If Jon Stewart's Rally for Smugness were bitten by a radioactive spider and mutated into a reporter, it would be Matt Taibbi.
If you've ever wondered why Matt Taibbi's admittedly sharp reporting on the financial mess gets published in that uber-Boomer journal, Rolling Stone, let us remind you of what we've blogged here before: his reportage [now in hardcover] comes with a slick, sickening layer of Boomer smugness [not unlike the slime covering a vampire squid] that, given the results last Tuesday, and the hysterical reaction of outlets like MS-NBC, might just as well be called "anti-Americanism" and be done with it.
"Anti-American" not in the old sense of anti- some proposition of some code of "Americaness" or other [itself a neo-Liberal and neo-Con conceit, and part of the problem] but rather as Bill Kauffman or Gore Vidal might understand it: hating Americans as such.
It's like Chris "The Tingler" Matthews haranguing Michelle Bachman on Election Night, As everyone from a high school debate class circa 1872 to this Sunday's Meet the Press knows, you have a message and you just keep repeating, no matter what. That's what's done. Matthews, however, all drunk on fake outrage, just keep shouting "Are you hypnotized" over and over like a two year old each time she went back on message. And like the two-year old's tantrum, the effect was to make the observer sympathize with the target.
In Taibbi's case, it's the oldest, hoariest trick in the Old Reporter's book [so much for "hip young journalist"]: when you find yourself in a new, unfamiliar environment, ask a cabbie, bartender or maid. You know, one of those hard-working salts of the Earth, and conveniently one you don't have to leave your hotel or airport-bound cab to find.
This is the sort of lazy "professionalism" that Hunter Thompson [a "Doctor of Journalism" himself] despised, and would satirize with little off-topic fantasies about The Old Sportswriter, like this classic from "Fear and Loathing at the Superbowl" [published in, look, Rolling Stone!]:
There is a dangerous kind of simple-minded Power/Precision worship at the root of the massive fascination with pro football in this country, and sportswriters are mainly responsible for it. With a few rare exceptions like Bob Lipsyte of The New York Times and Tom Quinn of the (now-defunct) Washington Daily News, sportswriters are a kind of rude and brainless subculture of fascist drunks whose only real function is to publicize & sell whatever the sports editor sends them out to cover....
Which is a nice way to make a living, because it keeps a man busy and requires no thought at all. The two keys to success as a sportswriter are: 1) A blind willingness to believe anything you're told by the coaches, flacks, hustlers and other "official spokesmen" for the team-owners who provide the free booze ... and: 2) A Roget's Thesaurus, in order to avoid using the same verbs and adjectives twice in the same paragraph.
Even a sports editor, for instance, might notice something wrong with a lead that said: "The precision-jack-hammer attack of the Miami Dolphins stomped the balls off the Washington Redskins today by stomping and hammering with one precise jack-thrust after another up the middle, mixed with pinpoint-precision passes into the flat and numerous hammer-jack stomps around both ends...."
Right. And there was the genius of Grantland Rice. He carried a pocket thesaurus, so that "The thundering hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen" never echoed more than once in the same paragraph, and the "Granite-grey sky" in his lead was a "cold dark dusk" in the last lonely line of his heart-rending, nerve-ripping stories....
Indeed. Sure, Thompson enjoyed larding his stories with "brutal encounters" with the locals [hey, we all do!] but Thompson knew these people in his bones, and understood them; hell, with his drinking and football and guns, he was one, and he knew it. What writer for Rolling Stone back then, or now, could not just meet Nixon on the tarmac in front of Air Force One but bond with him by swapping Super Bowl stories?That's why the climax of "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved", the original instance of "Gonzo Journalism," isn't a drunken riot at the track or a beat-down in the parking lot, but Thompson's realization that the ugliest caricature Steadman produced was... of Thompson.
And that's why the climax of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas isn't some "orgy of drugs, sex and jazz"[as Theodore Ziolkowski described the misreading of Hesse's Steppenwolf by hippie idiots reading Rolling Stone] but rather the "brutal encounter" that ensues when his "attorney" whips out a hunting knife to terrify a waitress into giving him a free apple pie, terrifying Thompson as well. That's when he realizes that his companion isn't a "cool" street revolutionary but a psychopath.
Terry Gilliam realizes this, and directs the scene brilliantly, even casting Ellen Barkin rather than the broken down old ex-hooker Thompson describes, and cutting her "spic pimp" line, to make her more appealing to the PC crowd. You won't see a clip here, since the idiots uploading files at YouTube can't be bothered, preferring endless reiterations and "smash ups" of the "cool" drug scenes.That's why Thompson is able to "infiltrate" the DA convention, and also why the Hells Angels rode with him and then, for no reason at all, decided to deliver a stompdown. Thompson, like Burroughs before him, was fascinated by the "youth" and crime and drug scenes but ultimately too smart and too honest to be part of it. And as we "know," if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Don't trust anyone over 30, man!
Wow. Bad Craziness. What does this have to do with Taibbi?
Well, Taibbi's not that smart or talented or honest, or at least not, like B&T, more so than his subjects. Just as Burroughs was no beatnik, and Thompson no hippie, Taibbi is no Tea Partier. But while their self-awareness made the clothes ill-fitting, and prompted moments of both insight into others and self-awareness, Taibbi only has his Boomer Smugness [tm], so he is incapable of either.
The reflections are prompted by the fact that I tried, I really tried, to real his new book [or re-read, since though the publisher gives no hint of it, I think all these pieces have been published before in the afore-mentioned Stone, man], even paying $3.00 for the advance copy at Housing Works rather than taking the chance on finding it at the Strand for $1.99 [a good thing, since the Strand only has hardcovers to sell to rich Boomer "Liberals" at the "discount" price of $26.00!].
But apart from the deja vu effect, I was stopped in my tracks by this, on page 15, which may be the stupidest political exchange this year:
I'm trying to like Parson... but half the time I can barely follow the things he's saying [such as] his belief that we need to abolish the Departments of Energy and Labor ... because [they] aren't in the constitution.
But neither is toothpaste, or antibiotics," I say. "I mean, they wrote the Constitution a long time ago. It's missing a few things. ... How do you police stuff that's not in the Constitution?"
Ok, after reading that again while typing it up, I have to take a few deep breaths. Maybe lie down. There, that might be a good idea. Hold on.
Back again. Now, first let me point out that Taibbi isn't, like Thompson, supposedly reporting while under the influence of massive amounts of drugs and alcohol. Also, as I believe this was first published in Rolling Stone, and now in book form, it's been subject to several layers of editing, as well as many chances for Mr. T to rewrite or drop it altogether, or to add some meta-comment like, "Wow, I was really dumb then", or "What was I thinking -- bad acid, man!"
Therefore I will take this as his "considered opinion." So, with a nod to The Onion, please "Ask a question of someone who once worked for the Journal of Informal Logic."
Parson believes that some Federal departments should be abolished, because they are not enumerated in the Constitution, and thus have no legitimate authority. I'm sure his real reason is that he doesn't like what they do, but this is is stated reason. And it's an arguable point.
But Taibbi isn't "arguing." Like Parson, he isn't being entirely ingenuous: unlike Parson, he does like what these Departments do, so if he were arguing, he'd find some way to defend these Constitutionally, like finding abortion rights in the "penumbras and emanations" of the 4th amendment. But no: like Stewart and their vast Boomer cohort, he has come to mock, and thinks he's got a target. So he reaches for the first collectible he finds in his Beaver Cleaver-like Boomer closet.
Unfortunately, the collectible is a Nerf football.
See, Parson is arguing that the FCC can't regulate the Internet, because, not being enumerated in the Constitution, it has no authority. As I said, an arguable point.
But Taibbi thinks [or wants you to think, but would he be that dishonest?] that Parson believes the FCC can't regulate the Internet, because the Internet wasn't enumerated in the Constitution.
An obviously stupid argument, of course. But also clearly not Parson's. So, round to Parson.
Or would be. If this were a real debate, Parson would brush him aside with contempt. But it's not, it's Taibbi's written up account. And if Taibbi were Thompson, there'd be a scene where he wakes up and feels ashamed.
But me, I just feel ashamed to be reading it, so I sold it for $10.00. On the unconstitutional Internet.
12 comments:
I used to enjoy hardcopies of EXILE when Mark Taibbi wrote for it before it went digital and was shut down down in Moscow. I was exposed to it first in Ljubljana Slovenia. I thought his Rolling Stone expose of Goldman Sachs was good enough to send links to aging yuppie friends who grew up on the magazine, but are too old now to keep up with its pop music coverage. I don't quite follow the logic of your Mark Taibbi is an anti-American narcissist screed. But I guess he must be if you say so.
This is off topic, but I want to know if there have been any visual artists or art art movements since l945 anywhere in the Westen world that don't cleave to the cultural Marxist party line. I was in London and Amsterdam in May asking art book boutique owners if they could recommend any books or museum exhibition catalogs representing a "conservative," "right wing," or even a "nationalist" philosophical slant. They thought i was looking for books about realism. When I explained that I thought every famous artist and movement since Picasso has been marching together in Gramiscian lockstep they began to get the picture and suggested I look into Italian Futurism and British Vorticism. When I reiterated that I wanted to know about only post WWII artists and movements on the Right they agreed it was an interesting request, but no one could help me.
If the Abstract Expressionism and The Congress on Cultural Freedom were part of a CIA engineered Cold War kulturkampf against Communism WTF happened?!
Off topic to this particular post, but I've read some of your previous posts dealing with homosexuals as a natural elite, and I find the idea interesting (though I am not homosexual myself). Did you come up with this stuff yourself or is there somewhere else where I can read about it in more detail?
Welcome, Anonymous! I did not in fact think this up myself, and I am glad to point you to the work of the late Alisdair Clarke, a member of the UK New Right who worked it out in some detail. His website is still available for your perusal:
aryanfuturism.blogspot.com
"Natural elite" is an attractive phrase but not quite accurate; the point is that elites in Aryan societies are effectively a cult of masculinity [think: Athens] rooted in the primitive Mannerbund [bands of wild men and adolescents]. This was the focus of the Masculinist Movement in pre-War Germany, which was Rightist; their work has been erased from popular awareness in favor of the Judaic Hirshfeld and his "third sex" theories and later "gay" ideology.
Conversely, Semitic cultures are homophobic and "family values" oriented. This is why they have never developed a culture of their own, but exist as parasites of Aryan cultures.
The key move here is that the foreign notion of 'homophobia' will have a chilling effect on ALL aspects of elite culture, not just homosexuals. Think of how even [and especially] the most PC reviewers will sneer at a movie like Fight Club or 300 as "homoerotic."
The "culture wars" are fought between the crypto-Judaic Right that promotes "family values" and the crypto-judaic Left, which promotes its own "gay" identity [first in the form of anti-cultural bathhouse antics, now in the anti-elitist "we're all the same" marriage "equality" scam].
As the Masculinists knew [see Clarke's work and his citation to the literature] homosexuals are naturally elitist, and thus naturally of the Right, but not the crypto-judaic family values Right of the US.
BTW, the phrase "natural elite" I found years ago in one of the very rare discussions of this on some online Right bbs [remember those?]. The idea was that homosexuals, unlike say, Jews, formed a natural, not a foreign, elite; any family member could turn out to belong to the elite, and thus there was a natural solidarity throughout society, unlike the "must have Jewish mother" restrictions of our current elite. Of course, the same would apply to the banal NS ideas of "Aryan heritage."
Teutonsuet;
Almost all 'visual' art seems to have been replaced by outright 'performance art' which, in turn, seems to be nothing but some kind of mental illness, like Tourette's syndrome.
TYR magazine, in issue 3, was promoting their cover artist, the Norwegian Odd Nerdrum; see the official sites oddnerdrum.com and nerdrum.com - whose works have been described as "the result if Rembrandt had painted the sets of The Road Warrior".
I'm not an eye man, as Nietzsche would say, but an ear man. John Tavener is the most prominent Traditionalist [literally, Schoun etc.] in music, perhaps along with the more non-affiliated Arvo Part. I've frequently promoted Heavy Metal as the natural mystery religious music in Pop, but also take note of Varg Vikernes's jailhouse musings on the non-Aryan nature of all "guitar-based" [i.e., negroid] music.
Interesting stuff. I'll have a look at that Aryan Futurism site. I guess, as far as homosexuality goes, there are two separate though possibly related questions in my mind then:
1) Why, in biological terms, do ~3% of men turn out homosexual (apparently born that way or at least fixed that way from a young age)?
2) What is the social purpose of "homoerotic" behavior in elite organizations of otherwise heterosexual males?
I have mainly thought about the first question. Obviously it's a bit of conundrum why so many people would have a sexual orientation that does not lead to reproduction. I used to believe in Greg Cochran's "gay germ" hypothesis, since at a first glance homosexuality seems so obviously pathological. But there are some problems: first, there's no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is caused by a germ. Second, there is some evidence that homosexuals are at least in some ways more talented than straight men - obviously lots of homosexual men are prominent in the arts, and possibly even in areas not thought of as stereotypically "gay" (Alan Turing comes to mind). The fact that homosexual men are disproportionately talented at *anything* points against a pathogenic origin of homosexuality. Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of producing feminine or semi-feminine minds augmented with masculine drive and creativity?
Another possibility that has occurred to me, is that homosexuals are the equivalent of a nonreproductive caste. I don't know why exactly human societies would need a nonreproductive caste, but the fact is that many human societies have them (e.g. celibate priests and nuns in the West, eunuchs in various eastern societies). These are generally elite or semi-elite groups. (Then again there are also low-status nonreproductive castes, such as eunuchs in parts of India I believe, and ladyboys in Thailand.) I don't know whether priests and eunuchs have historically been disproportionately composed of homosexuals or not, though priests at least have been stereotyped that way, and we might imagine that such a lifestyle could have been appealing to homosexuals in societies where open homosexuality was a taboo.
As far as how homosexuality could possibly exist when it would appear that the genes for homosexuality would be vigorously weeded out by natural selection, I imagine that group selection may provide an answer. If societies with a small homosexual population were able to out-compete societies with very few or no homosexuals, then the genes that make homosexuality possible could get passed on, even in the presence of other natural selection pressures acting against them.
So, anyway, I can see evidence for homosexuality as producing a lot of creative people, and specifically for injecting creativity into typically feminine endeavors, as well as providing a high status nonreproductive caste. But, how does any of this relate to homoerotic behavior among heterosexuals? What is the relationship between (1) and (2) above, in your view?
Interesting stuff. I'll have a look at that Aryan Futurism site. I guess, as far as homosexuality goes, there are two separate though possibly related questions in my mind then:
1) Why, in biological terms, do ~3% of men turn out homosexual (apparently born that way or at least fixed that way from a young age)?
2) What is the social purpose of "homoerotic" behavior in elite organizations of otherwise heterosexual males?
I have mainly thought about the first question. Obviously it's a bit of conundrum why so many people would have a sexual orientation that does not lead to reproduction. I used to believe in Greg Cochran's "gay germ" hypothesis, since at a first glance homosexuality seems so obviously pathological. But there are some problems: first, there's no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is caused by a germ. Second, there is some evidence that homosexuals are at least in some ways more talented than straight men - obviously lots of homosexual men are prominent in the arts, and possibly even in areas not thought of as stereotypically "gay" (Alan Turing comes to mind). The fact that homosexual men are disproportionately talented at *anything* points against a pathogenic origin of homosexuality. Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of producing feminine or semi-feminine minds augmented with masculine drive and creativity?
Another possibility that has occurred to me, is that homosexuals are the equivalent of a nonreproductive caste. I don't know why exactly human societies would need a nonreproductive caste, but the fact is that many human societies have them (e.g. celibate priests and nuns in the West, eunuchs in various eastern societies). These are generally elite or semi-elite groups. (Then again there are also low-status nonreproductive castes, such as eunuchs in parts of India I believe, and ladyboys in Thailand.) I don't know whether priests and eunuchs have historically been disproportionately composed of homosexuals or not, though priests at least have been stereotyped that way, and we might imagine that such a lifestyle could have been appealing to homosexuals in societies where open homosexuality was a taboo.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
As far as how homosexuality could possibly exist when it would appear that the genes for homosexuality would be vigorously weeded out by natural selection, I imagine that group selection may provide an answer. If societies with a small homosexual population were able to out-compete societies with very few or no homosexuals, then the genes that make homosexuality possible could get passed on, even in the presence of other natural selection pressures acting against them.
So, anyway, I can see evidence for homosexuality as producing a lot of creative people, and specifically for injecting creativity into typically feminine endeavors, as well as providing a high status nonreproductive caste. But, how does any of this relate to homoerotic behavior among heterosexuals? What is the relationship between (1) and (2) above, in your view?
On the evolutionary role of homos:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
Anon 7:06;
Nice catch. Anything positive is good to see. However, isn't this stuff about 'avuncularity' already fairly well known? Even I've heard about it. And new research from Samoa is hardly welcome, being a notorious source of sociological b.s. [viz, M. Mead].
More to the point, I doubt the relevance of effeminate, "neither male nor female" homosexuals [shade of Magnus Hirshfeld] who love to babysit, to understanding the role of homosexuals in Aryan cultures. The researchers' linking of homophobia and "individualism" is bizarre in the light of Aryan civilizations such as Greece, or the homo-hating 'family valuers" of today. Here we see the fallacy of looking to "primitive cultures' [actually, degenerate remnants of lost high civilizations] for clues to understand ourselves.
Avuncularity explains the survival of any genetic component [the genes survive in the cousins], but the real issue is the cultural role of homosexuality. An interest in men and boys was elemental to the culture of the Spartans and the Samurai, but neither valued effeminate babysitters. That by itself would preserve the genetic inclination. On the other hand, homophobic family valuers such as the Semites produce no culture at all, existing only as parasites. As for the Samoans, they seem to be playing their usual role of Liberal Fantasy Models: the men are either Alan Alda or Cpl. Klinger, and they have no need of culture, being Noble Savages. They would be perfect listeners for NPR, except they are incapable of inventing it.
More to the point, I doubt the relevance of effeminate, "neither male nor female" homosexuals [shade of Magnus Hirshfeld] who love to babysit, to understanding the role of homosexuals in Aryan cultures.
But what connection is there between "born that way" homosexuals and homoerotic behavior among otherwise straight men, such as the Spartans? It does not seem obvious that there is any, despite the fetishization of Ancient Greek homosexuality by modern day gays.
A good analogy would be homosexuality in US prisons: it wouldn't exist if the prisoners had access to poontang. Get a bunch of men together in the absence of women, and the dominant men will start sticking their dicks in the weaker men. That dynamic alone probably explains most instances of homosexuality among all-male organizations. Is there really any more to it than that? Is there really something positive and wonderful about homo behavior?
"Is there really something positive and wonderful about homo behavior?"
Well, that's the 64k question, which needs more space and thought than I can give it here. For now, rather than speculating on what homos bring to the table themselves [Paglia's angle], one other tack I've liked to use is to emphasize that non-homophobic societies, to put it negatively, don't wind up so paranoid as to denigrate any aspect of male interests or achievements as too dangerously close to "being gay." Acceptance of homosexuals raises the bar for all males, and thus for society as a whole [as it were].
I suspect this was the case in Greece and other societies [Japan in the age of the Samauri] where high levels of civilization are found along with various levels of homosexuality.
Bradley's book on Islamic society, Behind the veil of Vice, details a similar situation [the well known Greek influence on Islam?] where boy-love is not lauded, but just seen as 'no big deal', so that the boys are able to reap benefits: teachers have favorites, athletics is encouraged, etc., or even just that the rich foreigner will have the cash for the longed-for ticket to Europe.
Anon,
Jack Donovan just published a review of Sam Keen's 80s book Fire in the Belly that has an amusing paragraph on this kind of "Samoans are role models" mentality:
In War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, anthropologist Lawrence H. Keeley makes a convincing case — using both archeological evidence from thousands of years ago and accounts from recent tribal societies — that early humans not only made war, but that they were also pretty darn good at it. Primitive peoples generally engaged in guerilla style warfare and wars of attrition that were often devastating to their comparatively small populations.
In a particularly striking disparity, Keen mentions the Tahitians as people who “encourage men to be gentle, easy, graceful, generous to strangers, slow to take offense, and unconcerned with defending masculine ‘honor’.” (Even Keen admits that people like this are rare.) Keeley, on the other hand, notes that:
“In Tahiti, a victorious warrior, given the opportunity, would pound his vanquished foe’s corpse flat with his heavy war club, cut a slit through the well-crushed victim, and don him as a trophy poncho.”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/14/an-empty-stomach/
Post a Comment