The Quietus - A new rock music and pop culture website

Black Sky Thinking

Nazi Rhetoric & The Dangerous Power Of The Waning Sun
Joe Kennedy , April 23rd, 2015 12:14

Battered by Leveson and out of place in a swiftly-changing era of British politics, The Sun is arguably a lesser force than once it was. Yet, argues Joe Kennedy, Katie Hopkins' reprehensible comments on immigration and the complicity of newspaper staff who employ her suggest that as it declines the tabloid is lashing out with increasingly dangerous views

Add your comment »

The story of your common-or-garden Everytroll, that species of establishment-appointed wo/man of the nebulously-defined people - your Katie Hopkins, Rod Liddles, your Jeremy Clarksons - is of a series of line-crossings. They say or do something outrageous, liberals point out that they've crossed a line, then they reap the spoils of transgression by presenting the affair as one in which they've dared to bump chests with 'oppressive' 'socialist' 'politically-correct' 'orthodoxy'. They need, in other words, to cross the line in order to spark a discussion about why the line shouldn't be there in the first place; they come, as I've argued before, to look like partisans of anti-establishment chutzpah. This is the result of a series of complex ideological shifts that have occurred since World War Two, but probably – and you may as well start yelling 'Godwin's Law' now - inspired by events in Germany leading up to it, by which the powerful stay powerful by pretending that they, along with their 'people', are in actuality the victims of power.

So far, then, so familiar, so depressing. We might say that Katie Hopkins is but one of a kind. However, her latest…well, what is the word for it? It's not a 'gaffe'. It's not a 'slip of the tongue': the incident in question concerns the written word. And it most certainly can't be classified as a 'mistake' or an 'error'. Hopkins' Sun column on Friday just gone, in which she announced that she believed 'gunships' should be used to prevent migrants crossing the Mediterranean to seek asylum in the European Union, has invited – rightly – opprobrium on a different scale to her previous outbursts. Her 'practical' suggestion, a typically Hopkinsian mash-up of bullying and poppy-kissing military fetishising, was crass, but it wasn't the real point. That was when she wrote 'Make no mistake: these migrants are like cockroaches'. Invoke Godwins Law all you like, but there's only one word for rhetoric like that.

The fact that saying that migrants are 'like cockroaches' has a clear precedent that, even if unbeknown to Hopkins, must have been familiar to someone: Hopkins' day-to-day commissioning editor, the immediate editor of the piece, the newspaper's editor David Dinsmore, or Cambridge-educated Managing Editor Stig Abell. The straightforward comparison of large groups of people to pestilent species: well, that's Nazi, that. QED underlined, no discussion, and someone involved with the publication of the article must have at least twigged the heritage of the rhetoric. The fact that the Society for Black Lawyers' complaint to the police – a complaint which currently hangs in the balance – not only asked Hopkins to be investigated, but Dinsmore as well, should be an adequate reminder that nothing that appears in a newspaper can be accredited to the agency of a lone individual. Articles and features are commissioned: whoever has the power to commission is trusted to act with the blessing of the editor, the managing editor and, ultimately, the owner. After they are submitted, they are edited by at least one person, who must decide not only whether they match a general editorial line but whether or not they break laws. The job of any editor on a national newspaper is not simply – and sometimes, you suspect, not ever – to correct errors of linguistic usage.

The paper seem at present to be refusing to heed calls to sack Hopkins or even to remove her piece from the digital edition. In its own way, this is a tacit admission of collectively responsibility. But what needs to happen here is an examination of the structure of that responsibility. Petitions demanding Hopkins' sacking and even, at a push, demands that she be prosecuted, can easily allow the whole event to be framed as – and here's that word again – an 'error', a terrible contingency of human fallibility which someone, somewhere, can apologise for. Isn't this always what happens, though? Someone expresses contrition for the act, performs public penance for their fuck-up, and it's business as usual.

This time it needs to be different. The Sun needs to be forced not only to accept specious responsibility, but it needs to be shown that, in a very real sense, it owns its own words. That ownership is twofold. First of all, it owns them as actions with a tangible material effect. In this case, the material effect of vehement anti-immigration rhetoric has been made unspeakably, tragically clear, with the death of as many as 900 migrants – a death toll approaching that of the Lusitania, one of the most famous disasters in maritime history, but which will receive precisely none percent of the commemoration – attempting to cross the Mediterranean at the weekend. The cancellation of Mare Nostrum, the joint EU operation to carry out search-and-rescue on migrant routes, owes much to ideas propagated by those like Hopkins. The second sense of 'owning' here is to think about precisely why the establishment, which The Sun, for all of its commonsensical white van bluster, represents, has something to gain from hiring shock troops like Hopkins.

Diktats from the editors-in-chief are beyond interrogation unless you have a moment of cinematic moral clarity to match Richard Peppiatt's dramatic departure from the Star in 2011. At a newspaper like The Sun, those diktats tend to tie very closely to the interests of big – really, really big – business, which is the world's number one string puller but still remembers to keep sweet with older forms of political power. The Sun makes no bones of the fact that it can make or break governments; that it plays, in a way which is barely metaphorical, the role of kingmaker.

However, at the present moment in time, The Sun and its parent company News Corp are running scared. Leveson was a smack in the teeth for the paper which made it less tenable for government to be seen bending to its will. Now, as Oliver Huitson pointed out eloquently in Vice this week, the fragmentation of the two-party, first past the post system in the UK threatens to take away another substantial slice of its influence. These are politically interesting times and are producing a form of desperate extremism which is serving as a pole of attraction for the supposedly democratic media and liberal Conservative Party.

The function of outrageousness in the Comment section is to effect a shifting of the whole territory of politics to the right, meaning that what once looked reactionary can now serve itself up as the 'reasonable' middle ground, the space of the 'realistic'. By giving public succour to voices like Hopkins', it consumes the energies of the left, who must fight battles not only against a grossly unjust economic system but also against undiluted racism and xenophobia. Appeals to the legal and political establishment to reprimand or punish the voices of extremism can achieve only pyrrhic victories because they are appeals precisely to those who ultimately benefit from extremism. In a way, this is comparable to what Naomi Klein discusses in The Shock Doctrine: neoliberalism benefits from crises because it wanders in after them and sets up its own infrastructure with a blank political slate. This, by comparison, is the linguistic and rhetorical shock doctrine, by which supposed 'loose cannons' make deeply provocative statements, cause a screaming match and allow the nominal 'centrists' to come along and 'make peace'.

Of course, the danger with shock therapy – beyond the fact that what it leads to normally is in itself dangerous – is that it can't dependably control the forces on which it relied. There's an endless slew of programmes on television which tell us about how bad the Nazis were in terms of the absolutely despicable things they did. These programmes are meant to serve as a warning that such a cataclysm 'must never happen again'. But the warning is very abstract – the documentaries tend to avoid telling us what we can (and should or shouldn't) do to prevent a repeat of 1933-1945. National Socialism tends to be portrayed as an aberration of humanity, something which came into being almost ex nihilo. The most complex and open explanations tends to come down to the unfair terms of the post-World War One settlement, to an admission that Britain and France were 'harsh'. Other 'warnings' suggests that we should not 'simply stand back and watch', which is music to the ears of interventionists in the Blair – Bush mould.

Yet the real 'warning from history' is that the Nazis also started out as a bunch of cranks operating on the fringes of mainstream politics. Their racial theories and militant anti-communism, however, were extremely useful to a middle class (and to middle-class political parties) who felt threatened by the redistributive promise of socialism. Conservatives subtly prompted the Nazis, believing that it would expand the field of the political 'conversation' and allow the traditional parties a mediating role: it was an attempt to hang onto class power. However, amidst the rising chaos in the aftermath of the Great Depression, voters from the established conservative parties started to listen to the voices of the 'cranks', and voted for them in substantial numbers. What happened next needs little illustration, but we must remember – we must be warned – that a central component of the ideological game-playing which occurred involved the German media opening itself up to brutally anti-semitic, anti-Slav and anti-communist rhetoric.

This is not about sacking Katie Hopkins, or anybody else. It is about the political and economic entities which simultaneously permit and benefit from the increasingly vicious rhetoric of right-wing opinioneering. We need to stop behaving as if this is a battle between lone-wolf transgressors and some abstract notion of decency: we need to start asking why these voices are being given such a platform when there are a number of editorial failsafes which should prevent these so-called 'mistakes'. Sign the petition all you want, but it would appear to be rather a convoluted route making any form of true difference.

Anderson
Apr 23, 2015 1:15pm

From an ethical and moralistic standpoint that's an entirely true (and saddening) indictment of the depths to which mainstream "journalism" has sunk in these times. However, for me this is merely the effect. The cause lies somewhere else, the internet. With hard copy sales dying & online news rapidly overtaking as the premier income source for newspapers a new method of product assessment has arisen, the click count. And the kind of dim bile that Hopkins eschews garners hundreds of thousands more clicks than a piece on Syrian atrocities or drowned immigrants. For as long as the masses continue to click that link the harder the Littlejohns & Moirs will try to offend; with absolute encouragement and reward from their employers. George Orwell warned of this demise in 1928 in one of his earlier essays.

https://inappropriateplank.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/george-orwell-how-much-does-free-news-really-cost/

I don't know what the answer to this grotesque ethical quandary is, but for as long as news is "free" someone will have to pay for it. And it's who that someone is that worries me most.

Reply to this Admin

Post-Punk Monk
Apr 23, 2015 3:57pm

This is business as usual for The Owners, who developed the theory that is being enacted here; that of The Overton Window, which gets moved rightward thanks to antics like these in the "public media" by bleached blonde tools like Ms. Hopkins, or America's own favorite shrill, right-wing "journalist," Ann Coulter.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Overton_Window

Reply to this Admin


Apr 24, 2015 12:44am

Photo caption question: And his cock was HOW big?

Reply to this Admin

Floyd
Apr 24, 2015 3:44am

The simple fact is that Katie Hopkins is a smart human being, and a more satirical one than Stuart Lee or Jeremy Clarkson. The things she has said are beyond virtiol or contempt. No one can seriously give credence to her vocal vitriol. But she - like the best satirists - has drawn attention to a major issue which has been going on for many, many decades. Suddenly the fate of thousands of immigrants is front page news, and it's entirely due to Hopkins' outburst. Pour your hate on her, but she's basically the closest we'll get to Johnny Rotten right now.

Reply to this Admin

Tristan Bath
Apr 24, 2015 8:05am

In reply to Floyd:

....I smell the enemy in our midst

Reply to this Admin

Dante
Apr 24, 2015 10:12am

Why not just stick to music?
This just doesn't seem like the platform to be discussing what is actually a really complex issue.

Firstly prosecuting somone for what they have written sets a dagerous precedent, more importantly it is very hard to prove someone can ever "own" what they have written, see Roland Barthes etc. for further discussion. Keith Richards is often compared to a cockroach.....Are these music journalists hiding a right wing agenda by that comparison?

Secondly there seems to be a real confusion regarding the rise of the Nazis and facism. Both were based not on politics but manipulation of circumstances, a lot of what the Nazis and fascism promised did in fact promise to re-distribute wealth. The party came to power the same as Mussolini by promising everything and anything to everyone. This came at a time when democracy was in its infancy and most of Europe were still shell shocked by the First World War. Yes they they possesed a fierce anti-communist/socialist rhetoric but let's remember that most of these parties were borne out of weakening communist parties.

Anways I'm rambling and again not sure this is the place to have a discussion about this.

Pro-immigration and anti-immigration camps are so polarised by the issue that I feel we have failed to ever really discuss it (that is how to deal with an influx of people interms of healthcare,housing and general welfare, let's not forget most immigrnats end up working but working for exploitative emlpoyers) without the debate turning into a outrageous comparisons, insults and muck slinging. It is a huge issue and one that is rapidly dividing and transforming this country and I can't help but feel this article is part of the problem rather than the solution.

MW

Reply to this Admin

Joe K
Apr 24, 2015 11:11am

In reply to Dante :

I don't want to get into a BTL battle today, but I'm going to pick you up on that Barthes reference - disavowing responsibility or ethical/ political agency isn't really what Barthes was getting at in 'The Death of the Author' or elsewhere. Too many people read it this way round, IMO, when one Barthes was saying was actually that the subject of moral agency - the subject of post-Enlightenment humanism - was itself 'split' by its multiple textual exposures; that is, that the subject could be mobilised by wider structural forces. What I'm trying to say here is that it is those structural forces - hiding behind the name 'The Sun' - which Hopkins' words need to be attributed to. To say 'you can't attribute anything because words can mean whatever and therefore none should ever be called to account' is the Paul de Man defence, and it doesn't work. Calling Hopkins or The Sun to account for their words *potentially* prompts the discussion about how they are ciphers of wider structural forces. I agree that in reality a court might go for the face-saving approach and say 'naughty Katie' or 'naughty Sun', though. And that, once again, is ideology.

That account of Nazism is very limited. The Nazis did pull some people on board by banging on about 'international finance' (and we know what they meant by that) but the Night of the Long Knives, the ridding of the party of Rohm and his people, was something they had to do to prove to business that they were ridding themselves of 'socialist' influences. Not that Rohm actually was a socialist.

Finally, as to 'why not stick to music'? Well, tell me where the end of music is. There's obviously an intersection between music and politics even in the most vulgar account of the 'political'. Would Clapton's pro-Powell rant have mattered if he was just a drunk in a pub? No, it mattered because he had a platform. He did it on stage, between songs - was that music? Was that politics? This is only my reasoning - it's up to John & Luke at the end of the day - but this is, to my eyes, a 'culture' website with the emphasis on music, and all the better for its willingness to engage properly with wider issues, thus demonstrating that music doesn't exist in a bubble.

Oh, and music journalists calling Keith Richards a 'cockroach', while not being particularly polite, is *radically* different to what we're discussing here, but I think you actually know that already.

Reply to this Admin

Rob Cryer
Apr 24, 2015 11:34am

The term cockroach is not only redolent of Nazism, it was the term used by the genocidal Hutu regime in Rwanda to describe the Tutsis before and during the genocide in 1994, which makes its use even more foul.

Reply to this Admin

Sean Doyle
Apr 24, 2015 6:07pm

She's a cunt

Sun readers are cunts

JFT96

Reply to this Admin

Stuart
Apr 24, 2015 11:37pm

I feel any article involving comment and pictures of that horrible witch has become as much of a red flag to my moral sensitivities as the previously high prevalence of regurgitated news articles featuring Jimmy Saville's portrait.
Utter revulsion but also huge distaste that she is given space at all. She is a joy-less, dead-hearted vortex of bile.

Reply to this Admin

Joe Bravo
Apr 25, 2015 12:54am

Articles like this, however well intentioned, are ultimately increasing the impact and profile of both Hopkins and the s*n newspaper. Stop writing about her, stop plastering her face all over the web. She'll disappear eventually.

Reply to this Admin

Steve c
Apr 25, 2015 5:01am

In reply to Sean Doyle :

I see what you did there: not big, not clever. Possibly funny

Reply to this Admin

Steve c
Apr 25, 2015 5:15am

In reply to Joe Bravo:

True but can we in good conscience let it go? I know that what arseholes like Clarkson, Hopkin, Liddle etc want is for someone to bite but these idiotic poisonous notions can't go unchallenged. I doubt that Hopkins seriously believes what she says but her words reinforce and inform the views of thousands who do. The Tory's argued that funding rescue operations in the med. would only 'encourage' refugees as if all they want is a go in a lifeboat. UKIP are on about 'clawing back' foreign aid: both positions are merely the 'diplomatic' political wing of the same extreme right wing agenda. You can't fight the Tories, UKIP the BNP etc and allow the right wing press to spout racist bile unchallenged: they are all in this together. I don't think banning their words is an answer however: they'd fucking love it (wait for the Nazi references if that happened!) but they need taking on loudly and aggressively.

Reply to this Admin

Alex Williams
Apr 25, 2015 1:34pm

In reply to Tristan Bath:

With a name like Tristan you've been the enemy in our midst since the Norman invasion...a class of people that have sold us out at every turn. Cultural Marxists that would have us all in serfdom while you pigs sit at the big table having taken over the farm at the cost of our blood, sweat and freedom.

Reply to this Admin

tom
Apr 25, 2015 6:18pm

In reply to Floyd:

I think you're giving her more credit than she deserves . All she has to offer is offensive opinions , otherwise no one remembers who she is ( I wish ).The Sun is far more culpable .

Reply to this Admin

Craig O' Neill
Apr 25, 2015 10:37pm

In terms of the site's positioning as music/culture. No-one is commenting on the reviews, and haven't been in ages. There used to be reviews on artists which could have been described as a little more mainstream, but there seems to have been a very decisive turn away from this in the last year or two. The writing is gone way too high-brow for us common folk also. It's good to see your putting so much effort into the articles, but I don't see why you review Taylor Swift one week, have a big write-up about cultural appropriation with Blur the next and then quietly go back to the slew of artists no-one knows about. Clearly you're not above engaging with popular culture when it suits you, but this site is becoming irrelevant by a refusal to review anything but click-bait trash or obscure albums you probably can't even buy if you want to. As of today on the main page the only review with a chance of generating any kind of discussion is the Blur review. If the artists/bands chosen themselves aren't the reason for the lack of interest, maybe it's the writing style that isn't connecting. There is a distinct lack of fun in this cultural space. Has been for a while now. The articles and artists reviewed are too niche for you to be pulling out pieces like this and the Blur article (which are at least currently relevant) every now and then just because you're low on traffic. For the rest of the week nine times out of ten this place is a fuqn bore.

Reply to this Admin

Fielding Melish
Apr 26, 2015 12:39am

In reply to Floyd:

In the US, I've heard Rush Limbaugh's most ardent defenders describe his hate mongering as 'satire', as well. Nobody with a mind seems to actually believe it, though.

Reply to this Admin

Owl Garcia
Apr 26, 2015 12:44am

The NME is readily available to read as we speak. Probably a lot of 'fun' to be had

Reply to this Admin

Craig O' Neill
Apr 26, 2015 1:52am

In reply to Owl Garcia:

Sorry. I didn't realise you were such a fan of The Inward Circles and their seminal work "Belated Movements For An Unsanctioned Exhumation August 1st 1984". I do try to keep up with these bands, whose presence is so ubiquitous there are actually two videos on youtube to savour, with a total of something like 700 views. It's no wonder good people like your good self are flooding the comments section of such reviews with enthusiasm. Truly there is no band who deserves it more. But honestly, I have better stuff to listen to like y'know,a band who has songs -which I can listen to. Oh well, there's always Pitchfork.

Reply to this Admin

Rory Gibb
Apr 26, 2015 6:11pm

Totally off-point from the article so apologies to the interesting discussion crew above.

But @ Craig, I'd be intrigued to know what artists you'd like to see covered on this site that fall in the acceptable middle region of your classification continuum of clickbait trash and obscure artbollocks, as I'm sure would the tQ editors. As it stands, Brian Jonestown / Popol Vuh / Richard Skelton / Liturgy seems a pretty fine and varied selection of artists who are reasonably well-known and highly respected across a range of fields. I'd also dispute that this article represents something pulled out of the bag to boost traffic, as opposed to a timely response to an interesting (depressing) cultural/political situation - one imagines that if it was possible to publish stuff that attracts this much interest every day, that would be the ideal.

Anyway, I found this piece very interesting and insightful as ever Joe, thanks.

Reply to this Admin

Joe K
Apr 26, 2015 7:57pm

In reply to Rory Gibb:

Cheers Rory, kind of you to say so. Craig - I can hand on heart say I wouldn't have written this article if I didn't think what I was saying needed to be said. If you disagree, then fair enough, but I've no intention to write clickbait, and no pressing financial need to either (this isn't my day job).
I've always thought tQ's catholic taste when it came to reviewing was one of its great strengths. Plenty of what's written about here is well-known.

Reply to this Admin

A Troll
Apr 26, 2015 9:26pm

In reply to Rory Gibb:

I've never heard of Richard Skelton or Liturgy.

Reply to this Admin

Frank Roid-Lite
Apr 27, 2015 12:10am

"Suddenly he began writing in sheer panic, only imperfectly aware of what he was setting down. His small but childish handwriting straggled up and down the page, shedding first its capital letters and finally even its full stops:

April 4th, 1984. Last night to the flicks. All war films. One very good one of a ship full of refugees being bombed somewhere in the Mediterranean. Audience much amused by shots of a great huge fat man trying to swim away with a helicopter after him, first you saw him wallowing along in the water like a porpoise, then you saw him through the helicopters gunsights, then he was full of holes and the sea round him turned pink and he sank as suddenly as though the holes had let in the water, audience shouting with laughter when he sank. then you saw a lifeboat full of children with a helicopter hovering over it. there was a middle-aged woman might have been a jewess sitting up in the bow with a little boy about three years old in her arms. little boy screaming with fright and hiding his head between her breasts as if he was trying to burrow right into her and the woman putting her arms round him and comforting him although she was blue with fright herself, all the time covering him up as much as possible as if she thought her arms could keep the bullets off him. then the helicopter planted a 20 kilo bomb in among them terrific flash and the boat went all to matchwood. then there was a wonderful shot of a child's arm going up up up right up into the air a helicopter with a camera in its nose must have followed it up and there was a lot of applause from the party seats but a woman down in the prole part of the house suddenly started kicking up a fuss and shouting they didnt oughter of showed it not in front of kids they didnt it aint right not in front of kids it aint until the police turned her turned her out i dont suppose anything happened to her nobody cares what the proles say typical prole reaction they never —

Winston stopped writing...."

Reply to this Admin

Frank Roid-Lite
Apr 27, 2015 12:15am

Read the whole thing

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_p_1

Reply to this Admin

Kurt Ruytscheermer
Apr 27, 2015 12:05pm

This is how Murdoch establishes a healthy working relationship with his minions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YSNkdNmxEc

Reply to this Admin

Mr Siler
Apr 30, 2015 12:36pm

Joe, this is a really good, well written piece. One thing I would like your opinion on, is how this view ties in with freedom of speech. At what point do we have to withdraw freedom of speech when the 'speech' becomes too harmful? Or should we view it as an absolute, with actions only taken subsequently?

Reply to this Admin

Ron Atkinson
May 1, 2015 12:54pm

In reply to Alex Williams:

With a name like Alexander you've been an enemy in our midst since the rise of Macedonia. Everyone knows this land belongs to the Iceni, Trinovante and a score of other good honest tribes. We don't need the likes of the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans or any other bunch of sheep stealing foreigners bringing their weird food and gods here.

Reply to this Admin


May 1, 2015 6:29pm

In reply to Rory Gibb:

I doubt the editors would, but since you ask: The new Villagers album, The new Drake album, Mac De Marco Salad Days, Steven Wilson Hand Cannot Erase, Death Cab For Cutie's latest, Colleen Green's I want to Grow Up, a review of Frank Ocean's album Channel Orange which is more thought provoking than the uninspiring track-by-track review which is a missed opportunity. Any Real Estate album ever. How about Hozier's album?

Guess all of these are too mainstream. The ONE thing you can count on with this site, is that whatever piece of half-baked crap Damon Alburn decides to get up and record it will be reviewed by the Quietus.

Aside from that, I have a lecturer who records music which could be described as post-modern, who has about 100 followers on Soundcloud so far, I reckon I will be seeing his latest pondered over by the Quietus before any of the above get looked at.

These are some reviews I personally would have liked to see. Do I expect everything to get a review? Nope. But more and more there are these long stretches where obscrurities by "various artists" are getting dense poetic write-ups and I'm sorry, but it's like: 0 comments for every one of them. So I get it, the Quietus wants to write about artists that interests the writers, off-the beaten track, not whatever the flavour of the week is. imagine the surprise then, when a wild Taylor Swift review appears.

Let's just say you actually like Taylor Swift and you read that review. You might be expected to say to yourself, "wow... great review, I wonder what they have to say about other artists I might like such as Pink or Katy Perry", I can't help laughing when I think of them scrolling through the pages with a confused expression on their face. What could be a nice contrast is more and more beginning to feel like dissonance.

Is this off-topic? Yeah I guess. But look at the comment asking for a focus more on music. The only writing that seems to have any impact is the opinion pieces, which despite my describing them as click-bait, in truth are generally very well written and thought-provoking. But they are more relative to things which are common knowledge. Yet, interpersed among articles like this one you will find "A Pressing Business: tQ Goes Inside A Czech Vinyl Plant". This is fine. It's well-written. But imagine if almost every opinion piece was as niche as that? Such is the state of the reviews in my proletarian opinion. And as a long-time lurker I have a gut feeling it wasn't always that way. Don;t knwo if I'm changing or the Quietus is, but good luck. I'm pretty much done.

Reply to this Admin

Firefox Tabb
May 2, 2015 12:29am

In reply to :

What an excellent journal covering a multiplicity of non-mainstream music. Such attention to the less edible fauna of the artistic ecosystem acts as a bulwark against succumbing to musical monoculture and the tyranny of the majority.
Our monoculture food system keeps the masses happy with endless servings of high fructose corn syrup and salt - popular, easy to digest, readily available, forcefully marketed. Naturally this is followed by an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and tooth decay.
So it is with music. We need some maca and hemp seed along with our burger and cornflakes. We need some Katie Gately and Sunn O)))) along with our Blur and Oasis.
The Quietus is like the botanist searching the Amazon for that obscure yet important plant, the one with the cure for your ills, or the fortifying nutrients. We need people who will walk away from base camp and out into the jungle. We need people who will taste a berry that they've never seen before, not knowing if it is poison or delicacy. We need roughage and bitterness and unfamiliar tastes.

Reply to this Admin

Trevor Loughlin
May 16, 2015 10:18am

On the whole I have utter contempt for the Citizen Murdoch and the Tory press. They have declared war on the poor. But do we really want to be overwhelmed by people with a political creed worse than soviet communism and German national socialism combined, namely islamic fundamentalism? The honour murder system is dysgenic and difficult questions have to be asked about the wisdom of further mass immigration.

Reply to this Admin

Stuart
May 26, 2015 5:13pm

Absolute coward who never has a go at anyone with any REAL power. Has she uttered ONE word about the Westminster nonce cover up?? As for 'Nazi' this bitch is firmly pro Israell like a lot of right wing filth nowadays.

Reply to this Admin

newton
Dec 26, 2015 5:08am

how do you square this with murdoch owning 5% of vice and indrectly tq's relationship with vice? the political and economic entities appear to be playing both sides, why let them?

Reply to this Admin