And whigs being the ultimate in haute, not petit bourgeoise. Tell us then Bob what is, as opposed to what ain't. Engage us all in the Secret Histories. And make sure that the rise of the mercantile class is centripetal to every argument you make--but whatever you tell us, please make sure:
a) you do it in that pseudo-Spenglerian blather where History 210 meets Robert Crumb chanelling Jack Kerouac.
b) dere are plentee ov funetik spel-ingz. They are so goddamned cute. Xtra poyntz for kyute. (I am particualrly fond of "an all dat" it adds such weight to anything u-rite. We won't even get into "boojwa".)
c) Intersperse these (dese?) with large coathooks of logarrhean grace (i.e. heteronomies, cathectic, etc.)
Finally a challenge for you. Just for fun, Bob. See if you can tapdance through an entire versified missive without once using the term bourgeois, "Boojwa" (god help me however much I love that spelling) or burgher. Or burgess. Or burger. No burgs. No town-dwellers. None. I know you can do it.
Extra Credit: Run it down another thread and perhaps use Templars or Illuminati or Freemasons.
Only Semi-Illuminatedly Yours,
(Since you only tell me what ain't)
> Ridiculus as it seems, a whole lotta people
> really do buy into the official (parson weems)
> version of WW2,... a simple Good vs Evil proposition.
> When even the slightest critical intelligence
> can infallibly see it for a class war.
> Allies v Axis is bourgeois v prole.
> And, an internecine, stalinist v nazi, prole v prole.
> The Allies' opportunistic strategy of exploiting
> this latter...hoping for a napoleon-ish outcome,
> of course, succeeded; and, they got to
> put the proles back in their place...etc;
> but, quite notable in this regard,
> that's to say confirmatory of the class analysis,
> is how all the official versions of this titanic drama,
> cast the respective characters.
> Hitler is always the failed art student,
> Stalin, the failed seminarian,
> Mussolini... the bombastic charlatan,
> (and, o'course our ep would also fit here);
> all, of course, certified psychopaths
> ...and their putative sociopathology
> arising thence from their resentment at failure to achieve
> membership in the petit bourgeoisie.
> While, on the other hand,
> Churchill is the last and most quintessential whig, and
> Roosevelt, the perpetually benign patrician,
> ...their class brilliance easily eclipsing all their grotesquery.
> Childish as this propaganda construct may seem,
> still 50 yrs hence it thoroughly occludes
> any kinda depth consideration of the serious culture
> of that time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcockram <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Bourgeois Fascism
> >Leon Surette wrote:
> >> Everything I have read about Fascism
> >> and Nazism identifies both movements as entirely bourgeois--petit
> >> to be sure, but certainly bourgeois.
> >> The anti-bourgeois movement of the thirties was Communism or
> >I tend to think both Communism and Fascism were anti-bourgeois, at least in
> >theory -- that is, they opposed middle class liberal individualism. Both
> >championed the agricultural and artisanal classes and claimed to be
> >though they were also elitist. The Fascists considered themselves the only
> >rational choice between the two extremes of Communism and Capitalism, but
> >inevitably had things in common with both.
> >best, Patricia