Contents of C:
Eating other animals is absolutely not, in any way, at any point, a
healthy choice for the human species. Nevertheless, eating other animals is what
most people choose to do. This is a complicated choice since the practice of
eating other animals is both fossilized in the bedrock of a quasi-tradition, and
a product of blunt indoctrination. It is refreshing to note, though, that
vegetarianism has grown so increasingly more popular over the past ten years
that even those who would like to have nothing to do with it are forced to take
note. Yet, even amongst its advocates there exists a general contention that
children would naturally turn a cold shoulder to steamed spinach or a lentil
curry- that these are simply not Îkid foodsâ. This commonality might have us
believe that optimally healthy eating, which is indeed synonymous with a
well-planned vegetarian/vegan diet, is of no necessity for children.
Irresponsible doctors and the mainstream majority would probably advise against
feeding a child a vegan diet- a suggestion supposedly made in the name of the
maintenance of the saturated fats, cholesterol, and hormones essential for
growing children. Now, if you donât find such advice to be utter nonsense then
you are either: a) simply unaware of recent nutritional research; or b) in need
of psychoanalysis to resolve your deep-seeded attachment to a murderous diet
which you, like all reactionaries, oppose on the basis of emotion dressed up as
reason. Of such absurdities, you should note that famed nutritionist Dr.
Benjamin Spock asserted that a vegan diet was in fact the healthiest. You should
further note that Dr. Spock was a nutritionist in the mainstream and was not an
animal rights activist.
I love the comic sensibility expressed in the truly frightening phrase:
ãI just feel healthier eating meat.ä This, utilized as an argument for
eating other animals, is of the class of arguments based on defending oneâs
own comfort because it is more comfortable· But, in the context of mass murder
perpetrated by an industry that poisons and lies to us, any from this class of
arguments is dwarfed into insignificant idiocy. Your delusion of an omnivorous
animalâs health being upheld by a carcass in its mouth is much like the case
of Îphantom-legâ that the veteran of war often experiences, in that you
claim emphatically and adamantly that that which is absolutely not there, is. If
such a symptom persists, please see any of Gary Nullâs popular and widely
accessible books. Spend a day in the ÎHealth and Nutritionâ section of your
local, independent bookseller, or, better yet, read about the slaughterhouses
which secretly provide your sustenance. Try Diet for a New America by
John Robbins, or Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Take a look at the
comparative life-spans in Asia and in America, where in Asia, notably Japan, the
prominence of soy products often usurps the presence of meat. The slightest
appeal to such information should disrupt your reactionary slumber.
Antonia Demas, as a part of her doctoral thesis at Cornell University,
conducted a study as the director of a nonprofit group that works with schools
to teach kids about nutrition, that demonstrated clearly that Îchildren only
choose hot dogsâ because of parental indoctrination.
2
The choosing of meat-based foods, it
would seem, entails a corrupted notion of choice to begin with. In her study,
she introduced students to 16 different dishes from around the world, all but
one of which were vegan. All foods that kids are Îsupposed to dislikeâ:
Indian curry, black-eyed peas with greens, and whole-wheat cous cous with
African vegetable stew. The students were taught how to prepare the foods
themselves, and later the foods were prepared in the school lunch room as side
dishes. The group of students who had no involvement in the food study, showed
no interest in the animal-free specialties- but each and every one of the kids
who had been exposed to them were into this food enthusiastically. These kids
were so excited, that many of them went home and offered to show their parents
how to make the dishes that they were taught to make at school. ãWhen kids
have a positive experience with healthful food, theyâll eat it, especially if
they helped to make it,ä Demas said. The school that this study was conducted
at was in Trumansburg, New York- but she achieved similar results in an
elementary school on Manhattanâs Lower East Side- and in about a dozen other
schools nationwide. So why donât kids just eat animal-free outside of this
study? Well, as we have already touched upon it, they donât know what
animal-free food is. First, then, the problem at hand is an educational one.
Later, if we insist on waiting until the children are Îold enough to be
healthyâ, it would also be a matter of overcoming addiction.
We are hideously overdue to stop hyper-rationalizing our support of the
most murderous, industrialized pogroms in the history of all human activity. For
as long as humans are a kind of animal, eating other animals is a kind of
genocide. If you wish to have a companion animal, or to introduce one to your
child, perhaps you should point out the rigorous similarity between the fibers
of the muscle tissue they eat for dinner and those that comprise Rover. Or,
shall we continue to circulate the devastatingly illogical idea that some
animals are here to be eaten while others are here to be snuggled? If you take
up this view then you must take with it its necessary predicate- that you
effectively decide which ones are to be snuggled on the basis of how cute they
are, or how much they remind you of yourself- while all others may be eaten.
Perhaps your defense is not quite this egocentric and remains grounded in some
religious doctrines beyond your own. In this case, why donât you ask the
Adventists about their religious refusal to eat animals? Or, to consult a
greater mainline, why arenât you just following Jesus, who, according to the
most recent gospel scholasticism, was an Essene
3
, a characteristically vegetarian sect
of Judaism? Perhaps you shall make no such appeals, and continue to shrug-off
vegetarianism/veganism as comical while shouting inaccurate slogans botched out
of Darwinâs theories. But I am vigorously begging you, in the name of those
who simply cannot, to please take a close look at this violent industry that
couldnât have a more substantial disregard for non-human life. It is not just
the lives of the animals and our physical health that is at stake- but our
mental health as well. I, for example, would go so far as to proffer that
compassion for non-human animals could broaden the scope of world peace with
respect to humans alone. And we certainly shouldnât restrict ourselves to
current tactics, since our foreign policies, air campaigns, and violations of
U.N. charters are just not cutting it. But, what the hell could my diet have to
do with world peace?! Firstly, our diets often reflect our world-views. Do the
names Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Carrol Edward Cole, and David Berkowitz ring a
bell? They are all serial killers, each of them with a history of killing
animals. It is a fact of research that offenders of some of the most violent
acts have killed animals as a rehearsal for targeting their human victims. The
holocaust was possible, largely in part to the view that Jews were substandard
animals (Or just animals, since the general opinion of all non-human animals is
that they are substandard by definition). Firstly, if the National Socialists
were taught from birth only to love and care for all animals, their status as
National Socialists would have been more perplexing than it already was. And
secondly, believing that all Jews are animals is enough to justify their murder
in the minds of those who never saw anything wrong with murdering animals in the
first place.
4
Iâm not at all suggesting that
vegetarianism could have prevented the holocaust, but there is no doubt in my
mind that it could revise the worldâs view of life, compassion, and peace.
ãIt takes an average of 25,000 gallons of water to produce a single
pound of meat. According to Newsweek, ÎThe water that goes into a 1,000
pound steer could float a destroyerâ. In contrast, it takes only 25 gallons of
water to produce one pound of wheat.ä
5
Thus, we could produce 1,000 pounds of
wheat with the amount of water it takes us to produce a single pound of meat for
human consumption. Please keep this fact in mind the next time that you or one
of your friends sits down over a nice juicy steak to discuss your concern for
the environment, conservation, or feeding the world population. Much like the
physical benefits of a vegetarian diet, the psychological ones too are no less
important to children than adults. Indeed, I would argue with Ms. Demas that it
is during the formative years of childhood that one would most easily accept
these benefits. Children do choose hot dogs. But children have only chosen hot
dogs over diet x because they have never been adequately taught about
diet x; and precisely what kind of a Îchoiceâ is this one that is made in
light of no other options? You, my dear, self-made carnivore, should consider
those distinctions devoid of compassion that you must make in order to come to
grips with the industry you help to keep in business. Read Diet for a New
America. I am begging you to face your fears and prospective discomfort, and
just lend the facts your attention. Stop eating animals and stop supporting the
industrial systems of death that will only show you their shrink-wrapped
results. I do respect what you believe in, and make no mistake, this is not an
inquisition. It is, however, a matter of life and death. Indoctrination cannot
pass for education forever, and I hereby donate these stark naked truths.
Cigarette
Smoking Environmentalists:
I would like to think that each and every one of us seeks to be taken
seriously when we make the declarations we live by; that we wish to be credible
speakers. Now, I am fully aware that one of the characteristic expressions of
our humanity is the disclosure of contradictions. Iâve noticed that even the
most Nietzschean amongst us place a high value on being consistent. For example,
even the nihilist who claims to believe in nothing wishes to be consistent in
this belief, and not to reveal that he or she really does believe in something.
Wouldnât we like to be told the truth whenever we pose a question, and
wouldnât we like our chairs to hold our weight each time that we sit upon
them? We all would like and expect for certain things to be sure and dependable.
This is a tendency- persistent, essential, and subtle. I, knowing about the
horrors of animal exploitation and the indiscretionary abuse of environmental
resources, would like to be as consistent and dependable as possible in being an
individual concerned with the welfare of the ecosystem. Hence, if someone points
out to me that Iâve recently bought gasoline at Shell or Chevron, it should be
a small concession for me as a conscientious consumer to admit to the
incongruity of this purchase with my seriously stated objectives. Further, in
aiming at greater consistency, I should resolve to never buy my gas from these
human rights violators. Yet, the totality of my belief system is not really at
stake. What I mean by this, is that it wouldnât be fair for someone to retort
that since I bought gas at Chevron I couldnât give a fuck about the lands and
lives of indigenous peoples in other regions. But people make just this retort
all the time. They locate, and even search for, a single contradiction whereby
they can argue against you as an individual who really cares about a cause. This
is not only absurd, but it will be very unlikely to bear any fruits of progress.
A person can do a great deal of good by maintaining as much consistency as
possible, and by always struggling to resolve the personal conflicts that impede
their capacity to better the world in the ways they see fit. Indeed, it is the
basis of fanaticism to reprimand those actors who are not in perfect conformity
with your perfect ideal. My friends are, for the most part, supportive of my own
ideological aims, as they too share many of these aims and ideologies. If they
cannot come with me to a speak-out against the war during the height of the
USâs air campaign over Yugoslavia because they would prefer to see a concert,
it would be ignorant and useless of me to proclaim that they donât give a shit
about the war.
Now, while certain contradictions are not justified, many can have some
redeeming value in that they have a reasonable explanation. An explanation is
not the same as a justification. In other words, I can fill up my car with gas
at a Shell station and use it to drive to a rally against bombing Iraq at
Capitol Hill. And sometimes, especially on major highways, the very real
phenomenon of the gasoline monopoly makes a more politically sound selection
nearly impossible. I should be clear and repeat that the convenient purchase of
gasoline from Shell in this predicament is not justified by the fact that they
have a monopoly- but only explained by it. With this essay I fully intend to
illustrate a hierarchy of contradictions. Contradictions plentifully exist, and
one ought not to preoccupy oneself with justifying them. But in being
innumerable and stubbornly persistent, we must by all means prioritize the
eradication of certain contradictions over others. I mean by this that it is
much more important for punks to stop erecting the pretense of feminism to get
themselves laid than it is to stop saying ÎGâBless Youâ to a sneezing
stranger.
Cigarette smoking, however, is one of the most problematic contradictory
actions that any opinionated human can harbor. From the laboratory testing of
this product, to its advertising, to the biological dependency that ensures the
sustainability of cigarette sales- the smoker makes more than one incriminating
pronouncement. The smoker effectively declares that he or she was at some point
successfully wooed- hook, line and sinker- by the style of having a cigarette in
his or her mouth. The smoker declares his or her addiction and dependency on one
of the greatest American industrial products of poisonous exploitation. The
smoker says very loudly that, with the exception of the first few smokes, he or
she experiences no chemical Îhighâ from this habit. The smoker screams:
ãHere I am· Victim of a Celebrated Fashion that has grown into the Vice of
my Life!!!ä He or she says that the fact that testing the so-called
Îsafetyâ of the newest menthol levels by enclosing beagles and rabbits in
smoke-filled chambers is not overwhelming enough of a reason to wage a
full-scale war against the addiction. But the smoker might offer some
explanations for these unjustifiable contradictions. At which point, depending
on how successful the explanations are, we might want to point out the most
horrifying contradiction disclosed by the proud, opinionated smoker.
ÎFreedomâ is the liberty and allowability to act in any way you
choose so long as the notion of freedom itself is not falsified by the chosen
action. Simply put, the action that destroys the freedom of other acting
entities, is not an action in favor of freedom- but against it. Smoking, then,
is only a legal freedom. In other words, while we are all permitted to smoke by
law, the act itself automatically and inherently destroys the freedom of every
living being in its vicinity. Consider, for example, non-smoking sections. These
are an absurd concession to the non-smoker, since only the smokers can sit in
assigned seats, while their smoke never can. Smoke has no ass. So for all
intents and purposes, maintaining oneself as a non-smoker becomes an
impossibility in the presence of smokers. In this sense, smoking is a violent
imposition on freedom, while non-smoking is not. Unlike smoking, mine is a
personal choice that does not forcefully extend beyond the parameters of my
physical space into that of another.
Moreover, the smoker must content him or herself with the psychological
warfare waged against the youthful prospect whoâs naivetŽ is capitalized, and
who is intentionally led to think that his or her soccer game and sex life may
improve when smoking becomes a casual fact of his or her daily routine. The
smoker must forget for a while the young lady who is led to believe that it
shall be easier to relax in a long red gown with a slender, white stick held
between her slender fingers; and that her breasts will swell up beautifully and
benign with every precious inhale.
Please do not tell me that anyone who believes these lies propagated by
Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds is stupid, for I happen to know very many
intelligent people who are addicted to smoking. The tactics of these companies
must be as drastic and far-fetched as they are, since the cigarette
manufacturers are the ones most infinitely aware of the fact that there is not a
single good reason to buy their product. Since they cannot make the outright
claim that youâll get high or that youâll get healthy, they are forced to
invent some other fictions to keep the newcomers coming so that they will not go
bankrupt when the last addict dies. They can be subtle bastards, paying
exorbitantly to have the sexy Lois Lane smoke in Superman movies with the
intention to secure a subsequent generation of addicts. And finally, the smoker
contributes significantly to the maltreatment of the environment not only by
smoke pollution and the creation of cancerous test-animals, but by the
bi-production of waste of an enormous proportion. Donât be fooled by the
deceptive size of a finished cigarette butt. I once played a little game while
walking down fifth avenue in NYC. I wanted to see how many sidewalk squares I
could pass over without cigarette litter. Needless to say, the game ended when
it began. This city walks on cigarette-streets. This is no petty exaggeration,
for another game was then attempted: To see if I could count the number of
cigarettes within the bounds of any sidewalk square· I lost, of course, as
this too is an impossible project. While this litter will not single-handedly
destroy the environment, it will forever stand testimony to a metropolis of
inconsiderate addicts, grotesquely indifferent.
Smokers with families, who love their pets and children are walking,
breathing paradoxes. Every one of their hearty puffs aims to blow out the
well-being of their loved ones. This phenomenon is such that the observer
canât help but to wonder if the smoker has any regard for reason. Biological
addictions that commit acts of biological violence on others can be, and have
been, countered by conscientious individuals- individuals whoâve displaced
their egos just enough to overthrow their comfortable dependencies for the sake
of another living thing.
As I walk in to work each morning, I draw the less polluted city-air into
my lungs about a half-block before I hit the door. In front of the door to my
place of employment, is somehow the hippest spot for all of the smokers to
congregate. I literally hate to breathe near these doors to work, where the air
is so chock full of the most poisonous gas-products of this feverish habit, that
they sometimes burn your eyes.
To return to the opening theme of this essay, I want to point out that
the smokers who are creating this cloud of death each morning are mainly
students at a generally progressive graduate school. Inside these front doors
are countless flyers for protests and conferences aimed to heighten political
awareness and activity. They clutter the walls. I sometimes laugh, with sarcasm
and a genuine hurt, at the fact that most of these smokers would kick and scream
with me about environmentalism and politics. It sucks that I canât take them
seriously, and probably never will. Iâve just seen too many people quit this
freedom-squelching habit to ever take the progressive smoker seriously.
Cigarette smoking environmentalists may as well be rolling up and lighting their
own doctrines. They simply say too much too often that stands in blunt
contradiction to their own argued plight. They are, quite literally, standing in
the way of progress with their every sickly breath.
There
was a Cardinal
at
the window
in
my parentsâ dining room.
I
stepped too fast
like
a clumsy city boy
to
look closer at her
and
of course
she
flew away.
We
fill our heads and spin around, wrapped in a sound,
(itâs
just sound)
I
feel it more than you now watch me go off.
I
feel it more than you and thatâs why I hit that kid
with
my guitar, thatâs why I smashed the drum set.
I
guess you donât feel it as much because if you did
youâd
be fucked up whenever you werenât rocking out too.
If you fall for the ãwe tried communism and it didnât workä line
then I question your powers of scrutiny. The ãcommunismä of the 1900âs was
hardly what I envision when I think of true communism. We call it
ãcommunismä so that we might dissuade our population from ever swaying from
our ãcapitalist utopiaä. We have never seen true communism on a large scale,
but for me the idea that we might build a community where everyone
benefits from the work we do equally seems pretty appealing. Hell, I
would trade in many of the ãbenefitsä of this capitalist system in a moment
if I didnât have to live with the guilt that so many people on this planet
starve while I bask in material hedonism. I guess by my own definition I donât
believe (see Belief) in communism, but Iâd be
willing to give it a try - a real try, that is.
Introduced as a substitute for vinyl, the Compact Disc allowed the music
industry to artificially inflate the cost of albums, tricking the public into
believing that the ãtechnological breakthroughä was worth a price increase
of 100%. The truth - that the CD was actually cheaper for the industry to
produce, and traded dynamic range and depth of sound for convenience and thin
improvements in clarity - was slow to surface. For years punks resisted CDâs
because their production was dominated by the huge corporate music industry.
Original ãpunkä objections to CDâs based on patent-tariffs charged by Sony
or high production prices seem now highly laughable, as CDâs are no longer
patented and have decreased to costs well below that of vinyl. What seems
paradoxical, however, is the degree to which the ãpunkä music industry has
followed the path of the major labels, selling CDâs for much higher prices
despite their lower cost. As vinyl becomes increasingly difficult to release, it
seems that some labels are using prevailing and inappropriately high CD prices
to ãballastä the unrealistically low prices ãpunk consumersä (?!) still
expect to pay for vinyl. We can complain all we want about how LP and 7"
packaging has gone down in quality, but as long as we expect to pay $3 for a
7" and $6 for an LP, this deteriorational trend will continue. Only
vinylâs status as a fetish item for obscure hardcore hipsters allows it to
survive. Soon, the Compact Disc will itself be eclipsed by new technology (DVD?
MD?), and will be abandoned, as vinyl was, and left for a few obscure
enthusiasts. I suggest that punks begin to fetishize CDâs now in preparation
for their imminent doom.
Complexity
of Cause and Effect, The:
In a few situations a simple
system can be discovered, with clearly defined and limited cause and effect in
play. If I drink cyanide, it will kill me. Unfortunately, most situations are
much more complex, and simple causal relationships are difficult to expose. In
fact, I would suggest that many phenomena are sufficiently complex that humans
lack the cognitive ability to understand them under a cause-effect model.
Sometimes we have to relinquish childish conceptions that ãone thingä can
cause a complex change, and seek to understand ãcontributing factorsä rather
than a simple cause.
When the Concord, a supersonic airplane, was being developed, its
designers came to a realization: the benefits of this plane will never outweigh
its costs. Although the plane had yet to even fly commercially, planners were
able to project that while the plane would shuttle passengers at
unprecedented speeds, it was just too expensive to operate. The manufacturers
were never going to recoup their costs of developing the Concord through futures
sales of the aircraft, because not enough people would be willing to pay the
extra cost dictated by the planeâs amazing speed offerings. For whatever
reason this reality only became apparent after the plane had been partially
developed, and many millions of dollars had been spent in the process. The
company was faced with a difficult decision: stop the project and lose all of
the money already invested, or continue the project and risk losing more money.
As anyone who lives on the southern shore of Long Island is aware, the company
decided to complete the project, yielding a few supersonically loud planes which
fly transatlantically. However, as predicted, they never were able to recoup
their investment and the Concord, in business terms, went over like a lead
zeppelin.
Although the Concord Fallacy, which states that one should never throw
good money after bad, is an economic parable, I believe it has more universal
relevance. Because money is not the only kind of currency which may be invested,
other situations can be understood in light of the Concord Fallacy. There is a
tendency to say ãwell, I know that this situation is bad, but Iâve spent so
much effort here, so I feel like I have to stick with itä; this kind of
thinking leads to further suffering, as effort poorly spent is followed by more
effort, squandered in spite of an awareness of the waste. Sometimes we get into
situations, not knowing that these situations will turn sour. Once we realize
that the situation is sour, it is counter-productive to feel bad about all the
effort you wasted. To stick with a scenario that you know is sour is to
tragically waste effort which might be directed into more productive channels.
When you realize that something sucks, get out.
One way of explaining what it is Iâm doing in punk is rejecting the
popular notion of convenience in favor of a more consistent form of progress.
Most of the facets of my life that have been created and fostered by the
hardcorepunk community (the sound of the music, DIY ethic, veganism, etc.) fit
into this description. To understand this we must have an understanding of how
convenience is typically perceived and why this perception is inaccurate.
What are the great human achievements of the 20th
century? Cars, planes, computers, and
television amongst other similar devices. Clearly each of these devices brings
about a certain amount of convenience that was heretofore unheard of. No more
horse drawn buggies (except for tourists who wish to be entertained in New York
City, Old Quebec and the like), no more three month sea excursions to cross the
Atlantic, no more abaci. And now, one need not leave oneâs living room to
enjoy hours of ãstimulating entertainmentä. Progress (convenience) is a
wonderful thing.
Some of these conveniences have become such an integral part of living in
the 20th
century that one can hardly function in
this society without them (society here must be limited to the only one that I
can claim familiarity of: western and specifically that of the US). What a freak
the person is that does not own a TV, or drive his or her car to work everyday
(and in the cities everyone takes the subway), or microwave all your meals or
eat at McDonaldâs or any number of these so-called conveniences.
For a device or idea to truly be called a convenience it must satisfy a
number of conditions. It must ãsave or simplify work or add to oneâs comfort
or easeä (Websterâs College Dictionary). Application of this definition to
any of the above items in question seems to allow all of them to fall neatly
within the bounds of the definition. Cars and public transportation certainly
save oneâs time and energy when one travels. TVâs certainly bring a form of
entertainment directly to millions of people in a way that clearly cannot be
rivaled in the arena of ease of access and low involvement. Microwaves certainly
make food easily consumable in a fraction of the time it takes for conventional
ovens to do the same. All of these things are said to be convenient. But under
semi-close examination they donât really hold up.
What do we get out of these devices in exchange for the convenience they
bring to our lives? Cars pollute, use up limited natural resources (not to
mention that these resources are now in such high demand that wars are fought
over their availability), give us more ways to neglect our bodies, endanger the
lives of everyone on or near the road, etc. TVâs create and perpetuate many of
the dangerous norms of society (see Culture Industry), give
us a way to neglect our bodies and minds, provides a forum for programming
capitalism into every viewer, etc. The list goes on and on. The point here is
not to necessarily expose and focus on the negative side of everything (the
argument for how these tools can be used positively is an easy one to make), the
point is that a reconsideration of these conveniences is necessary so that they
can be utilized in a truly convenient way. The rejection of these
ãconveniencesä is often the difference between a sub-culture and a
counter-culture. The latter is what I, and most people who seek to be truly
progressive, should be interested in.
This relates specifically to my hardcorepunk lifestyle in that veganism
is clearly not the most convenient diet to keep. Thereâs no question that TV
dinners would be a hell of a lot easier to cook sometimes and easier to find
than a lot of the food I eat. And it would be really nice to wander into any
deli and just buy the first thing I see when Iâm hungry. However, I check the
ingredients of every thing that goes into my body because a diet that promotes
suffering (such as one in which millions of animals are uselessly consumed and
exploited each year for no dietary reason) cannot possibly add to my ease or
comfort. So it is sort of a pain in the ass to find supermarkets and restaurants
that I can buy food at but the comfort that I gain from knowing that my diet
inflicts as little harm as possible on anyone seems like a much better choice
than the alternative.
I bet a lot more people would like the music I make if it sounded totally
different, if we didnât scream, or if the parts were more melodic or whatever.
We could probably play for more people and sell more records. In all circles of
music the desire to repackage already digested ideas has a strong presence.
Underground music is absolutely no exception. To some degree even the most
innovative bands are a party to this. The fact is that it is simply not easy to
push forward and stretch oneself artistically. Because of this, anyone
interested in innovation is still going to lean heavily on whatâs been created
before them. However, innovation, even in its most subtle forms, is essential,
because the stagnation that takes its place effectively cancels out any sort of
progressive message that may be intended. Repetitive forms very rarely can be
effective vehicles for progressive content. Which is why the act of creating new
forms, of reaching past what those before you have already obtained is a radical
act. Innovative music is a rejection of the convenient and easily digestible
music that has been previously created. In the end, there really is nothing
convenient about music that prohibits progress because ultimately stagnation
eliminates potency.
My life would be a lot easier if, instead of DIY (do-it-yourself), I
subscribed to the much more popular ethic: HSEDIFY
(have-someone-else-do-it-for-you). It would be pretty convenient if someone else
released our records or booked our tours or published our zines, etcetera;
however, what is lost outweighs what is gained so that in the end no amount of
Îeaseâ enters our lives. I would certainly not be at ease if a giant
publishing house picked up this book and printed thousands of copies just so
people outside of our community would have easier access to it because thereâs
a whole factory of people getting exploited to produce it, wholesale it, and
retail it. Additionally, thereâs a corporation making huge profits off of
their inflated prices. These companies donât give a shit about whatâs
contained within the pages, as long as there are people willing to shell out
money for it. Whereâs the ease in knowing that someone is slaving away 40
hours a week/50 weeks a year in the publishing house that would make the book?
Iâd rather have a far smaller amount of books produced in order to ensure that
in the process none of my principles were compromised. While some would argue
that itâs certainly not convenient to have to bind every book yourself I would
argue that itâs certainly puts me at ease to know that this is one less
compromise I have to make.
All of these things that I consider ãpunkä, others consider
inconvenient. However, a willingness to seemingly inconvenience ourselves (when
the convenience is oppressive in the end and the alternative in fact delivers
greater comfort), sets us apart from mainstream culture.
No one has it all. We all have unique talents and abilities, but we all
have faults. When we work with other people, our talents complement theirs, and
provide a ãcollective abilityä which far exceeds that of the individuals
involved.
Culture
Industry, Precursor to Fascism:
The following is a dramatic
oversimplification of an infinitely complex issue. I do hope, though, that
anyone who has the patience to read through this essay would be open to filling
in the gaps with his or her own investigations. This essay is made up of
passages excerpted from a paper of mine entitled: Domination in the Culture
Industry: Precursor to Fascism. What you should do, if you are interested in
a beautiful critique of American mass culture and the psychology of fascism, is
go out and acquire the book which was the primary resource for my paper. The
book is called Dialectic of Enlightenment, and is authored by Theodor
Adorno and Max Horkheimer. (Please note that Adorno and Horkheimer were writing Dialectic
of Enlightenment simultaneous with the rise of radio as a growing household
item, and the motion picture was shocking people all over the world.)
One should ask: From where does the common, ruthless striving to achieve
mass homogeneity and social domination come? Adorno and Horkheimer observed a
characteristic striving, through the innovative technological mediums, to
produce social standards and fetishes which seemed to cunningly target the
world-audience as an unknowing sample for experiments in mass psychology. One of
the major fascinations of radio broadcasters and motion picture makers seemed to
be to learn how much influence and control widespread, popular imagery and sound
could exert over the will of the public. One should remember that at this same
time in history they were also witnessing, first-hand, Nazi Germanyâs use of
radio and film to create the compelling and elusive propaganda which persuaded
the majority of the German population that the extermination of the Jews was not
only morally acceptable- but an ethical responsibility. Adorno and Horkheimer
sought to come to grips with the horrors of their time by considering the nature
of Îthe Enlightenmentâ. When we say Îthe Enlightenmentâ we refer
specifically to one of the most significant paradigm-shifts in the history of
the social evolution of humanity. The term ÎEnlightenmentâ refers to the de-throning
of religion and philosophy as the providers of universal truth; the looking away
from these for answers, and the turning to science in their place. With the
great achievements of science in medicine and surgery, and its immaculate and
detailed explanations of how the physical world operates- society couldnât
help but look up to science. Over the centuries of scientific advancement, the
previous explanations eventually appeared in a mythological light; outdated,
unreliable, and gullible. Now, whether this is good or bad is not the question
at hand. Adorno and Horkheimer, bearing witness to the pogroms in Nazi Germany,
were concerned only with studying the most devastating effects of Enlightenment.
They wrote: ãFor the Enlightenment, whatever does not conform to the rule of
computation and utility is suspect· Enlightenment is totalitarianä (DE, 6).
Today, the radical elevation of human rationality, which has long since
usurped the role of mythology and religion in mass society, still wages a war
against that which is not definitively resolvable, and that which does not
succumb to rigid calculation. The essential principle in the success of the
Enlightenment is the domination of nature. Humankind, with its godly reason,
longs to be king over every natural conflict. To solve every mystery and flatten
every bump, we are always en route to totality. · In the Culture Industry, the
most useful tool for the organization, manipulation, control, and sale of any
and all products just so happens to be deception. We are deceived by the culture
industry into an idolatry and desire of all that it offers us. For example,
whatever MTV deems as Îquality musicâ, stands as such for the majority of
society. The rejection of this determination of quality exists only as an
exception to the rule. The most that we can be against the Culture Industry is
an exception to it. The Culture Industry convinces the majority of society that
its appreciation and enjoyment of mass entertainment is really borne from their
individual tastes and opinions. Society likes this, and is tricked into the
illusion of its autonomy. ãThe masochistic mass culture is the necessary
manifestation of almighty production itself· It corresponds to the behavior of
the prisoner who loves his cell because he has been left nothing else to love.
The sacrifice of individuality, which accommodates itself to the regularity of
the successful, the doing of what everybody does, follows from the basic fact
that in broad areas the same thing is offered to everybody by the standardized
production of consumption goods. But the commercial necessity of concealing this
identity leads to the manipulation of taste and the official cultureâs
pretense of individualism, which necessarily increases in proportion to the
liquidation of the individualä (280).
6
This is the same tactic underlying the
deception that mass culture only conforms to our own natural Îanimal
attraction.â That is, we canât help but think that it is one of our most
natural and individual expressions when we find ourselves almost
Îbiologicallyâ attracted to a stunning Hollywood face or shiny, round ass.
But these too, say Adorno and Horkheimer, are just very successful deceptions;
primordial inventions, so to speak, that make us who we are. So thoroughly
saturated are these permeation, that we actually believe that we like big
breasts just because thatâs what we like. ãAll the other films and products
of the entertainment industry which they have seen have taught them what to
expect; they react automatically. The might of industrial society is lodged in
menâs minds· From every sound film and every broadcast program the social
effect can be inferred which is exclusive to none but is shared by all alike.
The Culture Industry as a whole has molded men as a type unfailingly reproduced
in every product. All the agents of this process, from the producer to the
womenâs club, take good care that the simple reproduction of this mental state
is not nuanced or extended in any wayä (DE, 127). Adorno and Horkheimer looked
at the mass production of products manufactured formally and standardized by
modern technological means. The important point here is ãstandardized.ä They
examined the rapid effect of homogeneity and loss of differentiation in quality
that mass production leaves in its wake. ãBut even the differences between the
more expensive and cheaper models put out by the same firm steadily diminish:
for automobiles, there are such differences as the number of cylinders, cubic
capacity, details of patented gadgets; and for films there are the number of
stars, the extravagant use of technology, labor, and equipment, and the
introduction of the latest psychological formulas· Even the technical mass
media are relentlessly forced into uniformityä (DE, 123-124).
Adorno and Horkheimer hoped for a revolt against the Culture Industry,
but realized that one was unlikely. Suppose that one should escape the deception
of the Culture Industry and claim to despise it- revolt against it is still
unlikely. Why? Because the totalitarian system of ordering society, however
grotesquely, is responsible also for a great deal of stability. The fact of the
matter is that most of the luxuries or conveniences that the potential rebel
takes comfort in are provided by the Culture Industry, keeping him or her only
very timidly rebellious. It is this stability which effectively intimidates any
prospective revolution. That is, we want so much to change while kinda liking
our stability a little too much to put it in jeopardy. And this is a strategy
built into the Culture Industry to ensure its mass domination while allowing
some flexibility for citizen discontent· Even the revolution has been
accounted for.
In the Culture Industry, ideology inheres in the most current
technological advent, which in Adornoâs and Horkheimerâs case was radio and
film. Radio and film are the major purveyors of social domination through
psychological processes in the Culture Industry. That is to say that they do
their controlling and deception by way of an invited psychological assault.
Social domination in Nazi Germany, while imposing different kinds of brutality,
does represent the utmost extreme results of capitalist society and the
tendencies of Culture Industry. For it is true that Germany was the most
technologically advanced nation on the planet, and yet it was home to one of the
most systematic large-scale genocides. Hence, in order to address the phenomenon
of fascism, one must also address the phenomenon of capitalism, and more
importantly- vice versa! The potential to gather and organize countless masses
through forceful tactics realizes itself in a capitalist society and fulfilled
itself in Nazi Germany. In fact, we can view fascism as a natural and logical
outgrowth of the mass psychological condition produced by a capitalist
societyâs technological tending towards totalitarianism. Fascism, in Dialectic
of Enlightenment, describes a worldwide phenomenon characteristic not only
of National Socialism but of the universal course of all modern, authoritarian
systems responsible for ordering and influencing the repetitive functions of a
civilization. Thus, that which might not be National Socialism in the US is,
very frighteningly, the Îfascisticâ leading towards fascism. ãThe ruthless
unity of the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politicsä
(DE, 123).
THE
RUTHLESS UNITY OF THE CULTURE INDUSTRY IS EVIDENCE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN
POLITICS/WE ARE REPRODUCED IN EVERY PRODUCT/REACT AUTOMATICALLY/FILMS AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL FORMULAS/WE ARE THE PRISONERS WHO LOVE OUR CELLS BECAUSE WE HAVE
BEEN GIVEN NOTHING ELSE TO LOVE/ OUR INDIVIDUALITY IS ONLY A CONCESSION- A
PRETENSE BUILT INTO OUR CULTURAL SELVES TO KEEP US FROM TAKING REVOLUTION TOO
SERIOUSLY/FUCK.
Customer
Service - (Welcome to our store, how can I help you?):
A women who had not been in the bookstore more than five minutes began telling me that she had just gotten out of the hospital from an extended stay after being hit and then pinned underneath a taxi cab. She had lost her senses of smell and taste. She can no longer stand or walk for long periods of time. She has permanent memory loss and slight brain damage. She has $50,000 in hospital bills and she needs to find a lawyer so she can sue the driver and his company. She said it wouldnât have been so bad if he hadnât kept going (she thinks he was trying to get away), thereby pinning her underneath and dragging her a little ways. If not for this she would have been by the bookstore earlier. She had dark circles around her eyes. Otherwise she looked well.