Category Archives: Political Correctness

By Christina Myer

Poor Whitney Cummings. Never heard of her? She tried to boost her profile a bit recently by appearing on a late-night talk show to discuss her roots. Those would be here in the Mountain State, by the way.

What she managed was to prove that often for celebrities it is more important to make a spectacle than to demonstrate any real knowledge; and that political correctness isn't about making sure EVERYONE is treated fairly, only the demographic groups in fashion at the time.

Sadly, those of us living in Appalachia, and particularly West Virginia, are still fair game when it comes to "jokes" that would be considered scandalously insensitive were they applied to anyone else.

Cummings, it seems, was appalled to find out after her father's death that he was not from "Western Virginia," as she had always believed, but from West Virginia. When the British host of the talk show said he was not familiar with West Virginia, she said "there's a big difference between Virginia and West Virginia, like four chromosomes difference, it's like the skin tag of Virginia." She used other, more vulgar terms for our relationship with Kentucky, and lamented finding out she has "hillbilly DNA."

There is no appropriate reaction to such a performance other than to feel sympathy for someone so undereducated and in need of attention. Those of us who understand having "hillbilly DNA" is a point of pride cannot help but to offer a "bless her heart," to someone so deprived.

Surely the education she received growing up in Washington, D.C., included mention of the Civil War, and the only state born of that horrific period because its residents did not want to remain under the thumbs of those who were willing to fight and die to preserve their right to own slaves. Does that mean comedian, actress, producer, writer and director Cummings was disappointed to learn she did not have roots in the same state that as recently as two years ago hosted a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, which featured the waving of Confederate battle flags, Nazi flags and tiki torches?

Unfair to lump all Virginians into that category? Of course it is.

It's tempting to think Cummings should know better, given most celebrities' reactions to what they deem slurs and derogatory generalizations. What a shame that she does not.

Christina Myer is

executive editor of The Parkersburg News & Sentinel.

Read the original here:

Comedian earns the wrath of Appalachia - GrafWV.com Entertainment, the arts, alternative news for W.Va. - Graffiti

For some college students, its a parody that hits way to close to home. When The Babylon Bee ran asatirical news storyabout a motorcyclist identifying as a bicyclist to set a new record, a group of runners at the Big Sky Conference understood all too well. In their conference, boys dont just compete as girlsthey get honored for it!

Two years ago, Jonathan Eastwood dominated the mens competition. In 2019, hes dominating something else: the womens field. Eastwood, who now goes by June, finished second in a field of 204 runners at the Santa Clara Bronco Invitational and helped the University of Montana finish seventh as a team.

For that, school officials decided, hes been named the Womens Cross-Country Athlete of the Week, edging out eight otheractualfemales for the title.

Not surprisingly, Bill Zwerger noticed, the 6-foot, 5-inch male fared quite wellagainst his weaker and slower female competitors this season, finishing first at the University of Montanas Invitational and second (by one second!) at the most recent Bronco Invitational. But thats only to be expected, seeing that he was a top runner for the U of M Grizzlies men X-C and track and field teams as recently as 2017.

I have the sneaking suspicion that his latest second-place finish was due to him letting off the gas toward the end of the race, seeking to minimize the negative publicity his winning yet again would have garnered, along with the outrage his female opponents must feel in having a male win every race against them.

When The College Fix contacted the university, it asked why the school didnt disclose the fact that Eastwood identifies as a transgender. Spokesman Joel Carlson insisted there was no subtext.

Good luck convincing the rest of the sport, which is struggling to survive this fatal infusion of political correctness.

Even now, the NCAA has no answers for girls track, admitting, The NCAA does not have a maximum testosterone level for its current policy. The current policy is being reviewed by our membership.

In the meantime, womens high school and college programs are desperately trying to cope as girls lose more races, team eligibility, and scholarships to biological men.

Girlslike Selina Soulehave been adamant that they just want a fair shot. But thats virtually impossible now, she says, on an unlevel playing field. In her complaint to the Department of Education, she argues that womens sports cant compete in an age when biological men can line up and take her trophies.

In Connecticut, where Selina competes, the reality is particularly harsh. The competition board allows boys to race against girls, even without undergoing any sort of hormone therapy.

Olympians like Sharron Davies are furious that the standards are so low now that men can compete against women no surgery required no hormones no medical diagnosis just self-ID and reduced testosterone to a level [still] x5 the highest average (98%) of [real] females.

Its madness, she argues. The whole reason we have mens and womens sports, she points out, is because we are biologically different. Performance 100% confirms that. The reason steroids (including testosterone) are on the banned list is because using them give[s] you an advantage.

And yet, the extinction of womens sportsand the uniqueness of women in generalis exactly what the Democratic Party is championing.

Under the radical Equality Act passed by the House, every school would beforcedto accept men like Eastwood into girls athletics. Its a policy so near and dear to the 2020 candidates that Joe Biden promised that if he was elected, [the Equality Act] will be the first thing I ask to be done.

If there is a silver lining to this politically correct lunacy, its that more people are starting to see the quandary thats created by policies and decisions that arent based in anatomical realities but emotional whims.

If biological sex doesnt matter in sports, where does it matter? Good question. One that most liberals cant seem to answer.

Members from both sides of the aisleespecially those who claim to be pro-woman and pro-childrenneed to stop this devastating legislation. The future of womens rights, privacy, protection, and athletic potential depends on it.

Originally published in Tony PerkinsWashington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

More:

Biological Male Wins Women's Athlete of the Week Award - Daily Signal

Kanye West at Paris Fashion Week in 2015(Charles Platiau/Reuters)Hes just the figure to bring a needed message that our society should reconsider what it deems praiseworthy.

On Friday, anyone with a pulse would have seen the news of the release of Kanye Wests newest album, Jesus Is King. It comes after months of news stories about Wests very public conversion to Christianity, a Christianity that bears no resemblance to the vague spiritualism of Moral Therapeutic Deism that is often associated with celebrity conversions.

The lyrics to each song in Jesus Is King are shockingly Christian. It is not an album of feel-good Christian spirituality aimed primarily as a message of uplift. West co-wrote and sang the hit Jesus Walks on his debut album The College Dropout (2004), but Jesus Is King is different. Throughout the whole of the new album, West is in many respects deeply critical of modernity and cultural progressivism. There are calls for a focus more on the family than on individual glory. He seems to applaud Chick-fil-A, which in our age is tantamount to endorsing bigotry. Social-media obsession should be exchanged for family prayer. Fatherhood is characterized as a virtue. Materialism is pilloried. Calls for worshiping Christ redound to such effect that Wests first Christian album is arguably more Christian than what most contemporary Christian artists could similarly muster.

But in the media rollout of Wests album, its worth paying attention to other statements hes made. Hes criticized abortion and believes that the African-American community is getting played by Democrats. He remains defiant in the face of political correctness. A man of evolving identities who has struggled with mental illness in his past, he told Zane Lowe during a two-hour long Beats 1 interview that during the planning of the album, he insisted that those around him fast and abstain from premarital sex. In the interview with Lowe, West has the anthropology of C. S. Lewis, the economics of Wilhelm Rpke, the cultural mood of Wendell Berry, and the defiance of Francis Schaeffer. In Jesus Is King and in interviews, we see a Kanye West upholding what Russell Kirk referred to as the Permanent Things.

Hes rejecting the hyper-sexualization of culture that he admitted he helped create. In an ode to the Niebuhrian Christ-and-culture typology, he said hes now living his life for Christ and ostensibly against culture.

In a word, Kanye West is now a cultural reactionary by the standards of our society, and could be, in time, a cultural wrecking ball that dislodges so much of the assumed, comfortable, and unchecked cultural liberalism that dominates the most elite sectors of our country and mocks anything resembling traditionalism and social conservatism. In an age of libertarian sentiment, when the currency of American society appear to be glamorization and the notion that consent is the only reasonable moral standard, West is calling for restraint and limits.

To that end, I wish him success. Hes just the figure, given his massive iconic cultural status, to bring a needed message that our society should reconsider what it deems praiseworthy. To that end, his religious conversion could spark a revolution in morals, similar to what the conversion of 19th-century abolitionist William Wilberforce helped foster in England.

If I were a cultural progressive, West would now be on my enemies list. Hes daring to name the forces that eat away at human happiness, and, given his unpredictable nature, theres no telling what he will not be willing to confront. Hes a figure with just enough audacity and celebrity to get people to reconsider their lives.

Time will only tell of what will come from his radical conversion to Christianity. But in the wake of this news, I have one message of warning to my fellow Christians about West: There will be a temptation by well-meaning Christians to make him a champion of Christianity. Christians could easily impute their own cultural insecurities onto West, who is the very definition of a cultural icon. Lets not do that.

The Apostle Paul warns in the New Testament about vesting too much hope and confidence in new converts, fearing they would be puffed up with pride (something, lets be honest, Kanye has no problem exuding). We need to let Kanye be a Christian Kanye without making him into a Christian celebrity.

Read more from the original source:

Kanye Wests Conversion Could Be a Cultural Wrecking Ball - National Review

(NOTE: The following is an update version of an essay I wrote some years ago)

And Yaktan sired Hatzarmavet(Genesis 10:26)

Rashi: According to Aggadah (Bereishit Rabbah) after the name of his location

* * *

A century ago the global game was imperialism; there were the Ottoman, British, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian empires. In our time the game is unification: The United States, the UN, the Arab League, The European Union.

The difference between the two is simple. Empires are the forcing of the will of a single nation over other, less powerful nations. Unification is the willing participation of different nations or states in an effort at unity and shared purpose.

From my perspective unification is infinitely more dangerous, especially when it is imperialism posing as unification. And most especially when it is, yet again, Germany, this time clad in the sheeps clothing of a European Union, attempting for the third time in a century to dominate its continent, if not the world.

But let us discuss lesser scoundrels first. Has there ever been a more corrupt, mendacious, resource-wasting, unbalanced organization than the UN? Having been established with the best of intentions, it has degenerated to where today under the guise of unity, democracy and fairness it has become the chief instigator of pernicious injustices, and provides an umbrella of legitimacy for the most inexcusable and oppressive regimes.

Can anyone be blind to the veryraison detreof the Arab League, an organization whose overriding obsession since its inception has been the undoing of the State of Israel? Can one point to a single program or project undertaken by this unifying League to enhance the quality of life, health, education and welfare of Arabs anywhere?

And what of the UN Human Right Council a club of primarily third world thuggeries obsessively committed to perpetrating an ongoing gang-bang against Israel with the tacit, if not active, approval of major Western European democracies.

Then there is UNESCO, a purportedly benign, education and cultural association, now almost pathologically dedicated to rewriting history in service of he most retrograde Islamist interests.

Taking the cake, of course, in the European Union, a seemingly benign attempt to dilute the identity of Europes various nation states in order to foster greater democracy and economic fairness. The EU is the result of an apparently compassionate post-nationalist desire to level the global playing field. Here the intentions seem good, even as they pave the road to hell, leading to the predictable day when Europe will have good-willed its way to oblivion under a yoke of murderous Islamic totalitarianism.

For make no mistake, the Islamic demographic invasion of Europe is not something apart from European unification, it is a result of the same enlightened thinking: Alle menschen wurden Bruder,all people are brothers; there are no better or worse people, no superior or inferior cultures. We are all G-ds children except that for the politically correct there really is no G-d. What should have raised a red flag from the get-do was that all this nostrum about universal brotherhood was being peddled by a post-Holocaust Germany. Who in their right mind would trust the German Volk with anything? And yet

Even the United States, the first unifying amalgamation under the banner of freedom, has democratized itself to the point where its protective walls have been breached, and the nefarious, malignant and irreversible invasion has begun all fully sanctioned by a delusional belief in the good intentions of all peoples. Fortunately under the Trump administration some brakes have been applied to this willful national suicide. But considering what waits in the wings should the Republicans lose in 2020, the free world must prepare for catastrophe.

With all this circle-dancing of unification, the world has become a vastly more dangerous place. This liberal, well-intentionedAlle Menschen wurden Bruderthinking inevitably results in a political correctness that, at its best, ignores real and present dangers and, at its worst, endorses and supports them.

Yes, it runs counter to our intelligence to believe that cooperation and unity between disparate ethnic, political and linguistic groups is dangerous. But it does not run counter to our instincts. And the empirical evidence is clear unifying/cooperative efforts have brought our world to the brink of doom, and it will take a miracle to turn the clock back.

This, I believe is the message of the story of the Tower of Babel which appears in this weeks Torah reading, Parshat Noah.

At first glance, the inclusion of this story in the Torah makes no sense. For traditional Jews, the Torah is not a history book its primary importance is legal, didactic and exegetical. Which begs the question as to why the story of the Tower of Babel is included altogether.

The existence of many languages is a given. Indeed earlier verses in this very Parsha mention the diversity of languages. In Genesis 9:10 we read;From these, the islands of the nations separated in their lands,each one to his language, according to their families, in their nations.. Clearly the Babel story itself whether actual or mythical must contain a message for the generations.

(11:1) )And the land was of one language and devarim ahadim(which means singular words, but could/should be read as unifying words)

(11:4)And they said, Come, let us build for us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name(reputation),lest we become scattered across the face of entire land.

(11:6) And the Lord said; Lo one people who have one language, and this is what they have commenced to do, . The latter part of this verse is generally understood (according to Rashi) as questioning: ie.Now will it not be withheld () from them all that they have planned to do?

I would respectfully suggest another reading of this verse entirely.

The conventional understanding of the Babel story is that the people who settled in the land of Shinar (verse 2) were defying G-d. Their purpose in constructing the ziggurat known to us as the Tower of Babel was an attempt to reach G-d in the heavens and challenge His dominion.

Can this possibly explain why G-d sowed discord through a babel of languages? Was G-d afraid of this challenge? Did He need to nip the project in the bud lest the people actually achieve such a goal?

If we accept Rashis understanding of the tale, the translation of the closing phrase of verse 6; Now will it not be withheld () from them all that they have planned to do?is necessary if somewhat forced.

I would suggest, however that yibatzer does not mean witheld, and this phrase is not a question but a statement a statement by G-d describing how he is planning to rescue these people from a terrible fate the inevitable destruction that is the result of too much unity.

The word is akin to the word which means fortification. Hence, the verse is saying that a consequence of a single language and singular purpose would result in;and nowas a consequence( ) they(the people of Shinar)will not be protected from them(i.e. outside enemies)by all that they(the people of Shinar)have planned to do.

G-d understands that by creating the false sense of security that comes from the apparent unity and glory of a powerful city and a tower, they are achieving the very opposite result namely rendering themselves vulnerable to incursion by destructive outside forces.

Indeed the story must be understood in an entirely different way. It is hardly a negative reflection on the people who settled in Shinar. On the contrary:

As I see it, a large population of Noahs varied descendants settled in Shinar. Relying on their intellect, they decide to build a utopian society united by common language and culture; a society that would be centered in a strong city surrounding an awe-inspiring tower.

They believe that without this unity of purpose, without a shared language and culture, they would become vulnerable to outside forces and end up exiled and dispersed.

Human intelligence, when shared by people with decent intentions, inevitably leads to a benign vision of a world that is hardly benign; a vision whereby outsiders would be welcome to this utopian society, and would be so impressed with its culture and its architecture and its skyscrapers that they would only desire to become part of the noble vision, certainly not plot to destroy it.

And so, G-d saves the day by dividing the population of Shinar into a multiplicity of different cultures, each with its own language,preciselybecause it is this disunity that augurs best for human survival contrary to what we might think with our brains.

By dividing the people through language, G-d replaces intelligence with instinct. Humankind develops an instant need to survive through the delicate balance between the limited and necessary unity on a small ethnic scale, and the disunity of humankind through the establishment of borders and distinct cultural identities.

Yes, there would be tensions, suspicions and occasional skirmishes, but these would be minor by comparison to the utter devastation that would result when a mighty, seemingly impregnable unified nation-state believes, naively, that everyone even those who are not part of this society are inherently benign and have good intentions. Because that is when the society becomes careless, and exposes isAchilles heel so that it can be easily toppled, as happened to the Greek and Roman empires.

The flood of Parshat Noah did not cover the entire planet earth. It covered a large swath of what was the cradle of our civilization and the birthplace of monotheism.

G-d had other plans and uses for India, China and Japan (the Sinites referred to in Noah are likely not the Chinese) which not now or ever were centers of monotheism and belief in the one G-d.

Eretz, the land, referred to in Parshat Noah and in the story of the Tower of Babel has its perimeters defined trough the names of Noahs progeny. On the one extreme we have Ashkenaz, which is central Europe. On the other extreme with have Hatzarmavet which the Midrash says is a place, which indeed it is. The utterly inhospitable end of Yemen in called Hadramaut (in Hebrewheder-mavet) which means the almost the same, i.e. courtyard of death. Few people dare enter this forbidding desert, and for most it seems like the very end of the earth.

The People who settle in Shinar believe they inhabit a safe world. They are either oblivious to the existence of alien nations or assume that these alien nations are benign at best, or, at the very least, would be so impressed by the Shinarian culture, economy, architecture and civilization, they would never think of causing any trouble.

Babel is happening today, in real time. A powerful United States of America can have its most visible symbol of global importance, the Twin Towers, leveled in minutes by a handful of savages. Does America learn its lesson? Hardly. Islam is labeled a religion of peace. Muslim immigration continues unabated. A president like Obama goes and bows to the monarch of the very country, the worlds most retrograde feudal state, which incubates global terror. We allowed a Gadaffi to remain in power decades after he had blown an American jetliner out of the sky. We twiddle out thumbs as Iran goes nuclear. After all,Alle Menschen wurden bruder,how bad can those folks really be?

Europe has its head even deeper in the ground than America. Hell bent in its fever of politically correct post-nationalism on unifying its disparate and historically un-fraternal nations, the enlightened Europeans convince themselves that Islamists are people, just like any other, who wish to join their melting pot and become like all other Europeans. After all,Alle Menschen wurden bruder,how bad can those Muslim folks really be?

This suicidal political correctness is in lockstep with a G-dless and egocentric belief in human intelligence. The instinct for survival is disappearing from the western DNA, as evidenced by the attempt to erase borders, language barriers, currency differences etc. the very things that keep smaller nation states in a state of wary self-preservation.

Purely on instinct a majority of Britons woke up a few years ago and decided to rescue themselves from this impending disaster. Time will tell if Brexit was not too little, too late.

In fact the only western national state in which a majority still espouse the need for particularism and even parochialism is Israel. Because, at least the Jews who live here not all, but most have learned what international brotherhood inevitably leads to.

Any wonder that Europe would love to see us disappear? Any wonder that we will be around long after they are done for?

More here:

Parshat Noah: The EU, Tower of Babel Redux - The Times of Israel

Halloween is one of Americas favorite yearly activities. Unfortunately, Halloween can be Americas scariest too, especially for those of us seen as costumes you wear rather than the human beings that we are.

Asian Americans, Native Americans, blacks, Muslim women in burqas, hijabs and Muslim men in turbans with beards, are frequent targets of race-themed costumes. Whites donning blackface was commonly accepted misbehavior that dates back long before it was disclosed months ago that the present Virginia governor, Ralph Northam, once went in blackface as Michael Jackson in the 1980s.

With anti-immigration sentiment toward Mexicans evident with the mass shooting in El Paso, there will be some Halloween revelers mocking this racial group. However, those not intended to mock or to mimic yet dress up in Mexican serape and hat or in the Little Mexican Amigo Toddler Costume sold on Amazon will hit racial landmines, too.

We are a country that doesnt want to confront race. Halloween, an activity thats masked with tricks and treats and playful mischief, ironically unmasks the face of Americas troubled history with race.

Its hard not to make the connection with contemporary topics, themes and people trending in news and culture to Halloween costumes worn that year. For example, a year after Trayvon Martins murder, a rash of Trayvon Martin Halloween costumes appeared with white people wearing hoodies, carrying Skittles and sporting gunshot wounds. That same year, in 2013, Julianne Hough, a judge on ABCs "Dancing with the Stars," wore blackface as her favorite character Crazy Eyes in the Netflix hit Orange Is the New Black for Halloween. Award-winning Nigerian American actress Uzo Aduba portrays the character Crazy Eyes.

This year we see Halloween decorations of lynching across the country. In Chesapeake, Virginia, a figure was found wrapped in black trash bags hanging from a tree. In Brooklyn, a Halloween decoration displayed children hanging from nooses. Now gone, the display was across the street from an elementary school. Here in Andover, just a 30-minute drive from my home in Cambridge, a McDonalds apologized for a Halloween decoration displaying a person hanging from a tree by the neck.

In this racial climate of a resurgence of white nationalism, its not hard to connect President Trumps recent comment about lynching to some of the lynching-themed Halloween decorations popping up across the country. In a tweet, Trump compared the Houses impeachment inquiry to a lynching.

So some day, if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the president, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here, a lynching. But we will win, Trump tweeted.

The horrific act of lynching is a form of domestic terrorism and social control. Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African American male teen lynched in the Mississippi Delta in the summer of 1955, became this nations iconic image of the cowardice acts of white supremacist terrorism. In 2018 the National Memorial for Peace and Justice, informally known as the National Lynching Memorial, opened to commemorate the thousands of recorded black bodies lynched in the 18th and 19th centuries. Trumps use of the racial trope essentializes and erases the particular history and context of black struggle in America.

Our present-day fight is to pass legislation to make the act of lynching a federal hate crime in this century. Also, in this climate to Make America Great Again, Trumps use of the racial trope of lynching sadly might encourage some to taunt, jeer, frighten and even act violently toward non-white, non-Christian and LGBTQ+ Americans.

Even with the best intentions, Halloween hangings displaying the act of lynching ought not to bring joy nor laughter -- whether intended to cause harm or not. Dany Rose just recently learned this lesson. Roses home window display of brown cutout paper dolls hanging by their neck immediately prompted community outrage and protest. Rose, the co-director of ArtShack Brooklyn, who recently resigned from her post, offered the following apology: The images were based on the horror movie 'Annabelle,' but because they were made of brown kraft paper and hanging from nooses, they were deeply racially offensive I understand that ignorance is no excuse and apologies are not enough, but nonetheless I want to apologize sincerely to my neighbors and community.

Some feel Halloween no longer brings joy and laughter in a woke culture where the tyranny of political correctness and identity politics police behavior. However, if you feel youre rocking your Halloween outfit instead of mocking an ethnic group or cultural practice, please keep these thoughts in mind: wearing the traditional clothing of another culture is not a costume. Donning blackface is not a mask. Dressing as a homeless person isnt funny. Adopting someone elses dialect for the evening is not cool. Purchasing the Disguise Womens Dragon Geisha Costume from Amazon is not okay.

Halloween is a Celtic festival. People lit bonfires and wore costumes to ward off ghosts. We can do the same without dredging up the ghosts of Americas racism.

Cambridge resident Rev. Irene Monroe is a Huffington Post blogger and a syndicated religion columnist. Monroe also does a weekly Monday segment called All Revd Up on WGBH, a Boston member station of National Public Radio.

Read the original:

FAITH IN ACTION COLUMN: Halloween unmasks our troubled history with race - Wicked Local Cambridge

The legendary English musician performs the music of Soft Cell this Halloween night in Boston

Here in America, we tend to see Halloween as a celebration of things that are scary and morbid; but viewed more generally, the excitement of the season, the reason that, for certain people, its their favorite holiday of the year, is due to the way that it combines general merriment with a sly subversion of what a celebration is supposed to be. We eat candy, dress up, and throw elaborate parties, but at the same time we throw the spotlight on death? Fear? Sadness? Existential dread?

Well, okay, so maybe your conception of Halloween differs from mine; that said, we can all agree that when you are peeling a bowl full of grapes so that unsuspecting rubes will mistake them for eyeballs in the dark, you are feeling the thrill of inappropriateness, making light of the dark while darkening the light. And perhaps you might find yourself doing just that Thursday night (October 31) whilst belting along to the early-80s anthems of Leeds synth-pop pioneers Soft Cell, when singer Marc Almond appears, along with Hercules & Love Affair and DJ Chris Ewen, as part of Los Angeles party doyen and Lethal Amounts honcho Danny Fuentes Sex Cells blowout at the Paradise Rock Club.

Here in the States, Almond is primarily known for his Soft Cell hits (and for turning Gloria Jones early-60s Ed Cobb-penned Northern Soul b-side Tainted Love into a global synthtone smash); in the UK however, he is a legendary artist with a four-decades-and-going run that has seen him sell 30 million records whilst being appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire all achieved with an ear for a great tune and a finely calibrated ability to hone in on heartbreak and dread at the center of a song.

Vanyaland had the opportunity to pick Almonds brain on what Halloween means to him, and how darkness and subversion can make a great pop song greater.

Daniel Brockman: Were very excited because youre going to be playing Boston on Halloween, as it turns out. Should be very exciting do you have anything special planned for the show?

Marc Almond: Umm, I picked a set to do that I think fits in with one of Dannys parties, so I dont know really, I cant say, Im not going to wear a witchs costume or anything though! [laughs]

Right, I was curious because in America, Halloween is such a big deal, not sure if its as much a big deal for you.

Well, I do know that over here Im considered a bit gothic, I suppose; a bit of electro-gothic is my contribution to Halloween I think. So I think itll be a set that fits in with that, and Ill try and be as gothic as i possibly can.

I was thinking about that when I was thinking about you playing a show on Halloween, because at least in America, the way people view the 80s and the way we slot in the hits of Soft Cell hits with goth or goth culture is kind of odd how do you feel about that, does that make sense to you?

I dont really mind, because over the years I mean, Ive been making music for over 40 years now, and Ive done lots of different genres from electro, to kind of post-punk, to rock, to big balladry, to Russian folk, so people are going to hook onto a genre or a period Ive always picked kind of dark subjects for my songs, written dark love songs, so I guess I get fitted in to that kind of gothic genre I suppose. I dont really mind, really, I dont really mind, but Im not a big fan of labeling things. People do that but it doesnt bother me. I think gothic fans are fantastic, I love people expressing themselves how they want to, I think thats absolutely wonderful.

This tour is a real party atmosphere, and I feel like in a weird way that kind of ties in a lot of what youve done over the last 40 years; even when your music has been serious or dark, youve always kept a party atmosphere.

Ive always loved pop hits; even whenever Im in the midst of one of my more artistic projects, I always wind up coming back to pop music, I really love pop music, I grew up from when I was a young kid listening to pop music. I had young parents who the radio on all the time, I watched all the pop shows. I always come back to that, I like things with a dancey beat and a catchy chorus. And I especially love how pop music can be quite subversive you can have dark lyrics but hide it behind a catchy chorus and a dance beat. Im a great believer in the classic pop song and I always kind of come back to that.

I really agree, especially on the subversive angle of pop music did you pick up on that as a kid?

Yeah, I mean, Ive always been more of a Rolling Stones fan than a Beatles fan, if you know what I mean, when I was a kid, because I liked things that were edgy and tapped into things that were a bit darker and a bit esoteric. When I was a very young kid, watching black and white shows on TV, I was always attracted to the darker things; I grew up in the 60s and I loved the whole psychedelic era, and then the 70s with David Bowie and T. Rex and Iggy Pop and Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground so Im always drawn to those things. But again, its all about great songs, they all had great songs, didnt they? But with a little bit of darkness in their lyrics, and that was always what I was drawn to.

When I started buying records in the early 70s, I actually kind of started with prog rock, and I actually liked that a lot; but then David Bowie came along, and for me and a lot of people in my generation, he spoke to a lot of different things. He really kind of educated me, more than my teachers in schools! David Bowie taught you that there was another life out there, beyond this little town in the north of England, and you have to go and find this other life. And Lou Reed taught you about this other life in New York, and it was thrilling and exciting. Youd hear a song like Walk On The Wild Side, singing about drag queens and hustlers and things, and it was so subversive.

Now, thats considered a bad song, because its not very politically correct and now its kind of its not a good way of expressing things, but I think its a fantastic song, and for me, to hear that song played on the radio at number one, with nobody really listening to the lyrics was just an amazing thing. Things like that really inspired Soft Cell when we started making music, like how you can put a little bit of darkness into a pop song.

Do you feel that people nowadays dont need that sense of desperate liberation from a pop song? Or is it a different type of liberation that they get from a song? Or do they just get it from somewhere else?

I think that everythings become quite subversion has become quite mainstream now, so people nowadays are making all sorts of interesting things but its all sort of referring back to something that has already been made. Its like a return to vinyl, isnt it? People want to get some of that revolutionary thing that happened in the 60s and 70s and early-80s; the early-80s, really, might have been the last great age of truly subversive pop, original pop.

We love the artists of the early-80s who took their inspiration from the artists of the 70s: David Bowie, T. Rex, from punk music, from early electronic music, things in Germany like Kraftwerk. I think people are really desperate to catch some of that feeling now, and I think its very hard to be I mean, it was genuinely shocking back then to hear David Bowie sing songs from Aladdin Sane, for example, and it was genuinely shocking at the time to watch Top of the Pops when Bowie put his arm around the lead guitarist I dunno, it was just Wow!, it just wasnt done on television! And you cant explain to people the shock that that was for people at the time.

***

I think people want to get that back, and its very hard to get that back because musics kind of a photocopy now, its a bit of a photocopy of a photocopy, its been watered down so much to reach the mainstream. Now its more like people do interesting variations on this material, giving it a twist or mix it up with something else in an interesting way its hard to get that back without it being merely a nod to the past.

Theres such a political correctness now as well; you just cant say things like you used to, like people say that Walk On the Wild Side is a bad record and shouldnt be played anymore, because it doesnt talk about people in the correct way, uses terms for drag queens and its just very hard, were just really bound and have to say the correct things now. I get it, but I think its a shame, in a way.

That record, for decades, for generations, kept exposing people everywhere to a world that theyd never have firsthand experience with, and in that sense its such a crucial record, besides the fact that its an amazing song. I guess its hard for pop musicians to keep showing people a new world over and over again.

Yeah that is the challenge.

SEX CELLS: MARC ALMOND PERFORMS SOFT CELL + HERCULES & LOVE AFFAIR + DJ CHRIS EWEN :: Thursday, October 31 at The Paradise Rock Club, 967 Commonwealth Ave. in Boston, MA :: 8 p.m., 21-plus, $45 in advance and $50 day of show :: Event page :: Advance tickets

Read more:

Interview: Marc Almond on darkness and subversion in pop music - Vanyaland

This essay is an excerpt from R. R. Renos new book Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West.

In every political culture, the we touches upon sacred things. Human beings are by nature social animals. But the particularity of the we is always a gift. Patrimony comes unbidden. I was created in the image and likeness of God, a noble heritage I share with every other human being. But in that universal inheritance I did not receive my distinctive patrimony as a Reno. That came by accident.

If I were from another family, I would still enjoy all the dignity of the humanity I share with others, but I would not be a Reno. And yet I do not feel the contingency as a diminishment. My parents, grandparents, and ancestors before them are in a real sense far more necessary to me than my generic humanity, so much so that Im far more likely to sacrifice my life for my blood relations than for someone outside the family circle, however equal he may be in the eyes of God. This is at once an obvious point about human natureblood is thicker than water, as folk wisdom puts itand something remarkable. The miracle of the we turns contingent familial solidarity into something more precious than our universal humanity. It is so powerful that it can overcome genetic differences, which is to say nature herself. Marriage creates a we. Adoption can expand the we. There is something thicker than bloodthe union of shared loves.

The miracle of the we infuses political solidarity with sacred significance. We are not created American or English or Polish, but our native languages are beloved. Its not simply a metaphor to speak of our motherlands and fatherlands. Here as well the power of the we transcends biology. Nations unite clans and tribes, villages and provinces. They can incorporate newcomers by naturalizing them, a process of civic adoption, as it were. And, of course, religious communities manifest the sacred sources of we as well, for they come from a divine source.

The solidarity found in the we is always political in the broadest sense. Because the we is not naturalthat is, it is not simply a consequence of our shared humanity or a biological dynamic of genetic connectionits particularity requires intentional effort to create, guide, and sustain. In short, the we does not just happen. I must form a domestic bond with a woman and have a child to perpetuate my family name. The civic realm needs to be defended; its history must be passed down, and the native language has to be taught. All this and much more must be done if a we is to have a future. Revelation and tradition have to be passed down and children catechized to sustain the religious we.

In every such endeavor, individuals must exercise their freedom. The we is not the product of a calculation of utility, nor is it simply given in racial or any other genetically determined identity. The we is an end in itself that asks us to do what is necessary to sustain and promote our shared loves, all of which harken to the call of strong gods. Governance, therefore, is integral to the we. In the intimate affairs of domestic life, it is obvious that the decisions and initiatives of the husband and wife allow the family to flourish. Let us leave aside religious leadership, which is explicitly ordered to the service of the divine, and focus on political leadership and the sacred sources of the civic we.

In its classical definition, a republic is not merely a system of government. It is that which is held as a common good among a particular people, a res publica. The resthe common thing that is the object of a shared loveis often many-sided. The French cherish their language and assign to their public institutions responsibility for maintaining its integrity and purity. The English are loyal to their free institutions, their history, and their countryside. Postwar Germans are disquieted by their own uncertainty about whether they have a right to be proud of their history. One could go on and on describing national characters. Better, however, to adopt a more general definition of the shared thing. In his massive account of world history,The City of God, Augustine defines the we as an assembled multitude of rational creatures bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love.

The postwar consensus is, at root, fearful of love. Formed by the decades of catastrophe, the generation so ably represented by Popper and Hayek recognized that loves passions can lead to destructive devotions. Love enflames ambitions, some of which impel us toward evil ends. Love inspires sacrifices, some of which are misguided and self-destructive. At their worst, perverse loves can beckon us to sacrifice others.

Our consensus in favor of openness seeks to prevent these dangers by depriving us of loves objects. Its techniques of disenchantment and weakening try to banish the strong gods or at least make them too weak to rouse our hearts. The postwar consensus critiques, deconstructs, and deflates a great deal of what the Western tradition has championed as fitting objects of our lovenot only God, but the nation and our cultural inheritance, even truth itself. By certain measures, the postwar consensus has been remarkably successful. It has brought calm to the West and great wealth as well. Since 1945 there has been but one war in Europeon the margins, in the Balkansthe consequence of passions and collective grievances stirred up by the collapse of the artificially imposed unity of communism. Its destructive, tribal passions seemed to vindicate the love-weary skepticism of Popper, Hayek, and the rest.

An open-society calm continues to dampen dangerous upsurges of discontent in the core nations of the West. Protesters regularly march through Paris. Italy can seem ungovernable. Germany anguishes over its history. Populism roils elections. Yet no paramilitary organizationsno Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, or Red Brigadesare taking to the streets. Anti-globalization riots in Hamburg in 2017were softened by an atmosphere of protest tourism rather than earnest rebellion. Local residents fed protestors sandwiches. Governing authorities seemed vaguely sympathetic. After all, in the atmosphere of the postwar consensus, street protests are presumptively beneficial. They remind us of the virtues of the open society, which are worth the broken windows and burning cars. After Trumps election, the people who took to the streets were overwrought women in ridiculous hats. Vattimo is right: There has been a great weakening. These days the occasional episodes of street violence are often the work of anti-fascist gangs who relish the rare opportunities our age allows for strong actions insofar as they target whatever remains of the historical enemies of the open societypolitical correctness with cudgels.

But the project of peace without love cannot go on much longer. Man was not created to be alone. We do not desire calm, not even when satiated by countless pleasures. We yearn to join ourselves to others, not only in the bond of matrimony but in civic and religious bonds as well. The we arises out of love, a ferocious power that seeks to rest in something greater than oneself. In the first half of the twentieth century, perverse loves destroyed a great deal in the West, not just lives and buildings, but cultural legitimacy as well. It is not surprising that Poppers open society and Hayeks spontaneous market order gained the upper hand. Nevertheless, the death camps, gulags, atomic bombs, and killing fields, however horrible, did not destroy human nature. Our hearts remain restless. They seek to rest in loyalty to strong gods worthy of loves devotion and sacrifice. And our hearts will find what they seek.

R. R. Reno is editor ofFirst Things.

Read this article:

The Miracle of We | RR Reno - First Things

Illustration by Sammy Newman

Tagwa Shammet, Opinions Editor

Spooky season is upon us. Its time to trick or treat, time to carve out some pumpkins, time to get your spookiest decorations up. But most importantly, its time to get dressed up as our favorite characters and concepts. So, as you plan which costume youll be showcasing this year, please remember: I am not your Halloween costume.

Im sure some of you are reading this piece thinking, Oh come on, blackface doesnt happen anymore. Tell that to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northan or Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who obviously didnt get the memo.

Listen, I get the hype around wanting to be black. I love being black. I get to dress up as Penny Proud, Beyonce, TLC, a Clover and so many other black artists and characters. Let me clue you in on a little secret: You can also be all of those characters without the blackface. I was once Belle from Beauty and the Beast. Did you see me with baby powder on my face? No, because that would be unbelievably offensive. Obviously, black people are extending the white population a courtesy thats not reciprocated.

Halloween is all about dressing up and enjoying the sweetness and spookiness. But there is a fine line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation. And some of you have majorly overstepped the bounds.

In case some of you are still confused; blackface has been and will always be offensive. Asking, Whats the big deal? when you see someone with blackface is not an acceptable response. Its not just a costume, its not just you painting your face a darker shade. Its wildly racist. The root of blackface is historically hateful and derogatory.

Blackface was first created in the theatrical world when white actors painted their faces black to depict slaves in events called minstrel acts. According to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, these depictions showcased black people as lazy, ignorant, cowardly or hypersexual. Im sure these performances were a hoot and a holler for white audience members, but for black people, theyre disrespectfully dehumanizing.

Halloweekend on college campuses is a huge deal. Dressing up and partying with your friends is an exciting concept. However, because parties encourage outrageous costumes, nobody really calls out offensive costumes. The New York Times wrote that Greek life has always been a common setting for blackface and appropriation due to its segregative nature. Well, being a bystander is no longer in. If you see something, say something. Staying quiet makes you just as complicit as the perpetrator. Call out your friends straight up. Beating around the bush just continues the disrespect.

Maybe your excuse for your racism is ignorance. I hate to break it to you, but ignorance isnt an excuse here. You cant I didnt know your way out of coloring your face black. What exactly didnt you know? You didnt know that blackface is racist? You didnt know by painting your face black that youve perpetrated offensive stereotypes? You didnt know how to appreciate a culture without appropriating it?

You cannot plead ignorance any time its convenient. Ill let the ignorance excuse slide, Ill allow you the privilege of educating you out of the darkness. However, as I said before, your pleading of ignorance is rejected completely here.

To some of you, this story doesnt apply. But, to those of you who thought that painting your face black was a worthwhile concept, your ignorance is a direct tie to your racism.

Unfortunately, blackface isnt the only infamous form of offensive appropriation during Halloween. Putting feathers on your head doesnt make you a Native American, just like wearing a sombrero doesnt make you a Mexican.

Lets be clear: Culture is not a costume. Tagwa Shammet.

All of these inappropriate actions stem from racial biases. The more frequently you get checked on those issues, the less often it happens. However, its not up to someone else to put you in your place. You are responsible for yourself and your actions. Therefore, do not blame your friends of the particular culture youre appropriating for not calling you out on your actions. Its nobodys fault but your own.

Some of you would prefer to not be bystanders but lack the confrontational skills to call someone out. Here are a few ideas I have for you:

One option is to suggest that the costume be slightly tweaked to avoid offense.

A more evolutionary solution would be if youre willing to educate on the dangers of cultural appropriation, as well as to ensure they never cross the line again. (While I am a fan of furthering the knowledge of others, Im not the biggest fan of this solution because, like I stated above, individuals are responsible for their actions.)

And finally, the simpler, the better. The easiest solution is to just tell the person to remove the costume on the basis of it being offensive.

This isnt a matter of political correctness nor social sensitivity; this is a matter of respect. If you find yourself being called out for appropriation, you may lack respect for all cultures offended during the process.

Halloween is an experience for people of all ages. For college students, its the perfect time to get all kinds of spooky with friends. VCU is a beautifully diverse campus. We pride ourselves on the different cultures and ethnicities that flood these Richmond streets. Please make sure youre not the one turning this Halloween into a nightmare. So, as you find the perfect costume, remember: I am not your Halloween costume.

Read more:

With Halloween approaching, there is a fine line between cultural appreciation and appropriation - The Commonwealth Times

Political election seasons are always interesting times. An array of candidates offer themselves to the voters, each one promising a bundle of policy programs targeting what government will do for those who elect them, as well as all those who did not vote for them. They are all about how much they want to give back and to do for us. They portray themselves as ethical eunuchs, living just for the betterment of the rest of us.

But is this really what the government and political power is all about in our day and age? An analysis and answer to this question was offered 100 years ago, by the famous German sociologist and historian, Max Weber (1864-1920) in a lecture on Politics as a Vocation, delivered to a group of students in Munich, Germany on January 28, 1919. It was published later that year.

Europe Unhinged After World War I

Those were trying times in the world, and especially in Europe. The end of the First World War was less than three months past, with the Armistice of November 11, 1918. A defeated Germany was still months away from the peace Treaty of Versailles, which was signed on June 28, 1919, and fully finding out the extent to which it would be burdened with the primary guilt for causing the war, resulting in Germany being stripped of 13 percent of its territory in Europe, losing its colonial empire in other parts of the world, and expected to pay reparations payments to the victors well into the 20thcentury.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was disintegrating in those immediate months following the end of the war, replaced by what came to be called the successor states, including an independent Hungary, a new Czechoslovakia, an enlarged Romania, a resurrected Poland, and a Serbian-led Yugoslavia, plus parts of the Tyrol transferred to Italy. What remained was a much truncated and far smaller Austrian Republic that many thought was not survivable on its own.

In Russia, a civil car was being brutally fought between Lenins Bolsheviks and the anti-communist White Armies following the Russian Revolution of November 1917. These Marxian socialists were etermined to bring on a world revolution to destroy the capitalist system. Days after Webers lecture in Munich at the end of January 1919, there was established a short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic. In neighboring Hungary there would be another belief but violent Soviet Republic from March to August 1919.

The centuries-old monarchies of Russia, Germany, and Austria were swept away. Socialist revolutionaries, aggressive nationalists, and democrats of various political persuasions were vying with each other over many countries in Europe in the fight for political power and direction of the various peoples under their control.

Legitimized Force as the Unique Means of State Power

It seemed reasonable to Max Weber, then, to explain what the nature of political control was, the meaning of the state, and the motivations of those pursuing mastery over the machinery of government. In other words, what the basis of political authority and power, and its use for various designs and ends in society at large?

To begin with, Weber reasoned that the state cannot be defined in terms of the ends it pursues, which historically has greatly varied depending on who was in control of the political administration within a country, and the purposes those individuals might have had in mind. The distinguishing characteristic of the state is the unique means that it possesses and assigns to itself in the attempt to achieve any specific end. That unique means that defines a state is the use of physical force.

A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that territory is one of the characteristics of the state . . . The state is considered the sole source of the right to use violence. Hence, politics for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among the groups within a state.

The state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be.

The Sources of Obedience to Political Force

So, on what basis do human beings accept the right of some to rule and potentially apply physical force to assure needed obedience to their political authority within a geographical area? Weber suggested three general reasons that people support or acquiesce and obey those in control of government. The first is tradition and history. The ruler claims that he descends from others from long ago, those who were bestowed with the right to rule through divine appointment or great deeds that established that first ruler and his selected descendants the right to govern over a people and a land.

The second is the charismatic, a chosen one, who through his personality and the power of his will is on a mission, often religious, sometimes ideological, to bring salvation or utopian justice to a sinful and immoral world. He draws people, at first, to himself not through the use of force, but by the appeal and persuasiveness of his message and the influence over others of his mere presence in the company of those who are drawn to him.

And the third, in our democratic age, there is the legitimizing of a right to rule and to be obeyed because those in positions of political power have been assigned to those roles through a demonstrated will of the people who have elected them to a governmental position for a stipulated period of time. For people to fail to obey the laws being enforced by those in government is to not obey themselves, since the government and its policies reflect the intentions of those very citizens, as a whole, through an electoral process that all have agreed to play by.

Politics as Avocation and Vocation

What motivates those who are drawn to politics? Here Weber points out that in democratic societies most citizens have an avocation for politics, by which he meant an occasional pastime of paying attention to and participating in the political process through the voting booth. But for most people, politics is not central to their lives. They have family, friends, professions and occupations that fill their lives with things considered more important and necessary or enjoyable. Politics is something that people are expected to be aware of and take an interest in due to the impact and affect that political decisions and decision-making can have on their own circumstances in various positive or negative ways.

But there are others in society for whom politics is a vocation, again, by which Weber means that it is a central, crucial part of their lives, and through which almost everything is given meaning, purpose and direction to their actions. But Weber points out that that a person may live for politics or may live off politics; invariably those who make politics so central to their lives are motivated by both. Weber said:

There are two ways of making politics ones vocation: Either one lives for politics or one lives off politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule, is rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly also does both in practice. He who lives for politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a cause. In this internal sense, every sincere person who lives for a cause also lives off the cause.

The Charismatic Leader and HisFollowers

In his posthumous work,Economy and Society(1920), Max Weber developed the concept of the charismatic leader and his followers, and how they live before and following their rise to political power. It captures the essence of what it means for individuals to live for and off politics: while devotion to a cause may be the motivating force at first, living off politics soon becomes the guiding motivation for many who come to man the mechanisms of political administration in the state that are introduced, for instance, by the charismatic.

A charismatic leader is one who stands out from the ordinary mass of men because of an element in his personality viewed as containing exceptional powers and qualities. He is on a mission because he has been endowed with a particular intellectual spark that enables him to see what other men do not, to understand what the mass of his fellow men fail to comprehend.

But his authority, Weber explains, does not come from others acknowledging his powers, per se. His sense of authority and destiny comes from within, knowing that he has a truth that he is to reveal to others and then knowing that truth will result in men being set free; and when others see the rightness of what he knows, their following his leadership emerges as obvious and inevitable.

Certainly, in the context of those radical and revolutionary times in the immediate post-World War I period, Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) fit that description. While many who met or knew him pointed out his either non-descript or even unattractive physical appearance and presence, most emphasized at the same time Lenins single-mindedness of being on a mission for which he had absolute confidence and unswerving determination, and due to which others were drawn to him and accepted his leadership authority.

Surrounding Lenin, the charismatic, was an array of disciples and comrades who were called and chosen, and saw who themselves as serving the same mission: the advancement of the socialist revolution. As Weber says:

The . . . group that is subject to charismatic authority is based on an emotional form of communal relationship . . . It is . . . chosen in terms of the charismatic qualities of its members. The prophet has his disciples . . . There is a call at the instance of the leader on the basis of the charismatic qualification of those he summons . . .

The chosen group renounces (at least in principle, if not always in practice) the material temptations of worldly circumstances, which the goal of their mission is meant to overthrow and destroy. And, this too, marked the often conspiring, secretive and sometimes Spartan lifestyle of Marxist revolutionaries. Max Weber explained:

There is no such thing as salary or a benefice. Disciples or followers tend to live primarily in a communistic relationship with their leader . . . Pure charisma . . . disdains and repudiates economic exploitation of the gifts of grace as a source of income, though to be sure, this often remains more an ideal than a fact . . . On the other hand, booty. . . whether extracted by force or other means, is the other typical form of charismatic provision of needs.

Having Power Leads to Living Off the State

But once the charismatic and his followers are in power, a transformation soon occurs in their behavior and relationship to the rest of the society. Now it becomes impossible to stand outside of the flow of the mundane affairs of daily life. Indeed, if they do not immerse themselves in those matters, their power over society would be threatened with disintegration. Slowly, the burning fervor of ideological mission and revolutionary comradeship begins to die. Said Max Weber:

Only the members of the small group of enthusiastic disciples and followers are prepared to devote their lives purely and idealistically to their calling. The great majority of disciples and followers will in the long run make their living out of their calling in a material sense as well . . . Hence, the routinization of charisma also takes the form of the appropriation of powers of control and of economic advantages by the followers and disciples and the regulation of the recruitment of these groups . . .

Correspondingly, in a developed political body the vassals, the holders of benefices, or officials are differentiated from the taxpayers. The former, instead of being followers of the leader, become state officials or appointed party officials . . . With the process of routinization the charismatic group tends to develop into one of the forms of everyday authority, particularly . . . the bureaucratic.

I would suggest that in Max Webers analysis we see the outline of the historical process by which a band of Marxist revolutionaries, convinced that they saw the dictates of history in a way that other mere mortals did not, took it upon themselves to be the midwives of that history through violent revolution.

But as the ambers of socialist victory cooled, such as in Russia after the revolution of 1917 and the bloody three-year civil war that followed, the revolutionaries had to turn to the mundane affairs of building socialism. Building socialism meant the transformation of society, and the transforming of society meant watching, overseeing, controlling and commanding everything.

Self-Interest and the New Socialist Class Society

Hence, was born in the Soviet Union what came to be called theNomenklatura. Beginning in 1919, the Communist Party established the procedure of forming lists of government or bureaucratic positions requiring official appointment and the accompanying lists of people who might be eligible for promotion to these higher positions of authority. Thus, was born the new ruling class under socialism.

Ministries needed to be manned, Party positions needed to be filled, nationalized industries and collective farms needed managers assigned to supervise production and see to it that central planning targets were fulfilled, state distributions networks needed to be established, trade unions needed reliable Party directors, and mass media needed editors and reporters to tell the fabricated propaganda stories about socialisms breakthrough victories in creating a new Soviet Man in his new glorious collectivist society.

Contrary to the socialist promises of making a new man out of the rubble of the old order, as one new stone after another was put into place and the socialist economy was constructed in Soviet Russia, into the cracks between the blocks sprouted once again the universals of human nature: The motives and psychology of self-interested behavior, the search for profitable avenues and opportunities to improve ones own life and that of ones family and friends, through the attempt to gain control over the forms of personal use of the socialized scarce resources and commodities within the networks and interconnections of the Soviet bureaucracy.

Since the state declared its ownership over all the means of production, it was not surprising that as the years and then the decades went by more and more people came to see membership in theNomenklaturaand its ancillary positions as the path to a more prosperous and pleasant life. In the end, the socialist state did not transform human nature; human nature found ways to use the socialist state for its own ends.

Living For and Off the Democratic State

This political process is no less the case in modern democratic society. The candidate for high political office may, no doubt, have started out as someone certain and determined to pursue a political career because they considered themselves on a mission to help the poor, end racial injustice, create a materially more equal society, or make America great again. But except for those who are financially independent, Weber says in Politics as a Vocation, the pursuer and the holder of political office lives not only for politics but off politics as a source of income and social position.

It becomes easy to reason and rationalize that retaining elected political office and the financial security and perks that come with it, is only being desired by him as a means to do good and far better than if another, especially from a rival political party, were to hold that position instead of him. His own implicit self-interest is inseparable from the publicly declared higher calling that compels him to serve his fellow citizens in that demanding government role.

It becomes that persons niche in the social system of division of labor. And if by misfortune he were to lose that office at the next election, his acceptance of a well-paying job with a politically well-connected law firm, or on the board of a corporation that, just by chance, receives a good portion of its revenue stream from one type of government contract or another, or that benefits from subsidies or regulations, well, he can still say and even justify in his own mind that he is still doing good through other, more indirect means. Such political power is, after all, a strong psychological pull:

The career of politics creates a feeling of power. The knowledge of influencing men, or participating in power over them, and above all, the feeling of holding in ones hands a nerve fiber of historically important events can elevate the professional politician above everyday routine even when he is placed in formally modest positions.

Weber emphasized that high political office holders, like those who run for the presidency or the Senate or the House of Representatives, need a retinue of those who serve and are loyal to him by being psychologically and materially dependent upon his position and power of issuing perks. Explained Weber:

All party struggles are struggles for the patronage of office, as well as struggles for objective goals . . . This tendency becomes stronger for all parties when the number of offices increase as a result of general bureaucratization [throughout the government] and when the demand for offices increases because they represent specifically secure livelihoods. For their followings, the parties become more and more a means to the end of being provided for in this manner. . .

The party following, above all the party official and party entrepreneur, naturally expect personal compensation from the victory of their leader that is offices and other advantages. They expect that the demagogic effect of the leaders personality during the election fight of the party will increase votes and mandates, and thereby power, and, thereby, as far as possible, will extend opportunities to their followers to find the compensation for which they hope.

In Webers view, the growth in governments size and scope also explained the number of lawyers involved in politics:

The significance of the lawyer in [Western] politics since the rise of parties is not accidental. The management of politics through parties simply means management through interest groups . . . The craft of the trained lawyer is to plead effectively the case of interested clients. In this, the lawyer is superior to any official . . . Certainly he can advocate and win the cause supported by logically weak arguments and one which, in this sense, is a weak cause. Yet he wins because technically he makes a strong case for it.

All of the corruption, favoritism, privileges, special benefits, protections and subsidies that have come with modern politics are the children of democracy, of mass franchise, of the necessity to woo and organize the mass of voters behind the political figure selling himself to the citizenry so to be successfully elected.

The Political Fanatic Wanting to Make Over Society

With a ring sounding very much like it is about our own times with radical political correctness and fanatical race- and gender-based identity politics, Weber also drew attention to the dangers from those determined to remake society by use of that legal coercion that resides in the very nature of government and the state:

He who wants to establish absolute justice by force requires a following, a human machine. He must hold out the necessary internal and external premium, heavenly or worldly reward to this machine . . . Under the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal premiums consist of the satisfying of hatred and the craving for revenge; above all, resentment and the need for pseudo-ethical self-righteousness: the opponents must be slandered and accused of heresy. The external rewards are adventure, victory, booty, power, and spoils.

For the classical liberal, reading Max Webers essay on Politics as a Vocation more than a century after he delivered it to that group of students in Munich, reinforces all the reasons why it is so important to restrain and restrict the powers of government to the most narrow possible, while still enabling those in government to secure each individuals right to their life, liberty and honestly acquired property.

Appreciating Webers definition of the State and his analysis of all those desiring to live for the state as a means of living off the state at the expense of others in society, should be taken as a guide book for thinking twice before one believes and supports any of those offering themselves for high political office in this coming election year in America.

[Originally Published at AIER]

Continue reading here:

News - Max Weber on Politics as a Vocation - The Heartland Institute

This article is inThe Spectators November 2019 US edition.Subscribe here.

I couldnt stand The Wire. Everyone mumbled unintelligibly, the pace inexcusably in a series about drugs and violence was often glacially slow, and I found some of its characterization too transparent, like, Ooh, I know. Well make the wise old black guy have the unlikely hobby that he repairs dolls houses, so that viewers will appreciate the nuance and hinterland.

Top Boy (new on Netflix), on the other hand, is pacy, plausible and deliciously ruthless. Its like The Wire, relocated to London with a much cooler soundtrack and with all the boring bits removed. One thing absent, for example, are the white authorities, who only pop up now and again as an unwelcome irritation (bent prison guards; unsympathetic immigration staff; meddling feds). This gives Top Boy a focus lacking in The Wire, where your sympathies are torn between the police and the kids in the projects. This is an immersion in black gangland culture where you see everything from the gangsters perspective, even to the point where you find yourself applauding their extreme but often brutally logical kill-or-be-killed violence.

Creator and writer Ronan Bennett knows whereof he writes. As a 19-year-old member of the terrorist IRA, he was convicted of the murder of a policeman. The conviction was later quashed as unsafe, but not before hed served time in prison. Though Bennett has written plenty of dramas before, this is the first Ive noticed where he hasnt surrendered to the forces of political correctness so prevalent in British TV. This was true even when Top Boy had two series on the niche UK terrestrial Channel 4 before an intervention by Canadian rapper, super-fan and co-executive-producer Drake brought it to Netflix with a bigger budget. My theory is that the PC commissars who infest UK TV got so excited about having an inner city drama full of fantastic, rounded casting opportunities for a plethora of BAME Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic talent that they forgot to ruin the script with the usual bien-pensant pieties.

Our heroes may be nice on occasion Jamie (Michael Ward) is devoted to his family and dutifully attends parents evenings at his youngest siblings school but at bottom they are all ruthless killers who make their living selling drugs. At no point does the script pop up like some social worker or angsty New York Times editorial to question these contradictory impulses, let alone to blame society or the Gubmint for the injustice of it all. Its just the way things are.

In London right now were experiencing what has been billed as an epidemic of knife crime. Numerous young, mostly BAME men are stabbed to death, with the police apparently powerless to stop it. Top Boy offers a timely perspective by showing how and why drug turf wars happen. One gang disses another; the dissed gang must take revenge. Violence begets more violence, occasionally spilling out into civilian collateral damage, like the chaotic and entirely realistic scene where one bloodied gang seeks treatment in hospital only to find their wounded rivals already there, so the fight begins anew.

Bennett has cleverly found the human story in all this cold-eyed brutality. As with all the best gangster dramas, from The Godfather and The Sopranos to my current favorite Gomorrah, its all about power, about whos going to be boss or, in this case, top boy. Will it be young pretender Jamie? Will it be the old lags from the earlier series, Dushane (Ashley Walters) or his frenemy Sully (Kane Kano Robinson) who have now returned to the changed streets of London, one from exile in Jamaica, one from prison, to try to wrest back control?

Whatever happens, Im sure it will all be shocking, delightfully violent and continually surprising. What I love about this series, apart from the superb acting and virtually incomprehensible Jafaican patois (mandem means gang, by the way; fam is a term of affection short for family), is that it never goes for the obvious.

At the end of episode one, for example, theres a scene that totally obliterates what you imagined was going to be a subplot that would have lasted several episodes. And I loved the scene where Dushane returns to his east London hood, finds that it has gentrified in his absence and tries to order a coffee in a hipster caf. The barista spends ages outlining the origins of the beans and making the coffee just so. It would have been so easy to have Dushane blowing his top and getting ultraviolent. He doesnt. He just seethes quietly till, eventually, he gets his coffee and walks out into the street.

Anyone who doesnt love this brilliant series is a bumboclaat. Thats Jamaican slang for something very rude, though Im not quite sure what.

This article is inThe Spectators November 2019 US edition.Subscribe here.

Read more:

Top Boy wins the turf war - The Spectator USA