Cainus Maxus writes at Alternative Right:
Today’s Art world is so far gone, so lacking in any substance, even anything naive and amusingly humanistic, that it befuddles any average person with a working sense of reality. The irony of all this is that Art is dominated by the Far Left, and the Far Left claim to idolize the working man – at least around outsiders. Instead they succeed only in alienating him, and this is no surprise because artists don’t really care about average people – but like everything else in society, they must adopt the veneer of militant humanism.
Ludicrously priced junk goes for obscene amounts, and the average working man shakes his head because he feels he’s being fooled. While he bleeds from his hands, hammering in steel at the job site, or biting his lip when his boss is verbally reaming him, he wonders how those pampered artists, with their 10 dollar soy mocha lattes are enjoying the day duct-taping a blow up doll to a chair and dumping paint on it as an expression of “feminine rage” against the always present “patriarchy.”
The politics of the art world claim to have the common man’s best interests at heart – always vying for socialism, for the working class, “Equality,” “Freedom” – but he knows they don’t really care. Only elite, white bourgeois liberals – the main group of people from which artists come – ever believe this, and then only half-heartedly.
It is a tired refrain that is spoken in a droll hum within the Church of Liberalism, so as to not offend the God of Equality. Artists have always loved the extreme left in the modern era, which is amusing because old fashioned Marxists most likely would have summarily executed these poor misguided souls. Stalin himself endorsed a rather conservative view of many things in society, particularly aesthetics. Reports say that when movies were screened to him, he would become enraged at nudity in them, informing his host that “This is not a brothel!” Old school Marxists viewed white bourgeois liberals with undying contempt, viewing them as ineffectual intellectuals who could not pursue real change. Their flirtation with the real left made of workers was pure masturbation. Much like the radical traditionalist views the conservative, so the working class Marxist viewed the bourgeois liberal.
It is art-chic to drum up Marxist references, especially to economics, but artists of today have nothing in common with the original working class Marxists. Their connection to Marxism is a superficial one, because In reality, artists hate common people. The tendency to support the working class would seem odd… until the fact is revealed that most artists are also poor and do not work real jobs is discovered. Unwilling to get day jobs much of the time, artists survive on government money to finance their endeavors whenever they are not attempting to just hustle people (we commonly hustle people- believe me, it’s how we survive).
The artist goes on about “the rich” and “corporations,” but not because they hate the rich but because they envy them. Unlike traditionalists, who see the erosion of culture via globalism, they endorse a weltenshaaung of envy and spite. In essence, it is Nietzsche’s slave morality, in which the slave envies the master, not the master who wishes that real authority ruled in the land.
Their disdain for the capitalists is not our disdain – not the Traditionalist’s disdain for degeneracy, it is not even the Paleomarxist’s disdain for degradation of the worker’s condition of subjugation, it is a state of envy – because rarely do we hear of artists turning down money of any kind, and when they get rich like Damien Hirst, do we see him helping his fellow poor countrymen? No, he builds a statue out of diamonds.
It is as Oswald Spengler remarked: “Communism is the capitalism of the lower classes.” The rage at the rich comes from bourgeois aspirations of wanting success in the first place, not of despising a culture of vacuous nothingness. It is the same as a woman who says she hates her husband, but goes home to him when he speaks nice words to her. No artist turns down money and fame, and if they do, it is not en masse, it is isolated.