Victory Boulevard

TM, ¨ & Copyright © 2002 by Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.Nietzsche already defined the implicit statement of the ironic pose as (paraphrase) “I am a latecomer in the world!”: Nothing for me to do; I’m neither responsible for what is, nor able to effect change, so instead will construct a reserve where criticism of culture and membership in good standing, rather than contradicting each other, confirm each other. It is an ideology appropriate to a culture in decline, learning to identify its decline as its just desert. On the way to nadir – which we fearfully sense will not be merely an experience of the sensibility, but entail real material costs – of course the ’50s aesthetic is attractive to us. It’s an aesthetic of world-historical victory and its material and emotional spoils, including self-confidence in the values taken to have been proved by that victory, and in their future, congealed in the typical styling of consumer objects, houses, hair styles, etc. To declare them completely unattractive would be to declare oneself immune to everything this world has to offer, like saying that rather than having those things and believing those beliefs, you’d rather be picking through the rubble of Hiroshima or Hamburg or hauling coffee beans through the mountains or working on an assembly line or tank crew on the other side of the Iron Curtain. ’40s styles offer a different kind of “values security,” while similar patterns of nostalgia or borrowed nostalgia for the earlier British or European order are particularly prominent in “steampunk” and other “retro-future” styles. Eventually, any earlier aesthetic or pastiche involving one will strike us “at face value” as superior to whatever dwindling cultural residue we call our own, since all will by definition imply a future that we, the latest latecomers, lack.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

2 comments on “Victory Boulevard

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Declarations are easy. Actually being “immune to what this world offers” is a rare thing, accomplished by very few. They claim happiness. And even though my “Everybody wins” post is a shorter, funnier response to this post, I’ll add something. Nietzsche’s already worthwhile spiritual aphorisms come first throughout this list and are followed by my newcomer improvements:

    “What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.”
    We are a loving conduit between Form and Formlessness.
    “I love those who do not know how to live, except by going under, for they are those who cross over.”
    We love the chaotic nature of existence, as well as the inevitability of rupture and change.
    “I love the great despisers because they are the great reverers and arrows of longing for the other shore.”
    We love both shores, and all shores, and no shore because what is dispatched is not decidable in respect to an angelic destination or structure.
    “I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may some day become the overman’s.”
    We love those who have fun going down into a borderless, unlegislated space that gives way to irreducible, intrasubjective experiencing.
    “I love him who lives to know, and who wants to know so that the overman
    may live some day. And thus he wants to go under.”
    We love those who Know from having been in love with the unknown. Thus they went under.
    “I love him who does not hold back one drop of spirit for himself, but wants to be entirely the spirit of his virtue; thus he strides over the bridge as spirit.”
    We love those who recognize themselves as a freeplaying bridge made of spirit that neither Form nor Formlessness creates alone.
    “I love him who makes his virtue his addiction and his catastrophe: for his virtue’s sake he wants to live on and live no longer.”
    We love those who make their virtue their addiction and their catastrophe: for their virtue’s sake they want to live and live no longer.”
    “I love him whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks and returns
    none: for he always gives away and does not want to preserve himself.”
    We love the squandering soul who wants no thanks and returns none: for they always give themselves away and do not want to preserve themselves.
    “I love him who is abashed when the dice fall to make his fortune, and asks, ‘Am I then a crooked gambler?’ For he wants to perish.”
    We love those who weep when the dice fall to make their fortune and dance merrily when the dice fall to ruin them.
    “I love him who casts golden words before his deeds and always does even
    more than he promises: for he wants to go under.”
    We love those who cast golden words accessed from a Formless source of Knowledge without calling those golden words their own.
    “I love him who justifies future and redeems past generations: for he wants to perish of the present.”
    We love our present expression as freeplaying bridges.
    “I love him who chastens his god because he loves his god: for he must
    perish of the wrath of his god.”
    We love both Form and Formlessness.
    “I love him whose soul is deep, even in being wounded, and who can perish of a small experience: thus he goes gladly over the bridge.”
    We love the Soul that is a bridge between Mind and Spirit, and we love the human Spirit that is a freeplaying bridge between Form and Formlessness.
    “I love him whose soul is overfull so that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things spell his going under.”
    We love those who forget the self and find all things in the Self.
    “I love him who has a free spirit and free heart: thus his head is only the entrails of his heart, but his heart drives him to go under.”
    We love those whose heart is free: thus their head is only the entrails of their heart.
    “I love all those who are as heavy drops, falling one by one out of the dark cloud that hangs over men: they herald the advent of lightening, and, as heralds, they perish.”
    We love all those who are as crystal clear drops, falling one by one out of the dark cloud that hangs over humankind: they herald the advent of Kundalini, and, as heralds, they perish. We also love all those who are as conduits for Formlessness, catching its fallen love that express our experience of Yoga: they herald the advent of Knowledge, and, as
    heralds, they express the eternal overture.
    “Behold, I am a herald of the lightening and a heavy drop from the cloud; but this lightning is called overman.”
    Behold, the lightening strikes from Below as well as from Above, and it is in us all.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins