Why Satire

Some thoughts on satire in response to ‘the world’.

Why is a kind of absurdist and even apparently vicious satire so appropriate in dealing with “the world”, ever more so now? Because the people’s and structures of “the world” are a toxic enemy that are not despite whatever facade, interested in coming to any truths through debate, reasoning and consensus. This is a war and is not a peaceful engagement. This is why Donald Trump was so much the correct man for the moment. Trump didn’t try to politely engage with the media which is the propaganda wing of these shameless liars and manipulators. Instead at times he simply shouted at them that they were fake news! They weren’t going to stop being fake news if he was polite to them. This was the appropriate behaviour! The time needed as a clarion call someone alarmingly direct. 

If you have the misfortune to have to deal with gaslighting, bullying toxic narcissists, polite decency is not the level to meet them with. You would be failing to engage with the vibration or nature of the reality facing you. You don’t see Jesus in the gospels politely apologising  and explaining himself to the accusations of the then equivalent of “the world”, i.e. the Pharisees who are attempting to maintain control over people’s s behaviour and minds. Instead Jesus is brutally direct in calling them out, and so of course “the world” hated him like no other. He wasn’t trying to placate them or win them over. He knew who and what he was dealing with.

The world cannot hate you, but me it hates because I testify of it that the works thereof are evil.

If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world - therefore the world hates you.

So back to the question of satire, this enemy is very definitely an enemy, operating at moral but also intellectual levels of utter puerile perversion. Satire can be the most appropriate and direct form of engagement with this toxic inanity. If Einstein for instance were in an academic setting presented with moronic, nonsensical rubbish such as 2+3=9, from some arrogant idiot, it would be stupid of Einstein to engage with it on an intellectual plane as if it were worthy of being taken seriously. 

In the intellectual equivalents of such situations, then satire may be the far more appropriate response or weapon to arise. In its pure state though this should arise as a visionary/intellectual inspiration to some matter, and perhaps whilst not pondering the issue at all. If ‘alive’ the satire should be possessed of something very vibrant and produce a shock to the spirit, having struck the falseness from a sphere of truth like some kind of lightning bolt.  If by contrast satire is conjured intentionally, it is very likely to be something unpleasant and joyless, and very leaden footed and obvious. It’s just something intentionally ugly, and drenched in the squalor of personality or selfhood.

Satire after all is a corrosive, and can drag its user down if not careful! So the paradoxical element is to employ something so cutting and direct, but to do so in a spirit of innocence!