RoR: Forum

Mr. Stolyarov,

Here's a bit of not so trivial trivia:

The Ian Fleming novel, Live and Let Die, was published in 1954, and later made into a movie, with Roger Moore, in 1973. The book and movie were decidedly not nihilistic, but heroic, in the popular sense.

I thought it was interesting the same expression, "live and let die," used in a culturally negative sense as you described, "Yet it is to the 'Live and Let Die' doctrines broadcast by popular indoctrinators of the 1960s that the movement's origins can be pinpointed. The original song of such a title was concocted by Paul McCartney of the Beatles ...," would be bracketed (1954, 1973) by the same expression with the opposite intention.

(Frankly, I had never heard of the Beatles' cacophony, ...er, song.)

Regi

Post 1

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 8:22am

Hmm...I certainly enjoyed reading this, even though I'm not in total agreement with everything - the aesthetic sphere of Objectivism is one area I'm not entirely convinced by - toward the end you made some strong, convincing points about the state of the culture in general. I liked the fact you still value the concept of "making love" in it's many applications, over the nihilistic "Fuck 'em and chuck 'em!" attitude toward love and sex, and how you illustrate altruism and nihlism as two sides of the same coin.Also the folly of conforming "nonconformists" is well noted.

(Just a relatively minor point: what's with the idiosyncratic spellings? I'm not terribly familiar with "filosophy" and "pornografy"......)

In any case, I appreciate the fact that you have values and conviction; even if I don't always see eye-to eye with what you write, I find it interesting reading......

Post 2

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 9:09am

Mr. Stolyarov:

Thank you for the fine exposition of the decay of popular music. Pop's falling away from objective standards of excellence over the past four decades tracks with the rise of post-modernism and its culmination in nihilism. Few things epitomize this better than rap's annihilation of melody.

It strikes me that many Objectivists have been deaf to the nihilistic trend of popular culture. I suspect this is because so many pop icons take a posture against authority, which resonants with many of us who are wary of authority as presently constituted by the state. Of course, what these popular poseurs are actually doing is not rebelling against oppression but rather they are denouncing any attempt to hold them to established standards in both their art and their public conduct. It's adolescent picque enshrined as moral courage.

Well, only if it were adolescence. At least that can be outgrown. It's the destruction of all standards to evade having to "measure up". In this campaign to evade standards, the traditional institutions that have enforced them must be either co-opted or destroyed. In the United States over the past few decades this had meant an assault upon those Tocquevillean institutions of civil society -- i.e., local elites, churches, mutual welfare societies, businesses, public schools.

While I understand that in principle some of those things, such as churches and public schools, are anathema to many Objectivist, we would all do well to recognize that they were part of the bulwark against the nihilism that has infected our culture. Nihilism, not altruism (which is a nihilistic perversion of benevolence), is the enemy.

Regards,
Citizen Rat a.k.a. Bill

Post 3

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 12:52pm

"Our society, musically, cinematically, and culturally, has, as a man of conscience will shamefully admit, descended to the same indoctrinating level which diverts individuals away from exercising their unalienable rights. "

Isn't this the same argument the left and the right make about popular culture?

'If only more people listened to Mozart and read my brillant book about Mozart the country wouldn't be going to hell in a Eminen tape.'

How many lefty professors or rightwing gatekeepers have we heard say this. We'd all be free is we just listened to Mario Lanza and John Coltrane -- yeah sure.

What is your reply to the arguments put forth by Charles Paul Freund over at Reason.com that what many of the elites consider base or vulgar displays of popular culture are actually great catalysts of mainly positive cultural change?

What does Eminen defending CM Sciabarra have to say about this?

Livedehtsillordnakcor,

Mick

Post 4

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 1:30pm

Mick's complimentary close means "Rock and roll is the devil."

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 3/09, 4:27pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 6:32pm

Personaly I am looking for a way to package Objectivism into pop-culture. The machine is our friend if we can learn to ride its waves. I mean hell, the socialists have a better merchandising line than the capitalists do! Where's my adam smith T-shirts? Where's my WWJGD bracelets? (what would John Galt do?). We need to package the philosophy, with the t-shirt, with the music and the bummper sticker so we can grapple these kids like the other sides does.

I can buy a Che Gueverra t-shirt, thong, mug, purse, wallet, sticker, patch, and to follow up his book is on sale next to the Rage against the machine CD in most pop-culture stores. (hot topic for example).

Its cool, its whats trendy, most people have no idea what it means. but if i wanted to know about capitalism, I have to brave a smelly old people book store and read a book by some guys who lived in the 1700's or I read Ayn Rand and appear uncool before my peers.

I am telling you people the only way to counter act pop-culture is to join in on the pop-culture. Put our foot in the door and push our philosophy on t-shirt, thong, mug, purse, wallet, sticker, patch, and to follow up put Rands books on sale next to the music by people who are objectivist musicians. ?(they are hard to find)? And about conforming, Non-conformists: we will always pick these people up no matter what these people get sorted out by the rest of the people in the trend for the most part. The point is that we need to win minds and pop-culture is a huge barrier to winning minds because of the social power behind it. But if we swong that social power into our favor, it might do some good to spread the word. But then i suppose we run the risk of getting what the Punks have now, "store bought punks." I wonder if there will ever be a "real objectivist" vs. "store bought objectivist" division. I should hope not.

Truly,

Eric J. Tower

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 3/09, 6:40pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 7:48pm

Good post, Eric. And, you're right. The left has co-opted pop-culture (the bad and the good) in it's campaign. Of course, you could suggest that the anti-reason, collectivist mentality and nihilistic pop culture are natural bedfellows, but that's a bit trite and dismissive. For chrissakes, if you want to get technical, Sinatra and Bennett sang pop. Should they be dismissed?

The slogan-bearing t-shirt is a symbol of pop culture and can be used by any movement to get it's message across. Your point about Che Guevara is illustrative. Of course most wearers wouldn't know who the hell he was - a communist pig - but those shirts sure look cool. Ever seen the Ronald Reagan take on that shirt:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/reagan.html

What a blast! Go Ronnie!

Fact is, (and this is a theme of an upcoming article) for 50 years - FIFTY! - hello: half a century - pop culture has been a vehicle for rebellion and disaffection. The left hijacked it in the 60s and have been riding that pony hard ever since. But, the big news is, the left is so staid and dogmatic in it's philosophies and attitudes that it is the actually the very antithesis of pop culture. In the 60s popists were rebelling against their "old-fashioned" parents and authority. Today, the parents and authorities are those same 60s left-wing "rebels".

We need to hijack THEIR kids and turn the tables by painting them as the tired, old conformists (the truth) and us as the freedom fighting radicals (also the truth).

Right on, babies!!

Post 7

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 8:08pm

There is already an abundance of interesting comments, and I will attempt to respond to them over the course of the next several days.

Mr. Firehammer, your bit of trivia is indeed interesting. I would like to learn of the contents of the Ian Fleming book and its message/sense of life. I may do some independent investigation of the topic, though I encourage you to share your thoughts on the work. It may be that the frase that served as its title had been deliberately hijacked by the left and employed as a nihilist slogan by such avowed leftists as McCartney.

Mr. Acheampong, thank you for your feedback and compliments. You are certainly a discerning reader who capable of analyzing another's viewpoint while adhering to his own and noting differences where they are present. As for your question concerning my orthografy, that has been the subject of another recent treatise of mine, "An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics" at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/filosofyoflinguistics.html. I am actualizing my conclusion from that essay, that language and spelling can (and should) be scientifically reformed through voluntary, indvidual innovations.

Citizen Rat has provided an intersting analysis of the institutions which serve as "bulwarks against nihilism." I interpret this as yet another support of the need for coalition building. Though Objectivists and religionists, for example, may not agree on certain quite fundamental questions, both are rightly concerned about the debauchery and death-worship of modern pop-culture, and both hold certain common esthetic principles (though not in the entirety of esthetics), that pop-culture seeks to demolish. Observe, for example, Rand's (and my) admiration for the architecture of cathedrals; religious buildings they are, but they were crafted in a fashion as ingenious for their time as the method of building skyscrapers is today.

More will follow.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 8

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 9:53pm

G

Seinfeld "a vulgar comedy"? That's plainly ridiculous and cannot be determined objectively. It's funny!

You're right to draw attention to the vile aspects of culture (pop or otherwise)--and there are many, too many, but you're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

R

Post 9

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:59am

Mr. Travis: Isn't this the same argument the left and the right make about popular culture?

Mr. Stolyarov: No. The left has dominated that same pop-culture over the past fifty (if not more) years, and it is in its political interests to spread mass conformity (with statist, environmentalist, and decadent messages packaged into it). As for the right, its premises regarding popular culture are at times indeed close to those of Objectivists such as myself. This should not deter us nor should it preclude coalition with those individuals for the specific purpose of cultural revival.

Mr. Travis: ...what many of the elites consider base or vulgar displays of popular culture are actually great catalysts of mainly positive cultural change?

Mr. Stolyarov: Positive cultural change?? The hippie revolts, the stoning of Vietnam veterans, the drug culture, the "sexual revolution," the rampant increases in adultery, promiscuity, divorce rates, and superficiality, the obsession of the masses with sticking their noses into other people's garbage (notably that of celebrities, politicians, and businessmen) is considered "positive cultural change"?? Or what about the vehement ostracism encountered by anyone among the youth of today who diverts from the established pop-culture dominated tyranny of peers and expected routines? What about the statism endorsed en masse by the sheep who subconsciously absorb it via pop-culture, and are urged (by the same rappers and hip-hop stars that repeatedly manifest their desire to rape, molest, and devastate) to exhibit a vague, fuzzy "compassion" (which inevitably culminates in environmental legislation, expanded government aid to this minority or that, or another assault on the vestiges of the capitalist system)?

Positive cultural change? I think not.

Post 10

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:46am

I agree with the general theme of the article, but in order to justify it you are just grasping at straws and giving examples of things that you clearly know nothing about. As Reginald already pointed out, the title "Live And Let Die" was not chosen by McCartney but was the name of the film that he was writing the song for. He didn't have much choice, did he? If you actually listen to the song he laments that "you used to say Live And Let Live". When he reaches the "Live And Let Die" chorus the song speeds up and gets racy. But what do you expect in a song for an action film? That part incorporates the Bond tune, as all Bond theme songs do. If anything he associates "Live And Let Die" with the life of a spy or maybe an ambitious "go-getter" and not hippy culture.

He sings:

What does it matter to you?

If you've got a job to do

You have to do it well

You have to give the other fella hell

I vehemently disagree that McCartney or the Beatles ever explicitly embraced any "live and let die" mentality.

Have you forgotten that McCartney flew over to New York especially after 911 to perform a song he wrote for the occasion called "Freedom"?

He sings:

This is my right, a right given by God
To live a free life, to live in Freedom

We talkin' about Freedom
Talkin' bout Freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in Freedom

Anyone, who wants to take it away
Will have to answer, Cause this is my right

Post 11

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:22pm

It is a sad fact that knowing almost nothing about a subject rarely prevents people from pontificating at length about it. Mr Stolyarov's article is case in point.

For starters, the Beatles song in question is called "I Am The Walrus", not "a" walrus! "The Walrus" in question is the imaginary figure from Lewis Carroll's poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter", which partly inspired Lennon's lyric. So while there are plenty of ways to interpret the song, Stolyarov's theory that it equates man's consciousness with an animal's is wrongfooted before he even starts! Further, it appears the song is something of a pisstake anyway - the song's nonsensical lyrics were partly intended to cock a snook at pompous rock critics who treated every Beatles lyric as if it was holy writ. But of course, we could hardly expect a pop culture critic who is unfamiliar with James Bond (let alone the Frankfurt School!) to enlighten us here.

So much for Stolyarov's incisive grasp of his own examples. Now, to his central thesis, that pop music and rock and roll is the favoured art form of Big Brother totalitarians. He cites the state controlled music of Oceania in Orwell's novel "1984" as the basis of his argument.

Unfortunately for Stolyarov, we have any number of *actual* totalitarian states - most now defunct, fortunately - to examine, to see if any imposed disco or rock and roll as the exclusive official music.

He will find a sum total of zero did. In fact, such art forms only became dominant in Western democracies, and were ruthlessly suppressed in the Communist bloc! (Those interested in real examples might want to read the poignant story of The Plastic People of the Universe, Czechoslovakia's answer to the Velvet Underground, here:
http://www.furious.com/perfect/pulnoc.html)

In fact, Stolyarov's theory rather reminds me of Marx predicting that communism could only occur in highly industrialised capitalist societies. Yet the reality was precisely the opposite!

With his sole example fictional it looks as if his theory has little to do with the "facts of reality" and is mere armchair rambling. (Incidentally, Orwell was wrong in his guess: totalitarians fear *all* individual expressions of emotion, save for patriotic ones!)

While there is certainly a story to be told in the rise of a violent and nihilistic popular culture in the West, it seems Mr Stolyarov is singularly underequipped to tell it.

- Daniel

Post 12

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:56pm

Mr. Tower writes about the possibility of creating mass-marketable commodities that represent or promote the Objectivist filosofy. This is not a poor suggestion; I have myself once wandered through several shopping malls, looking for a simple dollar-sign keychain. I have instead found crosses of all sorts, peace signs, Daoist "yin-yang" symbols, and various other mystical parafenalia that does not attract me in the slightest. Objectivism would benefit from additional products promoting the ideas behind it.

But I do not think that this marketing should be confused with "pop-culture" of the brand that I criticize. The leftist pop-culture is inherently irrational; while the commodities of Objectivism would depend on the customers' individuality and rationality for their purchase, the leftist items, music, and ideology depend on blind, unthinking, herd-style acceptance. There is a gulf of a difference between these two modes of proliferation, and it must not be ignored. I will never engage in mass orgies of distortion before a DJ, even if he does chant, "Capitalism, Capitalism, Rah!Rah! Rah!" Embracing individualism in theory should not lend itself to collectivism and decadence in practice.

The particular items marketed by Objectivists will also inherently differ from those of the mass culture. As an example, the music produced by Objectivist composers is (and will be) rich instrumentally and intended for deliberation and rational analysis, not hip-swinging. Though it is possible to envision an Objectivist form of dance, it will likely be (and should be) artistic and professional (like ballet) or require considerable grace in its performance in social gathering (like waltzes and minuets).

I agree with Mr. Elliot that we are the rebels and the hippies are the paradigm, and we need to turn the cultural tables in order to portray these orientations as they in fact are. (The Reagan T-shirts are an interesting idea, I admit, and I do not deny their efficiency in carrying across support for an individual far more rational than the paradigm of his time).

As for Seinfeld, Mr. Elliot, what is your definition of "funny?" I do not consider a banal, cynical outlook on the human condition funny. Nor do I find humor in the lewd expressions and occasional public exposition of flesh that one encounters on Seinfeld.

Here is my interpretation of what is true humor and what is sacrilege (from http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/A_Critique_of_Murray_Rothbards_Sociology_of_the_Ayn_Rand_Cult_(Part_2_of_3).shtml)

"Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humor is an unlimited virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul-and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man. One doesn't reverence with a giggle." So declares Ellsworth M. Toohey, the arch-collectivist from Rand's other literary epic, The Fountainhead. Humor within certain bounds can be employed as a means of comprehension or enjoyment. An innocent joke, a paradox, a satire sharpen an individual's reasoning ability while amplifying his rightly gained pleasure. Humor can be employed to expose the horde of fallacies, buffooneries, and hypocrisies plaguing modern society, and is thereby a potent educational tool. However, humor must not be employed to sneer at a man's self-image, at, in Rand's words, "the sacred temple of his soul," his genuine ambitions, his sense of life, and the joy that he takes in living by principle and practice. This is the difference between a laugh and a giggle. A laugh is the call of a giant, resonating with an ecstatic appreciation of his own existence. A giggle is the buzzing of a pest around the giant's head, in preparation for inserting a stinger where it hurts, the most sacred reaches of a man's mind.

What does Seinfeld undertake but sneer at man's self-image?

Post 13

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:01pm

Mr. Bachler: I vehemently disagree that McCartney or the Beatles ever explicitly embraced any "live and let die" mentality.

Have you forgotten that McCartney flew over to New York especially after 911 to perform a song he wrote for the occasion called "Freedom"?

Mr. Stolyarov: Have you forgotten that McCartney is a vehement environmentalist who seeks to impose draconian animal "rights" legislation (and would probably be happy if some bureaucrat forced the entire world to turn vegan)?

Post 14

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:03pm

G. Stolyarov:

I agree with most of what you have said. I myself see nothing non-nihilistic about "I'm a walrus," and the interpretations I have read all show hate for capitalism, etc... My only problem is what you said to Citzen Rat about how this problem can be solved, by building coalitions with the "Tocquevillean institutions" that he lists. Are you sure that Coalition Building is not becoming a primary and overriding goal in your philosophy?

In your essay you go so far as to state that altruism and other general philosophies are nihilistic and are the source of the problem with todays popular culture. Why then would one interested in a cultural revival, build a coalition with institutions that promote the things (collectivism, statism, altruism, ecoterrorism) that you identify as the problem? Do you not agree that the solution to the problem is rational self-interest, as your essay seems to promote?

Post 15

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:32pm

Mr. Bachler,

Your defense of Paul McCartney using giant letters did tempt me to produce (and merit) a response in the same format. (A tactful way of saying, "You asked for it!")

As for the "rest of the Beatles," consider the following:

1. The song, "Back in the USSR," with the line, "You don't know how lucky you are, boys," referring to the Beatles' view of socialism/communism as an evidently more prosperous social system than the wasteful, greedy, materialistic cutthroat competition of the capitalist West.

2. Other Beatles expressions of anti-materialism, including, but not limited to, "Money can't buy me love."

3. Lennon's song, "Imagine," produced after his parting with the Beatles and mentioned in the essay; essentially an ideological blueprint for a totalitarian, "organic collectivist" world order.

4. Lennon's frequent refusal to wear shoes, so as to be closer to "Mother Earth."

5. The Beatles' consultation of Indian mystics and their subsequent mass propagations of said mystics' anti-rational ideology.

As for McCartney's song, "Freedom," it is rare (though possible) that one finds utter, unadulterated evil in men, even in the ones that are overtly irrational and nihilistic in many respects. Consider, for example, FDR, a repulsive character with fascistic overtones, who nevertheless did, in his ideology, propagate an ideal condition under which the government budget is balanced (this condition was, of course, never achieved).

McCartney's occasional advocacy of liberty merely illustrates that he is a man of mixed premises who is irrational in most, but not all, of his premises. This does not in any manner erase the damage inflicted by McCartney upon the cultural arena.

As for McCartney's association with the James Bond film, "Live and Let Die," and to address blatant ad hominem critics like Mr. Barnes:

* I have not seen a single James Bond film and have done so deliberately. James Bond films, whatever their storyline, exhibit many of the disturbing trends in modern popular culture that I referred to in the article and that I outright condemn. Among these are

- James Bond's evident promiscuity; he engages in affairs with a different female every film.
- The rampant nudity and sensuality of the films (the previews make that evident).

I do not grant moral sanction to such perversions of good taste nor to the persons associated with their [the films'] creation (including McCartney). I have not read Mr. Fleming's books, so I will not make a judgment against them on the basis of the films. However, my contention stands: whatever was contained in the book, it (and its slogans) have been hijacked by the left and transformed into tools of pop-culturist indoctrination.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 3/10, 2:33pm)

Post 16

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:53pm

I have encountered mostly constructive discourse on this board, even from my respected opponents on this issue. The one exception to this generalization are the remarks of Mr. Daniel Barnes. The vast majority of Mr. Barnes' post is not filled with factual information, but, in fact, with expressions to the effect of, "Stolyarov is an ignorant pontificating armchair rambler."

I will not descend to this level of discourse, as I do not consider it to be constructive. Nor do I consider constructive an ad hominem attack based on a misrepresentation of the article in the "I Am the Walrus" song. Therefore, in those scant places where Mr. Barnes' comment actually referred to factual claims and arguments, I will attempt to respond.

Mr. Barnes: Stolyarov's theory that it equates man's consciousness with an animal's is wrongfooted before he even starts! Further, it appears the song is something of a pisstake anyway - the song's nonsensical lyrics were partly intended to cock a snook at pompous rock critics who treated every Beatles lyric as if it was holy writ. But of course, we could hardly expect a pop culture critic who is unfamiliar with James Bond (let alone the Frankfurt School!) to enlighten us here.

Mr. Stolyarov: Note that Mr. Barnes, in that entire paragraf, provides not a single justification for his alternative theory of the meaning behind the song, while, in my article, I have provided a comprehensive ideological analysis consistent with the Beatles' overall outlook, message, and decadence. Finding no factual support, he concludes the paragraf with yet another stab at me and my "unenlightened ignorance" of James Bond (explained in an earlier post).

Mr. Barnes also assumes that I am unfamiliar with Cultural Marxism, Herbert Marcuse (also the father of affirmative action, in many respects), and the Frankfurt School. Enough said.

More responses will follow.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 17

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:03pm

G

You have to loosen up a bit, man. If you're analysing every thing you see or hear to quantify and/or qualify it as "true humour" then that's a little stilted and pedantic. I know funny when I see it or hear it and I don't need post-Randian analysis to tell me where it's at.

Here's the the thing: if your sense of life is in order you will not (as a matter of automatisation) laugh at those things that denigrate man's greatness. Look after your SOL and all else will follow.

R

PS: James Bond is meant to be sensual, for Pete's sake! If you don't like Bond, that's fine, but don't make out that sensuality is a vice.

(Edited by Ross Elliot on 3/10, 5:06pm)

Post 18

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:10pm

Marcus,

You gave me credit I do not deserve.

You said, "the title "Live And Let Die" was not chosen by McCartney but was the name of the film that he was writing the song for," and while I identified the book and film, I had never heard of the song, because I never saw the film. (Read the book.)

In fact, your information was quite interesting. Thanks!

Regi

Post 19

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:15pm