“Why do you think so many supposedly counter-cultural or anti-establishment musical artists ended up such utter servile arseholes in perfect sync with the establishment, and all their disingenuous totalitarian bullshit? They should surely be the most sceptical about bowing down in docile, gullible servility to the establishment - big pharma, the media, big government, etc - they were supposedly so proudly against.”
“Well maybe the most classically perfect arena of servility is the bourgeois mindset - a symbiotic feeling of success in sync with society. Your material success within the establishment marks you out as a winner in life. So spiritually they identify seamlessly with the establishment, or society as is, and its success is their success. Total symbiosis. Well most of these musicians, however countercultural they might superficially seem, were basically from the middle-classes. To be from the middle-class isn’t at all to necessarily be bourgeois in one’s spirit, but it is a very natural progression. So with these musicians, they departed a bit from the expected middle-class pathways, instead went down a kind of bohemian road, but then with the famous ones we’re talking about, they then became very successful, very wealthy, very famous and their egos pampered enormously, and so this was their journey to becoming bourgeois to the very core,p. And so now when you see their being servile mouthpieces for the sociopathic establishment, you’re just seeing the servile, cowardly bourgeois soul in motion. Any threat to the establishment is also a felt threat to them.”
That dialogue might be a bit harshly put, but I think the whole phenomenon is very much covered far deeper in the parable of the sower, which I’ll paste below. I don’t think it needs anything from me to point out the pretty obvious connections.
No comments:
Post a Comment