“Cultural appropriation”: authoritarianism leavened by philistinism

Well put by George Will in The Washington Post (I’ve said as much in a forthcoming review article (extracts #1 and #2) and earlier (extract #3)) — see also Daryl Hall’s thoughts on the matter. The logic of this reactionary fundamentalism would mean that the biggest and most effective cultural magpie of them all — David Bowie — would have to be dismissed. These fuckwit cultural marxists are so arrogant and crudely rationalistic that they cannot even conceive that culture, by definition, is a star example of spontaneous order, something fortunately well beyond their vain controlling impulses.

  1. The palpable sense of cultural vibrancy and of place, so essential to New Orleans’ identity, makes an absolute nonsense of the currently fashionable term “cultural appropriation”, a conceptually illiterate term of abuse, a newfangled fundamentalism, espoused by the authoritarian “regressive” left. New Orleans as a culturally emergent phenomenon par excellence, is continental America’s most original contribution to world culture and for that we should be grateful. One cannot even begin to conceive how impoverished our lives would be without the emergence of gospel-, blues-, and jazz- music and the several permutations thereof.
  2. The spontaneous and distributed nature of culture—the sine qua non of a vital culture necessarily downstream from politics, a temperamental affront to rationalism’s inherent attachment to power for power’s sake (the “regressive” left’s cultural Marxism)— points to the eternal value and significance of New Orleans.
  3. Isn’t it remarkable that a major driver of social liberalism and the attendant sexual revolution was popular music (jazz, blues, country and western, folk, rockabilly, rock and roll, boogie-woogie and even gospel) — yet these dissident and radical artistic pioneers would be deemed to fall squarely into the “basket of deplorables”.