New Silicon Graffiti Video: ‘Starting from Zero’
Say what you will, but personally, I’d like to think the post we’re doing to commemorate the ninth anniversary of our humble little blog is –hopefully! — slightly more interesting than our very first post here.
To officially kick off another year of blogging, here’s our latest Silicon Graffiti video, the first of a two part series, in which we look at several attempts by the left to, as Tom Wolfe would say, “Start from Zero,” and hit the CTL-ALT-DLT keys on western civilization. We’ll explore:
- The rapid social and technological gains western civilization was making in the 19th century before…
- …The arrival of Marx, Nietzsche, and other nascent “progressives,” to upset mankind’s Etch-a-Sketch.
- Nietzsche’s 1882 “God is Dead” aphorism, which ol’ Friedrich definitely considered to be a two-edged sword.
- How World War I set the stage for the rest of the horrors of the 20th century, via a quote from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.
- A la Woody Allen in Annie Hall, an awards ceremony for the most bloodthirsty leftwing tyrant of the 20th century.
- How the Bauhaus and other elements of the Weimar Republic were helping Germany “Start from Zero,” even before the Nazis arrived.
- A mournful 1966 Time magazine cover echoes Nietzsche, followed by more sixties reprimitivization, Haight-Ashbury style.
A handy portable YouTube version of the above video is also available at, not surprisingly, YouTube.
And tune in next week, when we go Forward into the past, and watch the left punitively decide that if they can’t get mankind to start from zero, they can take things away for the common good, to paraphrase Hillary, and return us, piecemeal to zero.
In the meantime, click here for 60 or earlier editions of Silicon Graffiti.
And thank you for stopping by over the last nine years!
Update: Welcome readers clicking in from:
- Instapundit
- Gateway Pundit
- Glenn Beck’s The Blaze
- The Brothers Judd
- The Pajamas homepage
- The PJM Tatler
- S.T. Karnick
Cross-posted at Right Wing News, and at PJTV.
Late Update: Part II of this video is now online. Click to boldly go…“Forward, Into the Past!”
Absolutely great video!!
Throwing away tradition and substituting an ideology instead = going back to zero. What a fine insight. I never truly understood before why ideologues seem so stupid about so much.
Liked this on my Facebook page. I bet I will lose at least 10 friends over this. Whoop de whoo!
I put this on my Facebook page and expect to lose a large percentage of my FB ‘friends’ as a result. Whoo hoo!
Excellent.
Tom Wolfe’s “From Bauhaus To Our House” is one of my favorite records of the excesses and idiocies of “progressive” thought in the 20th Century. Among other things, it points out that the “functional” glass box building, with a “non-bourgeois” flat roof and no eaves, doesn’t make a lot of practical sense in areas with the typical annual precipitation (rain and snow) of, say, Berlin or New York City.
Even more amusing is Le Corbusier (Charles-Eduoard Jeanneret), whose book “The Radiant City” (“La Ville’ Radiuse’”) advocated turning Paris into miles of apartment highrises with roads running under them (Google “Voisin Plan” for a look at what he wanted to build). He even nodded to Nietzsche, in claiming that his highrises would be invulnerable to air attack- because since they were elevated on “pilings” like beach houses, the clouds of war gases (phosgene,etc.) he was expecting, which are slightly heavier than air, would stay in the low places (as seen in the trenches of WW I) and not affect the citizens basking in the glory of the sun in their clean, upper-level apartments. He considered regular HE bombs “too primitive” to be a likely future weapon; he apparently believed an enemy would want to take his “masterpiece” intact.
His reaction to the Luftwaffe’s blitz of London with plain old high explosives is not recorded. My guess is that an SC 1800 “Satan” would have done for one of his highrises with one hit. Sort of the way a single 5,000-pound “cookie” dropped from an RAF Lancaster typically demolished most of a German factory building constructed according to the Bauhaus Boys’ principles.
And yes, the results at the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 are an object lesson in the cold, hard fact that glass curtain walls on a steel skeleton, no matter how well built, just aren’t able to take as much punishment as “old-fashioned” stonework. Just like the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber that hit the 70th floor of the Empire State Building on 28 July 1945.
“Social engineering” is not a good principle for designing actual buildings. The real world is not impressed by the motivations of the architects. And the building will inevitably be “impressed” by its environment, no matter how much the results may dismay the architects.
clear ether
eon
Well, two points (among many one can make):
(i) If you wish to attack “form follows function” (the FFF school), of Mies – Gropius – Corbu, then why start there; hit’em where it hurts’em, at the beginning of this industrial revolution related “modern movement” namely “cubism” (Picasso, Brague and the rest). They’re the ones who brought insanity into the visual arts and Architecture (well Van Gogh and the rest of the impressionists were first at this “start from zero” water spring in painting, but then we go too far back). That was the point where art/architecture bifurcated from Art/Architecture.
(ii) All three of them in this FFF movement weren’t nazis, as implied by Wolf, they were commies (not that it matters much, anyhow, or that they’re that much different.)
Wolf, as many architects who venture into the rough jungle of social theory not well prepared and attired, is a crackpot, much as Ayn Rand is a dilettante in economics and politics.
Art,
I think you mean Wolfe, not Wolf. And as he notes throughout From Bauhaus to Our House, he’s very well aware that the Germans who led the Bauhaus were socialists, as was Corbusier. (See also, numerous references to “socialist worker housing pitched 20 stories high on Park Ave.”) As for art (not you Art, art in general
), he covered socialism’s role in The Painted Word, IIRC. But the reference to the Bauhaus in the new video was merely an aside; as I wanted to mention that Nazis didn’t have a lock on the concept of “Starting from Zero” in Germany.
I stand corrected on Wolfe, Ed – thank you; I’m not sure on the nazi-commie issue though, although (since Wolfe isn’t a social scientist) it isn’t clear what it is that he means by “socialist” (remember, the nazis were also “socialists” according to them.)
Indeed they were.
Art,
Your opinions above, stated confidently as facts — and based either on ignorance, false premises, and/or an inability to properly comprehend spoken and written English — would seem to indicate that you’ve ventured into the rough jungle of comment discussion ill-prepared and ill-attired. Epic multi-failure.
Among your claims? Tom “Wolf”:
. is an architect [apparently, you're ignorant of the rather famous and extraordinary historian, thinker, and author Tom Wolfe to whom Ed refers more than once];
. is a crackpot, because he dares to “venture into the rough jungle of social theory not well prepared and attired” [if that's your definition of a "crackpot", then you clearly self-identify as one; I can confidently state that Tom Wolfe has forgotten more about social theory than you'll ever know]; and
. since he isn’t a “social scientist”, it’s not clear what he means by “socialist” [gee, that pretty much makes socialism as a concept inaccessible to all the rest of us non-social-scientist-idiots; of course, I've no doubt you're a PhD in social science -- confirming your general arrogance and ignorance].
Given your self-humiliating lack of credibility then, it’s no surprise that you take a shot at and compare that crackpot Tom Wolfe to that other convenient whipping legend — “a dilettante in economics and politics” — Ayn Rand. Of course, anyone who would make such a claim has exposed himself as an ignoramus of the first order.
Beyond having created more beneficence for mankind with a mere single utterance as compared with the entirety of the contribution from your life, you might be surprised to learn that she was among the first — if not THE first — over 60 years ago (and Ed would benefit from identifying and crediting her as well):
. to expose the malevolence of these very same (and more) philosophers, beginning with Immanuel Kant (from whom all these philosophers’ ideas descended) and his irrational logical fallacy employed (what she coined “concept stealing”) of attempting to negate reason by means of reason;
. to understand that more than any other thing, it was the power of philosophy and ideas that was the root cause of human and societal condemnation to lives of either happiness or suffering — which is why she developed her own philosophy (Objectivism); and
. to, virtually alone among the American cultural icons, warn about the danger resulting from the socialism witnessed in her Russian youth by identifying the Soviet system as vicious and vile, and — as a result — alienated nearly everyone on the Left; at the same time, because of her lack of religious faith, most on the Right also gave her the back of their hands … quite similar actually to the fate of Thomas Paine after publishing “The Rights of Man”.
Your libels of Mr. Wolfe and Ms. Rand are unappreciated, will not stand unchallenged, and — in a rational world — would render you a status of “lacking in credibility of all to all” until such time that you’re able to consistently demonstrate a good faith and decent commitment to facts, reason, and rationality.
Shain,
“Ed would benefit from identifying and crediting her as well.”
I wouldn’t call myself an Objectivist, but I’ve written for the Objectivist-themed New Individualist magazine and mentioned Rand in mostly positive light throughout the entire history of this blog. It’s not a coincidence that a couple of our archive category names are titled, “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal” and “The Return of the Primitive.” For my video interview with Rand biographer Jennifer Burns, click here.
A great analysis of the philosophical lurch leftward from 1848 to 1976! Thank you, Ed.
I believe that we are now seeing an beginning of the end of Marxist economic theory, mainly in Europe but also indicated by the unions’ last gasp in Wisconsin.
It wasn’t Marx, Nietzsche and others, but instead it was Mordechai (aka “Marx” not the Groucho but the other one) and Darwin.
The evil these two brought to humanity, with the attrocities of the 20th century directly linked to their work, only an objective historian writing sometime during the next century will be able to fully articulate.
What evil did Darwin bring to humanity that puts him on par with Karl Marx?
For a possible answer to your question, check my post under thread # 8.
It was not Darwin that brought evil humanity. It was his later followers who used Darwinian evolution to justify genocide, forced sterilizations etc. Darwin simply came up with a theory to explain how species evolved. What others did was should not be blamed on Darwin.
In the Biblical story then, don’t blame the serpant, blame Eve for the Fall of Man.
You miss the irony of matching the Haight with “Is God Dead?” The whole Haight thing was an attempt to reconnect with God. How do I know? I lived there for a while and my brother lived there for a longer while.
I love PJ Media, and the thrust of your rant is right.
You ARE unfortunately confusing Marx with Nietzsche and apparently even Darwin. Bad, bad, bad.
Darwin was an English country gentleman without a revolutionary bone in his body. He belongs in the tradition of great naturalists, really nature-lovers and scholars. Darwin didn’t start out to upset Creationist biology, but was drawn to that conclusion by a vast amount of evidence. Some scientists are “revolutionary” without wanting to overthrow things. Newton, Einstein, any number of others.
Nietzsche had a time of being drawn to Wagner (who really did help to start the Nazi primitivist barbarism). Then he fell out with Wagner and became his most famous critic. Nietzsche celebrated individual genius, and therefore does not belong with any of the sociological revolutionaries like Marx, Rousseau, and Obama. He was not interested in power over other people, or mass movements, or the phony “science of history” peddled by Marx.
As you point out, Nietzsche thought the “death of God” was a great cultural disaster. He was right. He was a sincere atheist, but he did not see atheism as progress, like the idiots of the left do today.
I would give this a gentleman’s C for good intentions. Guilt by association is what the left does. It’s not what conservatives do.
Jim,
Gosh; thanks for the grade, but it’s a breezy seven minute video, not a term paper. But if someone sees it on YouTube and researches the subject further, (this might be a good place to start.) than it’s done its modest job.
I’m afraid, YOUR thinking is bad, bad, bad. I would give you a C- since you got the Marx part of it correct, but you failed the Darwin and the baffoon, errr Nietzsche, tests. But the atheist peacock isn’t worth talking about. So, let me just briefly address what you say about the taxidermist, Darwin.
The taxidermist, you know, the idiot who claimed authorship of the dictum “survival of the fittest”? The moron who set in motion the notion of “evolution by means of ‘natural selection’”? The English “gentleman” who said in the 1850s that “humans are animals,” indeed that ‘apes’ and us (the humans that is) have a common ancestor?
Well, just that you don’t go on a trip to nowhere thinking that I’m some kind of a nut who believes in a “6,000 year history of the Universe” let me say that I’m a 21st century theist (someone who tries to integrate science and religion). So, don’t go down THAT road – it’s not where I reside.
First off, the taxidermist was rather weak in logic: the motto “survival of the fittest” is so hollow that even schoolchildren no longer use it. As for the terms “natural” and “selection” unfortunately for him these terms are undefinable. Later, some neo-darwinists have added for pretentious sophistication the terms “random gene mutations” except, they neither know nor can they define what “random” is. As for his central argument (which you claim is based on a “vast amount of evidence”) the “process of speciation” in darwinian epistemology (the facts, please, just the facts) fails its own test: no concrete evidence has ever been supplied, since these key “points of split up” are nowhere to be found. We’re simply left with (like “life out there in the Universe” claims by Alien, ET and UFO aficionados) the phrase “we’re still looking for them.” There are numerous other shortcomings to darwinism, I won’t go into – not enough space.
But why do I concentrate on you missing the boat on Darwin? Because, just as Marx did, the taxidermist set humanity off (inadvertently, I’ll grant you that, contrary to the delusional Marx who had intent) towards a rotten path, which we need to retrace as soon as possible, since it leads us to a suicidal cliff.
Along with randomness (aka coincidences) add ‘unknown factors’ in the atheists’ pantheon of ‘gods’ – one finds these forces behind all ofUniverse’s processes.
How can one talk of “starting from zero” without mention of Rousseau’s Emile, written in the 18th century?
And the award for governments attempting to start from zero should be named after the French Revolution, which almost literally did start from zero with its imposition of a new calendar. (IIRC, they started with a Year One just as the conventional calendar does. But they certainly were firmly on the metaphorical start from zero track.)
Ending Feudalism was a pretty good start from Zero.
Ending Slavery was a pretty good start from Zero.
Universal Suffrage was a pretty good start from Zero.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, another good start from Zero.
Ozzy,
But those weren’t “start from zeros” — as I mentioned in the video, those were examples (with the arguable exception of universal suffrage) of the natural progress that western civilization was making all by itself, long before Marx & co showed up and mashed down on the CTL-ALT-DLT keys to create the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea and North Vietnam, etc.
I have two questions for you Ed.
1) What does the Left call the over 100 million murdered by their “Progressive” rulers during the 20th Century? Answer.
2) “Progressive” architects of Utopia make what provisions for practical jokers and misanthropes? Answer.
Thanks for filling in the details that help explain those answers. It is easier for the public to understand where the Left is going when informed where the Left has been.
Just super, Ed. You have picked up another daily visitor.
The ChiComs had more people available to be killed. Many of their murders were also indirect through famine, but they’re just as dead, right?
North Korea or North Vietnam probably wins for murder relative to the available population.
Nice presentation. Excellent thesis. If you look at graphs from 1900 to 2000. You see after 75, wages in the middle class started its long slide into Tax slavery. Tax payers have never caught up but have steadily lost income from families to single earners to engorged Government spending.
Notice the Space Program went into decline. The consumer society was born with shoddily made junk.
Remember at one time Fathers would hand down watches to Sons. As our craftsmanship deteriorates, so to science. Even getting into the sciences is now been scorned in certain places. Besides you don’t make the big bucks. Along with mass migrations, Islamist incursions, Deceit from Government on a massive scale. Immorality & a lack of the sacred for life. Denotes the degeneration of this Civilization into a downward darkness.
JMO
JMO
Mr. Driskoll, The video was interesting and thought provoking. You sketched in a wide landscape in a remarkably brief period of time. The comments are interesting as well. I particularly enjoyed the linking of Marx and Nietzsche, both excellent examples of how wrong brilliantly gifted people can be, and how much harm they can do. I also enjoyed the implication of the subtle & inescapable influence of the fine arts in society.
FAA