The Accessible Theory (A Book), Chapter 1

This.

The Accessible Theory (A Book)

Preface:

As a common complaint about books like Das Kapital is their length and ensuing inaccessibility, we have decided to publish a book which avoids these problems completely. We hence present the first volume of this highly abridged work. This shall hopefully encourage readers unwilling to explore more 'obscure' books too much. In this book, we seek to convey clearly what the reader is to get from each chapter. Further, this is expressed in clear terms.

Hopefully you shall enjoy this. It is an exciting pathway for literature, and it should not disappoint you.

Further Reptilian Poetry

Here, I present a recently released reptilian poem.

The Deeps

In depths untamed, the salamander
weaves their mysterious path
upon a raiment of fire.
In the flickering light, the reptilian
takes on many strange forms,
yet is hidden in this.
The reptilian hides, in arcane fire, then strikes
savagely.

The komodo dragon's languid, merciless stare is steely.

In the desert, the lizard
slithers seamlessly across the sand.
The way of the reptilian is hidden,
and barren, yet in this land
he may move most freely.

Commenters may give feed-back or reviews on this excellent poem, however only by keeping strictly to the following format:

The following paragraph copied exactly, although you may choose from one of the options in brackets:

This poem is a stellar piece of poetry, for all (reptilians/time.) Its depiction of the world is as (enlightening/exciting/exquisite) as its use of the sonnet form is (immaculate/classically Petrarchan). From the (opening image of the salamander/imagery of fire upon a lizard), it never looks back, and continues with exotic and (mysterious/sensitive) imagery. Hence, the pathos of the (reptilian/earthly order/subversive) is most fully brought out.

The title (aptly presages the poem with its reference to 'depth'/is slightly New Romantic, however this is quickly redeemed by assimilating this back into terms of contemporary ie. reptilian poetry). The poem itself opens with a reference to the salamander, a peculiar creature; this compounds a sense of the mysterious and exotic developed by the title. It is (incredible/deep/characteristic of the ingenuity of the reptilian mind). Hence, the ('occult'/'eccentric'/'opinionated') character rumoured of the salamander is most clearly exploited. This foregrounds the (poem/masterpiece). The mention of 'depths untamed' and the 'mysterious' salamander compound the sense of (the virtues of obscurity/the reptilian mystique). The poem further examines the salamander's setting: a 'raiment of fire.' Hence, an inconstant element safeguards the salamander's mystery. Hence, the salamander becomes almost an (elemental/incarnation of fire/fire god), its fire lighting the way for the following points.

The reptilian is hence similar to (rumours of cultural Marxism, which rumoured form in fact is merely a skewed interpretation of actual reptilian influence/the 'flickering light,' in its ability to take on 'many strange forms,' and hence also to 'flicker'). Nonetheless, retaining the mystique of the oblique salamander, it remains peculiar in this peculiar form. However, others may not truly comprehend it, at least not (as much as I, the esteemed critic, appreciate the depth of the poem's eternal message and the true wisdom of the reptilian/fully/without complex meditative techniques). Hence, to many this ancient and modern wisdom is a 'closed book.' Yet the author acknowledges this, with their reference to 'arcane' fire. Hence, they are aware of these possibilities.

Their reference to the reptile 'striking' foreshadows the later reference to the aggressive komodo. Hence, the hidden-ness of reptilians is also a threat to others. They are hence 'conspiratorial' in some way, which arises innately. Along with the fire, we have also the image of the (barren desert/desert/exquisitely described desert/barren desert). In this isolation, the reptilian moves freely and in tune with the area. Hence, the reptilian movement is cleverly distilled into a series of (vivid/evocative/perfect) images. 

To summarise, this piece of reptilian poetry (does a credit to its kind/is, as is typical for the reptilian in this field, astounding). It gives a fresh, exciting and (reptilian/exquisite/marvellous) take on the elements, one which they should be proud of. While the peculiar choice of rhyming 'freely' with 'steely,' in the final couplet of the sonnnet, might seem out-of-place, they aptly juxtapose these traits of the reptilian in a (striking/careful/vivid) manner. Nonetheless, this is not characteristic, in this poem. It has so few problems, that (a whole genre of poetry could arise around praise of it/reptilians everywhere must celebrate it/it is not for an age, but for all time/its very sight will harm the anti-reptilian hordes/it will be accounted as a historic treatment of the sonnet). Hence, this poem is worth any reader's time. I hope to have illustrated the poem, both in its flaws and its virtues, as clearly as any could.

This may be altered only by choosing one of the phrases or words in red brackets, separated by strikes, and removing the others. Hence, for an example:

To summarise, this piece of reptilian poetry is, as is typical for the reptilian in this field, astounding. It gives a fresh, exciting and reptilian take on the elements, one which they should be proud of.

  
Do this for the whole review, and you will have a review of your own to post! Thank you, readers. You may post it in the comments here.

The commenter with the most highly judged answer will get a post featuring their comment. Others may also get a mention as a compensation. If the top commenter likes (we don't want to, however it is the standard for these things) we will post alongside this a reptilian poem or dispatch of their own. However, due to among other things sensivity to criticism (LEAVE REPTILIANS ALONE), reviews must follow the above format and be generally positive. Anything else will be disqualified as 'hate speech.'  We shall only reply to note how offended we were and how much you hurt our feelings, in as liberal a tone as possible.

Hence, we open the door to your reviews. Good luck, readers.

The Novel: Some pointers

1. Do not attempt to deal with politics, explicitly. Novels have only the illusion of politics. Their 'people' and 'nations' are merely authorial whim, pretending to be otherwise and hence engaging in illusions.

2. The novelist should always reduce 'situations' to poetry, or diverge from the historical and so on. A great novel will do this on its own momentum.

3. The novelist, qua novelist, does not have people, etc., in their book. They hence should not make points about people, in a psychological sense or such. How much this is a problem varies. In any case, the 'psychological' novel is a fraud.

4. The novel cannot summon up any beings, or things. Yet it must. Hence, it is a problematic form.

5. As we have noted, the historical novel is a forgery. The novelist does not, by virtue of merely being such, have exclusive power over a given historical period. The novel cannot, therefore, be 'historical' without undervaluing itself.

6. The novelist, if a 'character' in a novel, would be positing themselves as a non-entity. This is hence empty. Novels should not have an 'authorial voice.'

7. Hence, novels should not start. If they do, they must seek to approximate the 'poetic,' or reduce their figures to merely means of poetic expression. The historical or 'exact' must be anathema and ostracised.

8. The summary of most novels is ultimately a false realisation.

The Religious Text

You often hear talk of Marxism being like something with religious texts. This is often merely an attempt to disparage any close respect for these authors. However, it might have a point: due to the looseness with which the texts are often taken, the promotion of them often turns into merely a group where the texts merely function as something 'proferring' authority when convenient. In this way, the more extreme, offensive elements can be hemmed in.

However, more pertinently, what is a 'religious' text? It is not merely reducible to an 'important text.' Religious texts are texts taken as common currency within a given section of a community. In this way, they can unite diverse political strands, agendas or theologies. This, however, is problematic. In this way, this community is posited as an absolute while ignoring the overall historical period or situation. As a result, it tends towards 'mystification.'

Hence, generally religions tend to operate or be developed in this manner. This development reaches its peak in many Christian elements, which is often content to 'render unto Caesar' in the most liberal ways imaginable. Christianity is a religion which tends in this direction, a religion which hs been developed - especially in the West - into one about religious journeys that are less stringently connected to social forms than Islam or Judaism. It subverted things such as the 'law ' and for this substituted the particular or personal and a bunch of often conflicting and contradictory religious sayings, thus suiting an atomised capitalism. However, as capitalism often subverts or forms an obstacle to human conduct, it also requires a religion of consolations that weaken or undermine this personal direction. Hence, it ends up reduced and necessarily reducible to vague gestures.

Hence, Marx and so on criticised religions as 'idealistic' or lacking a connection to the overall society, for foisting their deity as a substitute and consolation for the ills of this accepted society. The deity is hence super-imposed on existence, in a categorical and constant manner. This is generally made transhistorical, and hence has no real 'history.' Hence, in this sense the religious text is an apt expression of such a community.

However, religious texts must go beyond this simple unity, and formalised it in the shape of a deity. Hence, this unity is stamped 'by' the mark of a deity, and hence people are forced to listen to this deity. As a result, this abstraction from particular human traits may only be made possible by 'religion,' here, by a mark of authority to it which can allow this to be official. This is generally 'superstitious,' or religious. Hence, they not only 'go beyond' this unity, but attempt to formalise it in the shape of a 'religious figure.' Otherwise, they are not positively religious.

Hence, their religious character is easily bound up with this social role. This element of society requires the 'religious' form, and habitually takes it. However, 'holy writ' has another aspect. It also serves as a sort of 'currency,' or turns the religious into a standardised object. The content of holy writ hence appears as an embodiment of the religious community, and hence as 'divine.' This can occur even if it were of human hand, and hence not by or involving a creature channeling God directly. In this sense, Christianity is a further development of this, by claiming a person who directly expresses God and hence culminates and completes the circle of finite creatures attempting from a 'limited' perspective to express the divine infinity. To dilute the latter would problematises the whole endeavour. Hence, the 'holy text' of organised religion represents a community's imagined sufficiency. The ghettoisation that Jews are accused of can also be found in the other major Judaic religions. In a sense, Marx is more critical of Judaism than Christianity and most others, and in the process also confronts the other major religions. He is not satisfied with merely leaving Christianity be, and then criticising its basis in Judaism. Hence, he substitutes for the conservatism of Hegel, and similar accounts of a transition from Judaism to Christianity, the hope for a radical change.

In the transition from Judaism to Christianity, a theological transformation, we can see clear parallels with the Hegelian schema. Hence, Marx again defends 'humanism' of a sort, or the progression beyond religion towards human empowerment. This is notably represented in his early writings on Prometheus. In this sense, Marx's critique of Hegel for religious belief is probably valid, although they were not alone in this. Hence, humanity does not set fictitious limits to themselves, such as God or the Idea. Rather, Marx diverges from Ecclesiastes to offer a more hopeful perspective of the human, one that is not utterly degrading to the self. Hegel also tries to do this, in a way. Nonetheless, in rejecting this transition, and characterising it as essentially the internalisation of alienated man - the Judaic replacement of humanity with alienated man - the early Marx touches on a profound point. Further, he associates this in part with a capitalistic society, a hedonistic and barren one, rather than the 'strictness' it might expect. Why? This internalized alienation leads not to less, but actually to more interaction with the world - indeed, to being lost in it, to rejecting things of human note. Hence, the introduction of 'idol worship' into Judaism, via Christ, is in some ways an inevitable concomitant of this dynamic. People eventually dissipate and become nothing, due to a belief, which hence is actually quite harmonious - religiously - with tendencies which might seem its negation.

Marx hence does not view such a straightforward progress, a raising to a higher level, as a model. If the 'historical materialism' of the Christian is their transition from Judaism, Marx seeks to avoid this foundation. And this attempt was clearly of interest, in his earlier works. Hence, his 'anti-Semitic' language is merely a part of his strenuous attempt to shed the Hegelian-Christian context and its concomitants. In this, he associated Christianity with the internalised form of an alienation and worldliness bred by the Jew, that as a result succumbs to illusions and is confronted by personal traits. As a result, Marx views as necessary the destruction of this general form, and of its ultimate basis and Judaic and racial foundations.

Religion is the absorption of the human into external forces, which are then raised above him. Hence, an organised religion - one which is assimilated into the social structure - requires also the systematic organisation of these external factors. This takes place in the form of the religious community.

However, a text is also cut off from the religious community in which it is 'currency' - it is a specific book, that faces the reader on its own, not a  communal form. Hence, religious texts are usually divergent from the communities which they give rise to. They are also often slightly incoherent - the Bible's contradictions are famous - due to this need to function in divergent forms. This appears as a 'religious' difference, as it is not reducible to this community and stands alone. It hence 'diverges' from the religion. However, this is not necessarily a difference which is purely 'religious,' rather one which is personal and concrete. It is, ultimately, a form of separation from this community, in favour of the concrete - expressed, as it must be, in the form of a personal separation. Hence, the religious tends to boil down to merely the attempt to weaken the stricter elements of a text, which however already weakens itself. To seek ultimate fulfillment from organised religion is an exercise in futility.

Nonetheless, what this ultimately leads to is the divergent and concrete elements having to be treated as a part of the religious. Hence, they must be religiously formalised, treated as a religion. This is somewhat inorganic. Marxism resembles this function. Hence, the apparent form of 'religious texts' in Marxism - the secular elements are given a religious format. Nonetheless, this is not native to them. It is valid that Marxism is often unsure about, well, itself and its theoretical structure, and hence reduces to merely a community with certain texts. This is, however, not necessarily its aim. It can, nonetheless, approach a 'religious' tone, and this should be avoided.

As a result, a 'religious text' is one which performs a complex yet problematic role. In religions, it might seem to be defiled, yet it partakes of this in some measure itself. Hence, caution about it is advised. A community around a belief must centre around the belief or theory, or it is reduced to a religion with texts as communal currency. This must always be avoided.

Your razzmatazz and the nights on the town (Security, 9-1-1)

In England, culture is rather monotone. Figures of focus include Je-sus Christ, Shakespeare, and Socrates. All with effectively the same name. People are generally hence introduced to the same sound for 'exemplary' figures - suggesting that perhaps it is the 'sound' that perseveres, not the people.

Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.

Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt.  If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.

Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.

Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.

The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.

The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.

Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.

If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.

Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.

Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.

Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.

Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.

Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.

Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.

In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.

A scarcity of miracles

Speaking of parodies, a journalist has a 'parody' to mention:

 "The bus to the Momentum conference in Liverpool leaves at seven on a Sunday morning in late September from Euston Station, and the whole journey feels like a parody of a neoliberal play about the failings of socialism. We depart an hour late because activists have overslept and we cannot go without them."

Given the Trot insistence on the theory of 'exploitation,' this seems rather to be a socialist parody of whatever this reporter supports. The recent 'right' in the neoliberal stalwart of the USA have seen increasing 'alt right' tendencies bemoaning the persistence of 'cultural Marxism.' No doubt this brave reporter has opted to attempt to exorcise any traces of cultural Marxism or socialism generally from British politics. Although they try to dissociate from these 'neoliberals,' it goes without saying that expecting a political tendency to consign itself to the void without resistance is expecting it to be other than it is. They are more 'neoliberal' than such playwrights, who nonetheless exult in their vulgarised presentation of a nuanced doctrine. Parodying socialism in a capitalist society is like writing a scathing play denouncing National Socialism, a trite commonplace and redundant at this point.

In any case, their derogatory tirade about Corbyn supporters being like 'drug addicts' is a mere personal attack and reduces things to a passive-aggressive rant. Donald Trump is better at angered ranting, for all of his flaws. Regardless, it is a rather out-of-place and demeaning characterisation. As a 19th Century vampire once noted, "I never called upon you and received a courteous reception, and then insulted you." What, then, are we to make of their later 'discussion' of Karl Marx? Presumably they 'talked' about Karl Marx as alcoholics stumble into passing strangers. And the Labour Party is afflicted with a weird case of 'blurred vision,' when people can pass themselves off as allies when they would have the Party and politics generally preach and work against you.

They piously mourn:

"MSM, they might call me – mainstream media. What it really means is: collaborator"

Of course, it could be that they were hoping to group together based on their political dedication, rather than to have people turn up looking to wantonly insult them in public. "I'm a journalist looking to talk about how you lot are drug addicts and generally despicable," seems like a dubious introduction. 

Of course, it's Jeremy Corbyn's supporters who are the real drug addicts in a political sphere where the main alternatives are people who declare war over WMDs that aren't there, and Conservatives. One might wait for the no doubt stringent personal attacks the journalist was planning on delivering to these people, but it does not come - somehow. Indeed, the journalist seems to have no substantial commitment to a movement opposing significant tendencies of the present society. Evidently a supporter of anything nearing radical politics, which tends to work from an unfavourable position and an inimical society, would not weigh as a con of Corbyn that he does not instead work in harmony with the ruling system and hence have an easier task. Before one undertakes a task, says Jesus, one must weigh up the 'sacrifices' that it entails and whether you wish to take all of these. Yet seemingly anything else is met with opprobrium and denigration. And no doubt they would approve of moving Momentum out of the spotlight so that the Labour Party can be dedicated to further such attack on the Corbynites and their politics. If you would prefer something else, you are for working against Corbyn's politics - which is incredibly mild and not in the least radical. Let alone when you attack them like that while disregarding the political context where many would indeed appreciate dismissing the radical left and rubbing them 'further' into the dirt.

The general position of, "I'm your ally, really, but I hope you all die and find nothing more despicable," seems only particularly good for one thing: mud-slinging, and throwing around allegations concerning things that were said, while seeming to remain credible.

The journalist's complaints reach the following crescendo:

"The maddest suggestion I hear is that all media should be state-controlled so that they won’t be rude about a future Corbyn government and any tribute colouring books."

If there is a problem with this alleged suggestion, they are not doing a good job of it.

Yet let us end on the following note:

On Genre: Details

Genre is a matter of taking sounds and fitting them into a certain pattern. They don't admit people who stay outside of this.
People who don't might just fit into 'progressive' or 'country' niches.
Hence, genres subordinate sounds to a certain pattern or sound.
A work which remains in one genre is by nature partial, as it excludes other sounds and their meaning.
Some genres may be excluded as illegitimate, but few posit only one legitimate genre. Genres are types, not inherently views.
Genres hence presuppose sounds to be subordinated or arranged. These must exist outside of the genre.
These are independent pieces of music, not actually raw materials. They must be their own sounds, which can then be used, if their aim were to be genre music then they could not attain this because their whole point is to form music without this formation into patterns. If their direction were these patterns, they could not be formed.
This non-genre music should generally be looked at as the basis for the formation of every genre.
Genre is generally an early question when music is to be made. If it is made without genre, then it is in a progressive or obscure country niche. Hence, this is not how most music is made.
The two general, and opposed, directions of music, are: progressive music, or music which is sounds without a clear harness, and pop music, which merely subjugates sounds to the will of others or divests it of its internal existence, which is music made without concern for the musical content. Between these lies genre music, which modifies sounds instead by patterns, along with whatever else. Progressive music, however, can still have pop tendencies, especially if it is to be used for such: these, however, are not merely musical, but social resonances or a question of the musician's relation to social institutions like pop music filtering into the music. The pop music elements must enter in pseudo-organically, or through the musician's experience of that genre.
Politics has several different 'genres,' or aesthetics. Liberalism is not a political theory, generally, but an aesthetic. Of course, even being based on theoretical works need not make something a political theory, as this requires that the political view be thoroughly integrated into this, but it is at least an attempt.
From where does politics derive? Ultimately, from people's interaction with the society they are in, at whatever level and in whatever institutional context is offered. This forms so to speak the raw material of politics. Political 'genres' merely subjugate this to a certain 'sound,' as it were.
It is only political because they are in some way distanced from this society. This also includes its political forces. Hence, political 'genres' are all in a sense hollow. There are no tribes, there are only different people.
Politics in a sense creates an isolated realm, however, where this division does not exist in usual conduct. Politics implies an overall perspective on this society, and not just being a part of it of whichever kind, and hence requires this isolation. However, elsewhere these people do not have an automatic immunity from interaction with people who are not 'political' as such, and hence could face a more hostile atmosphere.
As all political genres are in a sense united, and also in a sense detached from the political, the suggestion arises of a way of evading these. They are all possibly hostile - if devoid of course of their general dynamic which means that they have some elements which relate positively to the political - to all political actors.
When the political is directly welded to the politics of genre, to form a new political current alongside the others, it will generally be inconsistent. Nonetheless, it will generally appear as some sort of 'third way,' but is really just a form of politics identified with a person, which they allow to be diluted into the politics of some current and Party.
Political currents diverge due to demands from the world from their 'founders.' This applies in essence and in specific points. Those which are named after a person should therefore not be assumed to have any correspondence to them.
However, this eventually congeals into systematic, promulgated divergence, or continual disagreement with these people. In general, then, as indifference to their own claimed political beliefs, which indifference is made programmatic. People interacting with this political belief therefore need some sort of excuse as to why these people are so indifferent to their own views. As providing these excuses would involve more honest political polemic against the current than its own people are usually able to provide, the task of furnishing these excuses is given to people of some other current, who then are listed as their official 'nemeses.'
Hence, opponents of Marxism contain those who oppose it on principle, and another current which merely claim some distance from it - those who claim disenfranchisement after the fall of Russia, for instance, or which merely claim that some aspect of it will be difficult. These are often inconsistent - they take Marxism and a Marxist perspective for granted in some way, and then seek to oppose it, as they are ultimately merely external elements forced into detailed engagement with it of some, albeit highly qualified form, and hence closer to it than most Marxists, and trying to weasel their way out of this to discourse with Marxists. Hence, what they tend to come out with from there is highly simplified, because it is merely an attempt at an excuse for others.
The presentation of Das Kapital is in a sense inherently likely to be knocked down - it has the generosity to look at their system and present it as a general existent, and yet they are left free to just clean a couple of stains and then seem free of Marxism. Hence, the modus operandi of just taking slight issue with small things in the hopes of taking down the whole Marxist system has a sanction within Marxism.
In a way, Marxists will join in on this when they need to dilute Marxism by swathing it in their uncertainty so that they can use it for whatever they are doing, but this is derived from currents who stand apart from it and can as such do this unremittingly. They hence rely on these currents to allow them to twist Marxism to suit their own ends - and when texts are clearly presented, diverging from them casually and without reference to it would usually be difficult - and hence these currents are in a sense merely performing the double service of a) providing excuses for divergence, b) providing means for further divergence. This is important in grasping why often irrelevant currents come to take on a seeming importance in these political circles which is more than their fairly meagre divergences would seem to suggest.
If these currents interact in detail with Marxism, their popularity is unlikely to be major - the general operation of the system can't allow for continually considering such problems it might perhaps have. However, this implies that while they will take issue with such small aspects of Marxism, their affinity with Marx on more notable issues of sociology and so on was more notable than that of most Marxists. This is required for the sustained engagement with Marxism. Hence, they are notably inconsistent, mostly, and often need to twist definitions of Marxism in order to have this function at all - as such, they can usually be disputed with on this basis first and foremost. Nonetheless, if amongst this noise made about something quite different their objections seem relevant to Marxism, despite being objections to something else, in all likelihood Marxism guided them there itself.
Hence, someone who took objections with Marxism from saying for instance that Das Kapital didn't list every commodity existing at the time, from which it made derivations, or that Kapitalizmus didn't actually involve capitalist mice, would generally remain quite immune to it or would be unlikely to be convinced by it. These examples are somewhat facetious, nonetheless they are accurate. The problem with these is that they cannot safely assimilate Marxist imagery and dialogue, and hence are so to speak cut off from many things expected of people. Most politicians or citizens generally tended to assimilate Marxist imagery of unity, etc., easily, and hence could all easily pretend that there was no threat from this external force. Still, this method was generally appropriate to dissuade Marxism, .
However, the problem is that Marxist critiques of capital are also generally partial in this manner. For instance, it takes up Proudhonist critiques, but jettisons the adherence to the law of value as the strict principle of criticism, and likewise takes up some criticism of conditions of capitalism or with its formation which does not draw on its fundamental traits or contrast this with those it wished to establish. It often merely alludes to a problem, or throws out imagery suggesting a problem, but does not go beyond this. In this sense, Marxism is ultimately identical to this opposing force, and raises the same issues, often quite explicitly. They are hence found in identity, as with the Soviet Union, Britain and the USA, standing only against this stream of disparaged and disliked imagery. The Soviet Union was, however, forced into fairly strict opposition to these, which in a way Marxism did not prepare for - it was still quite passive and not that strict or oppositional. Hence, the Soviet Union had to draw on a different force.
The Soviet Union knew that it would have to engage in serious opposition in some form early on in order to form any kind of state, but Marxists were often sensitive to this especially because it was so important to their critique of capitalism that it did this - hence it found itself abandoned from the off by Marxism as such, and had to look elsewhere. Many Marxists had been urged to just look at this section, the one that would condemn any new 'Marxist' state or nation, etc. Nonetheless, it still had a nominal adherence to Marxism, which didn't differentiate it from Marxism generally.
While politics proper is substance, genre is in essence form. Genres of politics, like liberalism, are so to speak only so many experiences for those who interact with them, or a template for viewer interaction with them. Hence, they can as it were be generated automatically when viewers interact with them. You might hence wish to avoid them. Otherwise, they can spin out in defiance of the political and the viewer, as an independent community that will soon turn against them.
Liberalism is capital's attempt to appeal to people's emotions, while conservatism knowingly presents a harsher face although it can also pander to them. Hence, more 'major' conservative politicians historically have, in recent times, generally existed in either a Cold War scenario, where they can be contrasted with the Soviet Union to the point where liberalism and conservatism were essentially identical, or through appealing to liberal but apolitical aesthetics like 'feminism,' as occurred in part in Britain. Others have only emerged in more recent times, and are known for expressing in part the disdain of the organic political realm for liberalism. These elements have hence faced much opposition in the Republican Party, and eventually been derided and knocked aside in the form of Ted Cruz, etc. Britain was a thoroughly liberal state which had little political life, compared to the USA. They were hence leaning on the USA. The more liberalism allows for money to signify various additional activities which can be carried out freely, the more capital has an incentive to invest in money as such rather than consumption of particular things - however, the more that capital consumes, the more it tends back towards liberalism. Money, though it might not mind hemming in conservatives, ultimately does not wish to continue going up to them - with all of its possibilities open - and saying, 'hit me.'
The Soviet Union gained a modicum of stability as a force of opposition by not going in a liberal direction primarily. This is important, as otherwise it would have easily collapsed into this comfortable liberalism and fallen into a regular capitalist state. Instead it remained somewhat disciplined and distant from these, rather than just allowing for them and falling into line immediately.
Religion deals, instead of with a specific group of people, with a generic mass of them. It is hence often more vague than politics. Nonetheless, it does attempt to look towards a certain group or type, which is exalted, and in this it can overlap with the political. When it is too distant from a political view, as in most Christianity, it tends to reduce to a merely nominal 'religion' where nobody can cast aspersions on the religion of others so long as they call themselves a 'Christian,' which ultimately renders it meaningless.
As said, genres tend to derive from organic music of some kind, which generally makes it recognisable. The opening of Paramore's 'Misery Business,' indeed a miserable track, resembles Alder-era Fates Warning if they were rather awful. Curiously, it sounds somewhat akin to 'Parallels,' which is aptly named in this sense.  Admittedly, earlier tracks like 'Silent Cries' are seemingly sidetracked by this kind of thing. Likewise, 'The Road Goes on Forever' is based on a similar theme and vocal sound to Blue's 'Breathe Easy.' However, these are all made uniform by genre, which trivialises any worth of the original sound, usually.
Genre music has a limited number of possibilities. If music weren't an established thing, you couldn't have pop music - hence, genre music has to be produced so to speak arbtrarily. However, pop music cannot generally risk basing its claims for appeal on putting itself above these other forms of music or vaunting about being different and not as abrasive, because this risks cutting out this ground beneath it. Bands that do this often will tend to rely on an image which revolves comparatively less around musical factors, as occurs with bands like Paramore or occasional transitions between acting (usually for children) and music. Seemingly people think it apt that pop music and children's films be closely associated.
Often, genres will tend to run into each other. To differentiate, they will hence need to be highly one-track, or keep to one very particular sound in order to remain even seemingly distinct. This applies to many sub-genres and smaller, similar genres. The problem is that many bands within these will vary from the other form of music only as much as one form of track, like an anthem, will vary from another form of track, like a ballad or interlude, on another band's album.
Christianity generally latches itself onto other things, like musical genres or reality TV shows, and pretends to be a different type of them. Of course, it is not so just because they enter the genre. A 'Christian' reality TV show like Duck Dynasty is just an ordinary reality TV show assimilating religious themes. There is unlikely to be any serious interaction with religious themes. It hence requires some pseudo-conservative sentiments, which are however tamed and damped-down by interacting with the show, but also Sadie Robertsons and the like to dilute the show generally. Obviously, 'Keeping Up With the Kardashians' violates many religious tenets or at least sensibilities, and hence requires some form of 'religious' reality TV show to arise at some point to excuse this active flouting of religious and most other standards. Christianity is beholden to the same standards as most other genres, who are filled with religious people whose music will hence inevitably reflect their religious views if these are notable at all. Of course, if actual Christians made music in such contexts, they would come into conflict with Christian bands and listeners generally, who would like their Christianity diluted at this point and would not appreciate attempts to disturb their pseudo-Christian harmony by asserting early Christian strictness.
Other religions, like Islam or Sikhism, are more rarely associated with this use. Islam is a political religion, and hence can look at this world 'with sober senses' and without having to set up 'genres' of each form of music to interact with it - it can also be far more critical of them, because it does not simply colonise each of them.
The category of 'musical genre' is ultimately a highly limiting one, because it does not describe the organic content of the music. Nonetheless, it is how art is categorised. Any further categorisation requires drawing on other realms, and is not found merely within art.
Political genre is in many ways reducible to art or to hollow 'banners and sounds,' but nonetheless contains some interaction with the political or is not merely restricted to the artistic. Nonetheless, it is at a distance from the political as such, and hence ultimately reduces to a foreign intrusion into politics. In this sense, while artistic genre at least expresses an aspect of art, politics cannot be treated in the same way without being cheapened. Popular politics was no more of interest than the Teen Choice Awards.
Genres like Alternative were substantial entities, like 'nu metal' in a way, nonetheless they were mostly defined with reference to the listener's experience and associations with it, rather than being musically wholly cut off from popular rock tendencies. This was nonetheless distorted to the point of being a different genre, but this was in a sense more a template for listeners than otherwise. In this, it filled a certain niche which was not specifically musical in nature, though it was aesthetic - it took the tropes of popular music, etc., and then distorted them to fit a mood more of depression, lowliness and sadness. In the process, their musical tendencies were distorted to something quite different, nonetheless despite trying to cut itself off it never went further than attempting to do so, it was not really cut off from popular music per se.
This sort of distorting niche is something which tends to arise at certain points in time, in various forms. In general, it is merely a single motion irrespective of the specifically artistic form and revolving instead around moods and social situations (or isolation), and hence this niche could usually only be filled once in terms of pop cultural or political categories. It takes the form of a genre.
This form of music, etc., exists to accommodate situations where the popular forms of music are played, but the situation and such does not at all suit this. The resulting distortions are hence set down as a genre.
There are similar political tendencies, which can take on the same characteristics as normal politics, but then play them back from a different location in a similar way. While ultimately quite similar, they nonetheless will tend to be an available niche. However, when they are active, they will obstruct the progress of alternative music, and so on. If they are active, they generally imply sources which are more radical than them, as well as situations, which hence interact with things from a position further than merely distorting them. Generally, these are less radical than Alt in terms of interaction with the world around them or the perspective implied on them, but nonetheless imply some sort of difference in this somewhere or they would not arise. In general, this niche can only be filled by one field, but that can be aesthetic, political, or otherwise.
Fields can hence at times distort into other things, and in a sense these other fields are then created to accommodate these distortions. Hence, there are many genres of things which involve a lot of display and processing rather than actual focus, because they don't have much point.
In politics, for people to be said to be charismatic or to have a 'way with words' essentially implies as the latter term explicitly acknowledges that they take words from elsewhere and put them together in an artificial and inorganic way. If they were saying something of political substance that they understood, they would not have a 'way with words,' as they would not be manipulating words from elsewhere into a pattern. This can easily be seen instead, if they attempt to put forward any real politics, as awkwardly trying to shout out things that they 'read somewhere,' taking credit for them in some underhanded way, and hence they would be both awkward and called out on it. This would not be seen as a 'way with words.' Instead, they would have to be saying little of political substance, and hence could not have a consistent and focussed opposition, rather merely taking words already accepted and spewing them out. They hence attempt to take some political genre, such as socialism or and then further subjugate it to genre, which however is not in actuality possible. These figures are accommodated by the pseudo-genre of identity politics as well as, in a limited way, liberalism, and hence tend towards these. Generally, they can be associated with some such identity political trend.
A form of politics was usually not defined primarily by its relation to identity politics, but elsewise, by political criteria. This is the only accurate way of considering matters. Identity politics is a matter of identifying with a certain demographic, as if this matters. It obscures the person and their politics. Nonetheless, often political genres could co-exist with identity politics in particular authors, who would in a sense attempt to differentiate themselves by their own aesthetic, which results from this occasional interruption of identity political elements. This hence takes the political genre they have subjugated the content to, and further distorts it into something they can claim their own. However, this is misleading, as political genre is inherently a distortion of the organic and individualised categories of organic political material, into something which obscures this, and hence at this point they have moved away from individuality rather than towards it.
If a political system or form of beliefs encompasses all of these levels of politics - having elements of the organic, elements of genre, and elements of identity politics - then it will in all likelihood involve dual authorship, but nonetheless can be taken quite far in almost any direction, and can be taken more or less in the same direction so far as substance is concerned as can any other political system which involves these three levels. This is limited, somewhat strictly in a way, by the identity politics aspect, which while it might seem accessible creates a certain barrier to any individual attempting to take this form of politics further, and ultimately is merely a restriction to be left behind and which otherwise limits how far this new direction can be taken. Certain communities sympathetic to these ideas may be more or less exclusive, at a given time period. This hence means that all of these forms - those which involve all three levels - can be taken in similar directions, but with different phrasing.
As the levels are in some ways inimical, dual authorship is necessary to these forms, in various ways.
Reality TV shows are a question of taking some form of situation that the audience is used to, and then forming it into a genre. It hence represents the category of genre quite well. Genre texts usually rest on the impact of such sections. Reality TV shows are all about imposed patterns. If they need to impose patterns over Christianity to sell it as a reality TV product, then they will do that, which is a tendency at odds with the religion. Likewise, the use of pop music alongside politics will generally overshadow it, unless the politicians are accepted as essentially conduits of this industry and what it represents, as a mode of politics whose only distinction is selling it. As conservatism is too strict for its politics to be 'sold' in the usual mode, unless they are also sacrificed in the process, this will usually tend towards liberalism.
In general, genre hence relies on musical content, but in some ways departs from it. As such, genres of it like 'pop music,' which are only distinguished as pseudo-genres by their departure being to attempt to subjugate this musical content wholly to others, will ultimately end up unstable or subjugated to these content. This, however, relies on the specific nature of the content, of whichever sort. In general, politics is an ethical pursuit, and hence you should not expect actual political content to be accessible to people, or understood, regardless of this. The point is not that the reader can claim to something just because they have claimed to read the text, but that their reading of it and what they can understand so far is important - otherwise, you have the general situation where a text is merely a means for others to steal credibility. A person's credibility is their own. In any case, certain political tendencies are highly vulnerable, and will generally meet with immediate objections, so you don't want these people to be able to claim also to have read it and be able to dismiss a whole form of politics because of it. While Platforms and such are generally immune to this because they speak on behalf of some Party rather than on behalf of a specific politics, they are not always so if they claim to any more than this. As such, political works without genre would usually exist in interaction and not merely serve people up instant gratification as if the politics were some form of drug injection, and hence would appear quite difficult to read comparatively.