top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Προφητεία (115)



Art and politics: art reflects reality—the better the reflection of reality, the better the art. There is no such thing as “right-wing art”, as when the left claims that “the right can’t do art”. There is just art that reflects reality—and then there is propaganda (which is the left’s speciality—otherwise known as “lies”). This division reflects the division between the left and right itself: there is just reality—people are more prosperous when allowed to hold private property, men and women are different, when races mix together there is conflict, a strong armed forces reduces the chance of war…


The right is “reactive” because someone comes along, someone called “the left”, and says, “Oh no, actually if the state ran everything the economy would be more productive.” People who know different, from their experience of the world, then push back against these ideas—in what is called, uncoincidentally, “the reaction”. It’s why the right is hard to define—it doesn’t have formalised beliefs, it just thinks “that’s reality”. It’s the left that is “theoretical”—the left has some “theory” as to how the world should be, and the right says “it’s very nice, but that’s not how the world is”.


How does this relate to art? Anyone who produces art is on the right by default, albeit not in a conscious way. Why? Because to be an artist you have to reflect reality—and reality is competitive, hierarchical, bloody, violent, irrational, and filled with emotion. It is not what the left would want: a rational and benevolent order where everything “makes sense” and is validated by science, contributes to human equality, and improves our hedonistic enjoyment of life.


What does the left produce? Didactic aesthetic products to “elevate” the masses—homilies to “educate and inform” (the role of the BBC, as it happens). You can tell Christianity and Communism are the same thing because they have the same relation to art: under Christianity, all artistic production had to be “for the glory of God”—so you had to do Madonnas (witha da little bambino), Christs, and, for variety, the odd archangel here and there. That was all you were allowed to do—because it was “good for people”, right?


In the Renaissance, people began to sneak more muscly Jesuses into the paintings and the odd classical nude—and, in the end, people just started to produce realistic art without reference to “the lesson” (a sinful and worldly act—but also beautiful). Soviet art was just the same: all aesthetic production had to be directed to the proletariat, the proletariat had to be extolled and encouraged. You can’t just paint a beautiful marble statue—it has to have a message for the masses.


Lenin himself explicitly rejected the idea that “art is the mirror of reality”—no, art is a means to lecture and hector people and turn them into “good people”. Reality—it isn’t good, it’s unfair and unequal, so we don’t want to hear about it. So we see the same attitude in both these Semitic religions, Christianity and Marxism: art is suppressed and has to become a morals lesson because if you reflect reality it isn’t “moral”—Islam is just the same, and suppresses all art except squiggle lines (which are beautiful but also impose a limitation).


And, of course, “the woke” would do just the same—a work of art that features the word “nigger” used by, say, an admirable character (or, at least, someone who wasn’t obviously sign-posted as total evil) would be a no-no. All art must educate the masses to be good people. Hence Christianity, Marxism, Islam, and progressive liberalism all suppress art.


People who adhere to these beliefs will pick through older works of art—works of art that do not conform to “the morals lesson”—in order to carry out a Talmudic recovery of the work. Hence Soviet scholars would pore over Dostoyevsky to find “hints” and “indications” that the mystic anti-Semite was “compatible”, when properly read, with Marxism-Leninism. Leftists do that because they know that what their system produces is rubbish and they yearn for something better—but that’s “naughty” (capitalist, pagan, white) so they have to somehow “discover” its hidden redemptive properties.


Christians will pick through The Lord of the Rings looking for allegories to Christ—which aren’t there, because it’s a pagan work (which is why it’s a beautiful piece of art, being real—what the Christians really want it to be is a book by CS Lewis, which is a Christian morals lecture written by a sadist; but Tolkien was an artist, Lewis was a moralist).


Anyone who sets out to depict reality will come into conflict with the left—with Marxists, Christians, Muslims, “the woke”. In the same way, anyone who sets out to run a profitable business will come into conflict with them—or anyone who wants to defend their country. It’s the left that is filled with ideas and theories as to why “you can’t say that” because “…only bad people write ‘nig-nog’…”. But the word makes me laugh—so why can’t I write it, you stuck up prig?


It’s men like Brecht who make “art” that is “consciousness-raising”—which means you sit on a bare bench that makes your bottom sore as badly dressed student actors wander round the theatre and harangue you about “the starvin’ children of Gaza under Zionist-American imperialist oppression”. In other words, a lecture—just like the school nativity play is, in the end, a lecture. Reality is not a lecture.


There are people in the world who are doing real things—making businesses, making art, defending the country, talking to the gods—and then there are people who have “ideas” about how you need to stop doing what works because “it’s bad” or “it’s evil”. The termination point is always a monopoly on the economy (Marxism), on religion (Christianity), on artistic expression (the woke)—the opposite to the left is just reality (which is beautiful).

114 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page