married to Soon-Yi all these years later, apparently happily. Where's the evidence? And yet, we toss him on to the heap of human sacrifices.
I don't know if you've seen this yet, but I changed my mind about Woody Allen after seeing it: https://youtu.be/muyaCg2dGAk
Original article:
“What do we do with the art of Monsterous Men?” by Claire Dederer https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/
New book by author on the topic. Expanded. Women “monsters” included.
“When art you love was made by 'Monsters': A critic lays out the 'Fan's Dilemma'”
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/10/1174293359/monsters-a-fans-dilemma-review-claire-dederer
Soon Yi /Allen Timeline
https://www.nytimes.com/article/woody-allen-timeline.html
https://abcnews.go.com/International/andrew-tate-accusers-online-harassment/story?id=100569030
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/02/01/andrew-tate-again-appeals-romanian-detention-his-human-trafficking-charges-explained-and-a-timeline-of-the-social-media-stars-controversies/?sh=1149901a4e6e
Good points, Chris. Though Tate has at least two accusers who provided testimony and will continue cooperating w the Romanian courts despite harassment from Tate supporters. (They allege Tate encourages this but hasn’t proved it yet.) Links:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/02/01/andrew-tate-again-appeals-romanian-detention-his-human-trafficking-charges-explained-and-a-timeline-of-the-social-media-stars-controversies/?sh=1149901a4e6e
There are indeed copious obsessive notes and scripts about illegal May December relationships that go on for years. Not just the script for Manhattan.
There are indeed copious obsessive notes and scripts about illegal May December relationships that go on for years. Not just the script for Manhattan.
You may see the section on Allen in the book “Monsters” about these notes. In the years old film “Wild Man Blues” documenting Allen’s trip to Europe, he comes across as a shitty person. He’s ungrateful and dismissive to his mother who won’t let him off the hook. He jokes about Soon Yi eating out of garbage cans in Korea. We watch a controlling man who married his common law step-daughter (who he met when she was nine) and made his carer. A subordinate to “the great man.” It’s all about him. This is one of questions in “Monsters” is it more acceptable for “geniuses” to dominate/use their partners? Should it be? Have already given that away? If we discount the work of Ronan Farrow and believe the child sexual assault charges were encouraged and developed by the Mia Farrow, then is Allen a “monster” or just a creep? Should we celebrate the work of virulent anti-semite Richard Wagner and his articles against Jews. Hitler attended the Wagner Beyrouth festival yearly from 1933 and lionized Wagner for use of Germanic culture and his hatred of Jews. Wagner fan and secular Jew Stephen Fry laments Wagner’s anti-semitism and tries to minimize it with sonething like if only he hadn’t published that first thesis. Wagner wrote about it his disgust for Jews at length for decades in his journals. Should it matter? Or should we just enjoy his art for it’s own sake? Picasso was a cruel man with a habit of putting cigarettes out on his partner's skin including their faces. Should we “cancel” him? Willa Cather’s racism in My Antonia? Part of it’s time? Virginia Woolf’s anti-semitism? Does any that matter? What’s your take, Chris and friends. Is there a line? Or should separate art from artist? Many of us pick and choose. Personally, I stopped watching/renting/streaming Allen’s movies or films with Mel Gibson, but listen to Wagner. I don’t change the music if Beat It or Billie Jean comes on, but find it very disturbing when children love it. California changed laws on compelling the testimony of minors and a litany of other actions because the Santa Barbara DA’s office was convinced he was an abuser. Assistant DA said due to sloppy handling of evidence by police and vast sums of money (depleting his fortune) were spent on challenging each piece of evidence. The ADA stated the evidence the jury saw and what the public has been allowed to have access too was “tip of the iceberg” of the evidence reccovered. The parents were often hostile and unsympathetic witnesses, forced to testify. Jackson and Quincy Jones put together a body of work that’s stood up for decades (post-Jones musicnot so much). Is that ok because he wasn’t found guilty but R. Kelly was convicted? What do you all think? (Sorry if this is too long. I have a new to us dog and I’m punchy, rambling)
"Wagner wrote about it his disgust for Jews at length for decades in his journals. Should it matter? Or should we just enjoy his art for it’s own sake?"
I think that is the core of your comment, so I'll respond to that. I don't think it's either/or. I think we listen to the music WITH the knowledge of the ideas we find abhorrent and that may well lead to deeper thinking. I don't know Wager's music well, so let me swap him out for Mahler, whose music I love deeply. Mahler wasn't an anti-semite, he was Jewish, and persecuted for it. He was orphaned at an early age, and raised his siblings. He was obsessive, suspicious, controlling, sometimes violent, demanding, and I imagine a pretty unpleasant guy to be around. But the music is sublime. So what is the nature of genius? Can we transmit feelings we cannot share? Can we express what we cannot comprehend?
I think so.
Having written some stuff that people have passionate reactions to, I've learned that they have a relationship with the book that is separate from their relationship with me, or my relationship to the book. This happens all the time: someone's who's just read Sex at Dawn wants to debate some point with me THAT I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WRITING. I wrote that book 15 years ago and haven't read it since. This guy just read it last week. I step back and let him have his relation with the book. It doesn't involve me.
So there's Mahler. There's Mahler's music. And there's me. I may hate Mahler but love his music. Or I may love Mahler but not love his music. Why do we need to conflate these two clearly distinct relations? Not all ugly food tastes bad, and not all beautiful food tastes good. Why can't we view artists and their art with the same understanding?
I find Sting to be arrogant and kind of obnoxious. But I love his songs. So I have a relationship that's -/+ with Sting the artist. Peter Gabriel: +/+. Freddy Mercury: +/-. Marilyn Manson: -/-. And so on.
Congrats on the dog. This lady is awesome, if you do Insta: https://www.instagram.com/dynamitedogtraining/