Has conventional wisdom been stoned for 50 years? and Bringing Bob Dylan down to size

Once our parents die away,future generations won't get why people thought Bob Dylan or Jackson Pollock or Warhol were "extraordinary", infact they'll think conventional wisdom during the last 50 yrs quite bad, which makes sence cause hardly anyone in that time has been educated or not had there brain mashed by weed. no dis to potheaders but why are u paying so much to essentially go to bed and eat a box of pop tarts?


this was a status i came up with tonight.
i did because i read that Bob Dylan had a new album (one which i'm sure is automaticly being called "great").

Bringing Dylan Down to Size

If there is anyone those damn babyboomers will bow to it's Bob Dylan (and now also probably Obama). He is treated as diety, and has been compared to Zeus many time in fact.


This slavish auto-adoration that americans of a certain age practice, may be one of the few religouns thriving todays. We get to see how this mindlessness everytime Dylan puts out a record.


Look he's written some great stuff. Blood on the tracks, "all over the watch tower","as went out one morning" , "lovesick", "things have changed", "the death of hattie carell", "gates of eden" "you belong to me" are beatiful creations. And in reality Dylan is one of the best solo artists living in american music (which in fact there are very few) .

The bizarre things that one beholds about Dylanmania, once you listen to Blood on the Tracks which is from the 70's and/or "things have changed" (from late 90's), is that his most criticaly renowned and famous songs like "times are a changing", "ballad of a thin man", "hard rain", "like a rolling stone" are not only some of worse material but not very enjoyable to listen at all.


Everyone under 40 i know-when asked- have agreed to this sentiment and profession being as baffled as me at how overated Dylan is.

His famed period-the period that supposed to be his "prime"-from 64 to 1969 is not that good.

I often wonder if people think of that period as his golden era just because 64-69 was his best era of being photographed. AT it's heart the dylan phenmnon is really kind of just about image and coolness and having a cool icon to reflect how right the hippys cause was. He did look cool then and his inwardness and rebellious nature led people to call him a "genius" and a "poet" of the magnitude of Keats.

Warhol irrelvant

The fact that noone can do a "warhol" since Warhol makes some think he must have been great. BUt he isn't. Andy Warhol could easily have just become a intresting and innovative t-shirt designer, putting his silk screen "art" on t-shirts rather than canvas'. He would have been a noteworthy one. But he put his blown up phographs on canvas-large ones too and unfunatly rather than saying correctly that Warhol has "style", people say he's "a master".

There is this odd thing in the artworld (in part cause everyone in it seems to be a corrutaor of some sort) where artworld denizens can call artists "great" or not talk about them.

Anyways, Warhol's stuff are not moving at all, they do not make anyone(not on drugs) want to stare at them for 30 minuetes, they are not beatiful.

These people who go on and on about the symbolism of the cambells soup can are daft as hell. You don't have to have some great symbolism in mind about "the democracy of american consumerism" to have the idea of pianting a soup can.

BUt anyways, what he did took no effort and it shows. His art is heratless, no emotion exspressed. Just gloss, mindless gloss. You look at it and say "huh thats funny he just drew a dollar over and over again" and then you turn away after 3 seconds.

Warhol presonifys the mindless phenoma of getting good press for getting good press, his gallery owner calls him the greatest artist of the 200th century, so someone who lives in greenich village says, and on and on, the mindless conventional wisdom travels like the plague.
As photoshops grows more hispopularity will decline, people will see what a hoax it all was his "genius" that is.

Though he was cool and smart and funny as hell and stylish.

Guess what living person Alec Baldwin most admires?

My oh my, what things you do find on the last page of Vanity Fair:

ALEC BALDWIN took the Proust Questionnaire,

"VANITY FAIR: Which living person do you most admire?

ALEC BALDWIN: MICHELLE OBAMA"



This is rather unbelivable. is it not? The whole thing reeks of desperate white guilt. We know what this white man's white burden is.

If only VF's next question where "really, Alec?"

i would guess that Alec's riposte would go something like this:

"do you know what it's like to be a black women in this country? do you know the hardship Michelle like all black women endure every single day?! she worked her way up by her bootstraps against the racist tide to PRinceton UNviersity! everyone always told her 'no', 'no you can't do it michelle' your not good', and yet she overcame it all!"

How deep is your white guilt?

If it were up to the media and the celebrity class and perhaps democrats, Michelle would have been crowned along time ago.We'd have the queen's jubilee down the Potomac,

I can see the scene: michelle waving her queen wave with her black silk gloves on, as her boat thraashes its way down the potomac, we would all bow, as the boat past, the boat of course would not be playing any "star splangled banner" racist nonsence, but rather some Public Enemy, maybe "the revoultion will not be televised". And inside queen Obama's boat, is a salon of Rev WRight and Farhkan and Chuck D, some "Ebony" Staff writers, Barak, Beyonce, Usher, sipping on vodka tonics.

But is this any suprise? OFcourse the media and white liberals love Michelle Obama. She's got it all.

1. She's Black.

Which alone alone makes her good, pure, victimized, and a hero. Also it means that when she reads Martin Amis (which i doubt she does, unlike the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London) it's about 30 times more impressive than when a white person reads Amis, like say the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London.

2. She despises America (atleast up until 2007 for some reason).

As Chris Hitchens has shown at the liberal Slate.com, she's the one who-more than Barak-was into the black liberation, anti-american, anti-white, Rev WRight stuff. Her Princeton "thesis" which Hitchens said is "unreadable" is Rev WRight style ditribe against white america/america. She ofcourse has never been proud of America outside of it electing Barak. She thinks America "a mean" country. And thats just what she's said at campiagn rallys, you can guess what she says in private about America.

3. She's got everything in her life from affirmtive action (outside her husband).

Affirmtive Action gave Michelle not only a place in the Ivy League but a career afterwards. (This is not a uncommon thing, think of how many affirmtive action Ivy leaguers went on to become hack black studies professors.)
She got a unearned place at Princeton, where she produced a "unreadable" according CHristopher HItchens, black liberationist thesis. She then got a career shutting down hospitals and companys with bogus discrimination lawsuites aka she made her money suing places for not hiring enough people with the right skin pigment. What a noble proffesion, obvilously Alec Baldwins thinks it so.

Is this the life of the most admirable person on earth?

But apparently, aids workers, and charity founders, have nothing on people who make money enforcing racial quotas on private insuitions, suing banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, and companys for not hiring enough blacks.

Is this a joke?

I wonder what Alec thinks about Mr. Ricci in the Ricci case? is he the most deplorable person living?


This is just more proof of how mad babyboomers have become.

What happened to the american people(1687-1968)?

Watching "Dr.Stranglove or how i learned to love the bomb" today something curious happened. I lay there-affectionatly positioned behind a beatiful female in my bed. The scene before us was one inwhich George C. SCott was speaking in "the war room" to the president about the nuclear situation over russia.

"Ya know these people we're really americans" i half whispered in my female companions ear.

"I think the 50's we're probably the really last decade of the americans"

"yeah, thats true" my female companion said, assuredly knowing what i meant.

ME: "we aren't americans, we're.. children of the world"

HER: yeah we are.

ME: i mean do you feel like a attachment to american history to the american people of the past, does our generation? our generation has the most trivial and nebulous national ideitity and only by default of being born here. And we certainly don't have any blood and soil pride about being american. do you know anyone who really has that? its like "i was born here" thats it. being american, to us, is a mere tecnocality by happenstance.

HER: its true.....


How did this happen, that the american people no longer exist?

well ofcourse, the usually suspects: the 60's, hippies, multicultrilism, hedonism, leftist professors, rock n' roll, cultural rot, etc. thats all true.

but another factor contributing to the loss of american idenity/pride/etc., is that 1. you can't love a nation you feel you don't know and 2. you can't love a nation that hates itself.

When i think of the chicago of my lifetime-one unrecognizable from my fathers chicago- i picture the most typical of chicago scene: A busy intersection, in my specfic case, i picture the bustop on the intersection of Western and Touhy Avenue. Gritty. Ugly. Heartless. Pollutted. Hungover. (Within view theres) One visible specmin of the old chicago a old /granite/ cornershop/apartment building that would have been have been generic when built but now stands out for its possesing actual arctecturial "charcter". The shop there is a old family owned lunch and breakfast restruant with boothes from the 70s thats going out of busines, and soon enough the propertier of the whole edfice will give way like all the others like him to devleopers. Next to it and everywhere else in the vincinty you can see what replaced other building like it. Another typical american landscape ravaged by modernist archeture and developers trying to make a quick buck. You have severely ugly modern condos with fake looking bricks built without any care or uniqiness intermixed with McDonalds and other such franchices. You got a ugly new Bank of America, ads covering in its tainted blackned windows of smiling people of different colors other than white, a striking contrast with the broken down, unfiendly/mean, thuggish, beleagured, bedraggled, blighted and smug faces down on the street. You got a traffic jam, smog, heat, conjustion, honking horns, spanish shouting, ringtones blaring, a public bus' pulling up on the corner letting out grey fumes from its exhaust pipe as it stops to pick up the representives of the new chicago: young black and latino hip hop kids who know or care about nothing and have no ideas and never read a book, who go to schools that are in fact absurdly overpriced day care centers to socialize, then you have poor decreipt white elderly persons with canes, a fragile frustrated looking hipsterish young professional without a mac book in his /walkingpouch/ and PC garbage in his head, a few crazy bedraggled homeless people hopped on crack, and then en mass you have the new primary inhabitants of chicago: hispanic migrants grouped together: short dark indigenous looking mexican men who work as dishwashers and metal collectorsa in baseball hats and dirty 2nd hand clothes, obese middle aged mexican women in big mickey mouse t-shirts and spandex capris, with worn disgruntled faces, with a flock of young kidss pread around her, after a day of cleaning houses, none speaking a drop of english.

There is something that effects you about seeing hispanics like these. They are like aliens or 2nd class citizens so alienated-by choice ofcourse-so alien-with no desire to be otherwise. It is as if you see eachother threw a plate glass partition. To an extent its this wya with black and latino youth today in the inner citys. These people came here to work thats it. not to assimilate in the true meaning of the word. They may adopt a fondness for our trash TV, but nothing else deeper than that.

So whats so depressing about the mexican migrants who care nothing for america and Mcdonalds and Banks of America that fill chicago? well they represent to one a country devoid of anything deeper than money and work and materialism, there is no heart, nothing to truelly identify with, nothing to do die for at all.

In america today, we are surrounded by people and things that care nothing for america, that we feel detached in everyway from, wheather it be the huge impersona; corporations who are now utterly devoid national loyalty that we come across in the form of the generic franchices they place in the monsterous shopping malls that have scourched so much of our earth, or the hispanics that now are the core of our major citys, their conclaves totally cut off from the america that they will soon inherit, they have no desire to assimiliate, they feel no affinity to the old america, to the amreica people circa 1920 or 1856 or those who perished in the civil war or our founders, or our heros:Polk, jefferson, adams.
It would be a lie though to say they had no feeling for america or its history, heros or its past, they most certainly do have feelings for those things. Those feeling being: resentment and hatred.


nevermind that hispanic immgrants are en masse joining and exspanding and seething and remaining threw the generations in americas underclass, what makes mass hispanic immgrantion (and perhaps all 3rd world or non european immgrantion) such a diaster and calamity-in my view- is a matter not of the pocketbook or a matter of statstics or a matter of genetics but a matter of the heart.


Nations are built on loyalty of the heart. The truth is that if you knew like i do that John Adams is in your lineage and if you know your scottish ancestors built this nation, love of nation is going to come naturally. It's that emotional, visceral blood-and-soil, "land of my fathers" attachment and pride that is the essential core of any nation and amreica is no excepation. Wheather for good or ill, race and history matter, people are tribal, people idenitify and group together with people who look like them, who share a history or a realigoun, etc and this is why every nation has a ethno cultural core and must have one. Once a nation loses a ethno cultural core-as happened in the Austro-Hungriaian empire and is happening today in France and the netherderlands-etnic strife occurs and nation breaks apart violently. Look threw history and you will find really no evidence to debase such a idea that just 50 years ago would have been undebatable(common sence). But look threw history for evidence that nations without ethno cultural cores fall apart or that (ethnic and religous) diversity leads to violence and strife, and you can hardly find a year that won't suffice to provide a example.

The responce is that we americans being so proggesive from our brutish ancestors have evolved-in our age of affluence- beyond all this unseemly, unprogressive things like enthno- cultural cores or enthic strife. And even if the white liberals who spout this drivel are really "post racial" in their own rights (which they surely aren't e.g. ask them to send there kid to a latino school), it is just them who matter in figuring out wheather enthic strife and tension and division and even violece could come to america. are the black and hispanic demographics projected by the ny times to bring in an end to the white european majority (in america) by 2050 as "post racial" ? The answer that we all know even without looking at the statstics that confirm are assumptions to that question is: Not at all. Race and enthno-centricity is supremly important to non whites.

Others respond by saying or atleast thinking, "genocide, racial, ethnic strife couldn't happen in 2009 or in the first world. thats all so african.".

So to those who think this business of enthnic strife and the importance of enthno cultural cores and diversity resulting in strife, is just a african or 3rd world thing and to those who think th ese things to be all so 19th century. i'll restrict myself (in finding examples to prove my point) to the developed world (aka europe and america) and to the last 10-15 years of history in such places, in .


"The way to prevent unrest, is to be very careful in who you let in"-Micheky Kaus

America's future? look to Peter Hitchen's Britian

A chilling post on Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog, by the name of "80m Britons, and no one you can trust. A future I’m glad to miss". This is really why i think we need to control the border:

Our Brussels masters predict that Britain will soon be the most crowded country in the whole of Europe. Presumably this is what they want, since it is their laws that have destroyed our borders and abolished British citizenship and British passports (that wretched puce thing in your pocket is an EU passport, not a British one, and the further east you go, the easier they are to get).

The European Commission says there will be almost 80million people crammed into our landscape by 2058. Just imagine all that concrete, the thousands of square miles (or square kilometres as they will be by then) chewed up by bulldozers.

Imagine the unending 24-hour whoosh and grind of traffic, the bulging trains, the seething, noisy, litter-strewn parks on hot summer Sundays, the crowded schools, the endless waits at enormous polyclinics to see a doctor you’ve never met before and will never see again, who probably doesn’t have English as a first language, and the multicultural schools where half the class will always be from somewhere else. I’m quite glad to think I’ll be dead by then.

I’ve always been unmoved by arguments that immigration ‘benefits’ the country economically. Maybe it does, if you eat at restaurants rather than working in them, and then hurry away to expensive areas where no immigrants live. But for most people it’s an unmixed curse.

For the migrants themselves it is often a journey into exploitation and squalor, miserable pay and ten-to-a-room living conditions. It holds down wages and puts unwanted pressure on services, transport and housing which are already under strain.

But there’s something else about it that is profoundly, heartbreakingly sad. When so many of our fellow creatures don’t speak our language, don’t understand our laws and customs, don’t know our history, can’t read our facial expressions or work out when we’re joking, we live at a lower level than we did before.

This was summed up for me by an article in a magazine for Poles working in Britain. Please don’t take this as some kind of rant against Poles. If this country is going to be repopulated by anyone, I’d like it to be Poles, whose hard work, resilience and general civilisation can teach a lot of our own young people a useful lesson.