Comments on: FOR THE UNCON­DITIONAL DEFENSE OF PARIS HILTON AGAINST ANTI­SEMITIC WITCH­HUNTS http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/ Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:01:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: worsement (JR) http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-53968 worsement (JR) Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:16:22 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-53968 "on any reasonably calibrated ethical scale, Paris Hilton is obviously superior to, say, Bill Gates or George Soros." <a href="http://t.co/sLMIBg6x">http://t.co/sLMIBg6x</a> <a class="twitter-link" href="http://twitter.com/worsement/statuses/134061731889688576">Content from Twitter</a> “on any reasonably calibrated ethical scale, Paris Hilton is obviously superior to, say, Bill Gates or George Soros.” http://t.co/sLMIBg6x

]]> By: Paris Hilton con­sid­ered as a regime of ac­cu­mu­la­tion › Voyou Desoeuvre http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-49424 Paris Hilton con­sid­ered as a regime of ac­cu­mu­la­tion › Voyou Desoeuvre Fri, 06 May 2011 07:07:17 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-49424 [...] also unites us all with Paris Hilton. I’ve previously praised her for her antipathy to productive – and hence capitalistic and exploitati..., but, while I think the criticism of productivism still stands, I’m less convinced of its [...] [...] also unites us all with Paris Hilton. I’ve previously praised her for her antipathy to productive – and hence capitalistic and exploitati…, but, while I think the criticism of productivism still stands, I’m less convinced of its [...]

]]> By: robcypher.livejournal.com/ http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-37532 robcypher.livejournal.com/ Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:44:40 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-37532 Just eat them all. That's all you have to do. Eat them all. No muss, no fuss. That's how we do it in Pittsburgh. Just eat them all. That’s all you have to do. Eat them all. No muss, no fuss. That’s how we do it in Pittsburgh.

]]> By: K http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-23293 K Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:13:29 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-23293 Didn't Marx write that greed was a natural in a society where there was an inequitable distribution of wealth? I don't see how hating Paris Hilton's father is anything other than a pathetic resignation of any impulse of positive social change. Didn’t Marx write that greed was a natural in a society where there was an inequitable distribution of wealth? I don’t see how hating Paris Hilton’s father is anything other than a pathetic resignation of any impulse of positive social change.

]]> By: dave http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7812 dave Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:03:59 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7812 The Hiltons are Jewish? That's news to me. The Hiltons are Jewish? That’s news to me.

]]> By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7773 voyou Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:30:00 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7773 I'm sorry if you think I was implying that people who criticize Paris Hilton are anti-semites. I'd meant to explicitly assert it. I’m sorry if you think I was implying that people who criticize Paris Hilton are anti-semites. I’d meant to explicitly assert it.

]]> By: HKM http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7696 HKM Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:56:17 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7696 "The kind of foreshortened critique of capitalism that we see in hatred directed at Paris Hilton directs its ire at the appearance of capitalism without seeing that this appearance is a necessary consequence of the reality of capitalism. It exhibits, that is to say, the logic of fascism, in which a particular appearance (finance capital, Jewish bankers, Hollywood) is confused with and targeted as the essence of capitalism." nice way to implicate whoever you're attacking with anti-semitism, kudos. there is no 'essence of capitalism', no 'deeper reality'. “The kind of foreshortened critique of capitalism that we see in hatred directed at Paris Hilton directs its ire at the appearance of capitalism without seeing that this appearance is a necessary consequence of the reality of capitalism. It exhibits, that is to say, the logic of fascism, in which a particular appearance (finance capital, Jewish bankers, Hollywood) is confused with and targeted as the essence of capitalism.”

nice way to implicate whoever you’re attacking with anti-semitism, kudos. there is no ‘essence of capitalism’, no ‘deeper reality’.

]]> By: geo http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7396 geo Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:45:00 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7396 agreed: it's more important, e.g., to hate hilton's dad than herself (despite the political efficacy of the latter). but i think i disagree with the CW perspective, probably for existential reasons: besides "being" rich, the rich also reproduce themselves as rich (paris might, in the end, not do so, choosing instead to squander her inheritance). they make a series of decisions which reinforce and increase their distance from the rest of the population, and they display this difference in consumption. while the primary reason to hate them may be structural, i can think of a bunch more....... love g agreed: it’s more important, e.g., to hate hilton’s dad than herself (despite the political efficacy of the latter).

but i think i disagree with the CW perspective, probably for existential reasons: besides “being” rich, the rich also reproduce themselves as rich (paris might, in the end, not do so, choosing instead to squander her inheritance). they make a series of decisions which reinforce and increase their distance from the rest of the population, and they display this difference in consumption. while the primary reason to hate them may be structural, i can think of a bunch more…….

love
g

]]> By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7310 voyou Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:59:38 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7310 That's a good point, cg. Paris-hatred (as opposed to indifference or amusement) could be the bad conscience of the bourgeoisie. And, geo, obviously hating her because she's rich is OK, but obviously it's important that one also publicly hate, and more vehemently, people who are richer than Hilton. Ian Bone has a nice line about not just hating capitalism as a system, but hating the rich as individuals, too - but what's interesting about Class War is that they generally hated the rich as abstract individuals, carefully avoiding hating them for anything except being rich. That’s a good point, cg. Paris-hatred (as opposed to indifference or amusement) could be the bad conscience of the bourgeoisie.

And, geo, obviously hating her because she’s rich is OK, but obviously it’s important that one also publicly hate, and more vehemently, people who are richer than Hilton. Ian Bone has a nice line about not just hating capitalism as a system, but hating the rich as individuals, too – but what’s interesting about Class War is that they generally hated the rich as abstract individuals, carefully avoiding hating them for anything except being rich.

]]> By: be random about current affairs - Page 532 - Bowlie http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/comment-page-1/#comment-7304 be random about current affairs - Page 532 - Bowlie Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:26:17 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/06/16/for-the-unconditional-defense-of-paris-hilton-against-anti-semitic-witch-hunts/#comment-7304 [...] Tim makes some excellent points about the 'foreshortened critiques of capitalism' involved in some of the response to Paris Hilton's incarceration. Campaigning to keep Hilton in jail has no more political significance than campaigning to free her - but then the 'Free Paris' demands (as described by a bemused Simon here) are not political, except symptomatically. They are statements of flaccid flaneurism (a flaneurism reduced to the most dryly theoretical of poses), a flaunted but uninteresting decadence, whose disavowed libidinal charge comes almost entirely from baiting the haters - what I have previously called a resentment of resentment. Would that Paris' defenders were voguers, who had an intense interest in their appearance, clothes and mannerisms, who wanted to make of themselves a work of art. The shameful, embarrassing, and silly 'Free Paris' acting out - I refuse to dignify it with the term 'campaign' - is vogueing without the drive to self-beautification, a spectatorial pretence of worship. For, naturally, the worship is all a matter of being seen to worship her - what else could it be? And who is supposed to be watching? I don't hate Paris Hilton. I hate Katie Hopkins, because I've confronted people like her, they have some reality in my life. (The only hyper-rich heiress I've dealt with is Her Majesty Le Chabert, and, certainly, I find her moralising self-hating sanctimony far more loathsome than Hilton's blank pleasure-seeking.) The truth is that Hilton is an object I am unable to cathect in any way whatsoever - in other words, she is boring. She is a symptom - of her class and background - but an uninteresting one. In fact, her utter lack of remarkable features, the so-formulaic-a-computer-program-could-have-predicted-it pattern of her dreary rich girl life, may be the only interesting thing about her - but you would have to the austere asceticism of a Warhol to maintain that position. More than the dull reality of Hilton herself, it is the pro-Hilton posturing that is a serious symptom - of a suiciding of intelligence, of cultural bankruptcy and exhaustion. It is the logic of cultural depression, of gradually but implacably lowered expectations, that has produced the over-investment in Hilton; a logic of devaluation, not revaluation - a logic of betrayal, of a failure of fidelity to pop culture's great events. Imagine all the proscriptions, the prohibitions, the self-denial involved in the pretence that anything at all is at stake in Hilton's record. Reflect on how a series of tortuous theoretical convolutions have led to a position that is, in both political and aesthetic terms, about as elitist as one could imagine - elitist precisely in the sense that it consists in a demonstrating of one's superiority to the plebeian masses (who did not buy the record - why not? Were they deluded? Duped? Didn't they know about it?) Let's be clear, though, those who so ostentatiously parade their love for Hilton - and it is all about the parading - have outed themselves: theirs is not a serious critical position, but a gentlemen's club weekend activity for stressed executives. They don't live and breathe pop culture, as I hope the readers of this site do; in fact, the category 'culture' - like 'history' or 'politics' - doesn't exist for them. It is all just entertainment, leisure and consumer preference, in other words capitalist realism, interpassive nihilism. This is what this discourse must be treated as: a noxious ideological fog, an apologia for mediocrity, a defence of boredom and the boring. Which is exactly what capitalism wants. Don't make any demands. Don't be critical. Make the best of what's there. The arguments against Hilton-as-object are ultimately aesthetic ones. The merely mediocre record has more going for it than the substandard Paris-the-celebrity. The problem is Hilton isn't aristocratic enough; isn't sufficiently artificial or invested in artificiality; isn't a weaver of opulent fantasies. Compare Hilton to the artistry of the working class-born Kate Moss - Moss, whose life may well be as boringly hedonistic as Hilton's, but who as an artist (and it is only misogynistic prejudice that maintains that modelling cannot be artistry) cultivates an opacity-without-depth, the fascinating distance of the object that gazes. Working class fantasies about the wealthy are far more interesting than the reality (as Bryan Ferry long ago found out, to his cost.) And if there is a leftist moral to be drawn from the Hilton phenonemon it is this: that the lives of rich people are not interesting. http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/009484.html Don't know how many (if any at all) read his blog, but I think he's fairly OTM with this one. Some things are questionable (is Kate Moss great because of her opacity-without-depth, or really because she's of a working class background? I don't know enough about the intricacies of modeling to fairly comment), and he does have a tendancy to over-extend his capitalist realism theories (I don't agree with his recent Doctor Who post), but in this case, I think it works. Food for thought, anyway. __________________ I'm sorry I'm late. I was at a luncheon for Ann Coulter's 60th Birthday. [...] [...] Tim makes some excellent points about the ‘foreshortened critiques of capitalism’ involved in some of the response to Paris Hilton’s incarceration. Campaigning to keep Hilton in jail has no more political significance than campaigning to free her – but then the ‘Free Paris’ demands (as described by a bemused Simon here) are not political, except symptomatically. They are statements of flaccid flaneurism (a flaneurism reduced to the most dryly theoretical of poses), a flaunted but uninteresting decadence, whose disavowed libidinal charge comes almost entirely from baiting the haters – what I have previously called a resentment of resentment. Would that Paris’ defenders were voguers, who had an intense interest in their appearance, clothes and mannerisms, who wanted to make of themselves a work of art. The shameful, embarrassing, and silly ‘Free Paris’ acting out – I refuse to dignify it with the term ‘campaign’ – is vogueing without the drive to self-beautification, a spectatorial pretence of worship. For, naturally, the worship is all a matter of being seen to worship her – what else could it be? And who is supposed to be watching? I don’t hate Paris Hilton. I hate Katie Hopkins, because I’ve confronted people like her, they have some reality in my life. (The only hyper-rich heiress I’ve dealt with is Her Majesty Le Chabert, and, certainly, I find her moralising self-hating sanctimony far more loathsome than Hilton’s blank pleasure-seeking.) The truth is that Hilton is an object I am unable to cathect in any way whatsoever – in other words, she is boring. She is a symptom – of her class and background – but an uninteresting one. In fact, her utter lack of remarkable features, the so-formulaic-a-computer-program-could-have-predicted-it pattern of her dreary rich girl life, may be the only interesting thing about her – but you would have to the austere asceticism of a Warhol to maintain that position. More than the dull reality of Hilton herself, it is the pro-Hilton posturing that is a serious symptom – of a suiciding of intelligence, of cultural bankruptcy and exhaustion. It is the logic of cultural depression, of gradually but implacably lowered expectations, that has produced the over-investment in Hilton; a logic of devaluation, not revaluation – a logic of betrayal, of a failure of fidelity to pop culture’s great events. Imagine all the proscriptions, the prohibitions, the self-denial involved in the pretence that anything at all is at stake in Hilton’s record. Reflect on how a series of tortuous theoretical convolutions have led to a position that is, in both political and aesthetic terms, about as elitist as one could imagine – elitist precisely in the sense that it consists in a demonstrating of one’s superiority to the plebeian masses (who did not buy the record – why not? Were they deluded? Duped? Didn’t they know about it?) Let’s be clear, though, those who so ostentatiously parade their love for Hilton – and it is all about the parading – have outed themselves: theirs is not a serious critical position, but a gentlemen’s club weekend activity for stressed executives. They don’t live and breathe pop culture, as I hope the readers of this site do; in fact, the category ‘culture’ – like ‘history’ or ‘politics’ – doesn’t exist for them. It is all just entertainment, leisure and consumer preference, in other words capitalist realism, interpassive nihilism. This is what this discourse must be treated as: a noxious ideological fog, an apologia for mediocrity, a defence of boredom and the boring. Which is exactly what capitalism wants. Don’t make any demands. Don’t be critical. Make the best of what’s there. The arguments against Hilton-as-object are ultimately aesthetic ones. The merely mediocre record has more going for it than the substandard Paris-the-celebrity. The problem is Hilton isn’t aristocratic enough; isn’t sufficiently artificial or invested in artificiality; isn’t a weaver of opulent fantasies. Compare Hilton to the artistry of the working class-born Kate Moss – Moss, whose life may well be as boringly hedonistic as Hilton’s, but who as an artist (and it is only misogynistic prejudice that maintains that modelling cannot be artistry) cultivates an opacity-without-depth, the fascinating distance of the object that gazes. Working class fantasies about the wealthy are far more interesting than the reality (as Bryan Ferry long ago found out, to his cost.) And if there is a leftist moral to be drawn from the Hilton phenonemon it is this: that the lives of rich people are not interesting. http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/009484.html Don’t know how many (if any at all) read his blog, but I think he’s fairly OTM with this one. Some things are questionable (is Kate Moss great because of her opacity-without-depth, or really because she’s of a working class background? I don’t know enough about the intricacies of modeling to fairly comment), and he does have a tendancy to over-extend his capitalist realism theories (I don’t agree with his recent Doctor Who post), but in this case, I think it works. Food for thought, anyway. __________________ I’m sorry I’m late. I was at a luncheon for Ann Coulter’s 60th Birthday. [...]

]]>