Article: Cancel Culture pays a visit to Philip Johnson

[Roderick Grant]

peter, I missed a comma between Marxism and Stalinism, both of which are versions of Socialism, which they insisted was Communism. If I had meant to connect them, I would have typed "Marxist-Stalinism," which does not exist.

If one digs through the various texts on those movements, there will be many details that differentiate one from another. But in the end, the only thing that matters, once they are implemented, is that they all end up with totalitarian dictators, kept in power by the military/police and a controlled oligarchy. Hoi polloi are reduced to peasantry. Stalin, Tito, Mao, Kim, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Chaves, Maduro -- again, not a nickel's worth of difference.

Bernie is no Hitler, to be sure. He is one, should the wrongheaded movement he espouses succeed in redefining the country, who would end up in the peasantry alongside AOC. Bernie is an example of arrested development; the hippie era was left in the ashbin of history, but Bernie didn't get the message. We are of an age, Bernie and I. I ran across a lot of his type in the 60s. I know them when I see them: Deluded Utopians unwilling to lift a finger to earn their way, dogmatic about deserving to be given whatever they want. The absolute opposite of all they claim to be.

[peterm]

“Deluded Utopians unwilling to lift a finger to earn their way, dogmatic about deserving to be given whatever they want. The absolute opposite of all they claim to be.”

You’re talking about me, and most of my friends, who, by the way, have all worked their asses off, Roderick.

This rhetoric harkens back to Nixon and Agnew, and Joe McCarthy before them. I guess you were a member in good standing of the Silent Majority.

Spiro Agnew, criminal:

"This is the criminal left that belongs not in a dormitory, but in a penitentiary. The criminal left is not a problem to be solved by the Department of Philosophy or the Department of English, it is a problem for the Department of Justice. Black or white, the criminal left is interested in power. It is not interested in promoting the renewal and reforms that make democracy work; it is interested in promoting those collisions and conflict that tear democracy apart."

"Yippies, Hippies, Yahoos, Black Panthers, lions and tigers alike - I would swap the whole damn zoo for the kind of young Americans I saw in Vietnam."

Heros of the so-called conservatives Nixon and Reagan on the phone yucking it up:
https://youtu.be/z7GLJsclRi8

[Roderick Grant]

It is true that musicians of the era "worked their asses off," which is why I would never include you or them in a list of hippies. You may have imitated the tie-dyed wardrobe and shoulder-length hair style, but you were of a completely different social order. I lived in SF in the 60s, NYC in the 70s and LA in between and since, and the hippies I knew were slackers. They consumed the great music of the era, but did not contribute anything to it. They were the ones who turned the Woodstock farm into a pot-soaked slag heap, while the musicians from Janis Joplin to Jimi Hendrix "worked their asses off" in the rain. You don't have to do anything to justify yourself; I consumed the culture, too, but I worked my ass off to pay for it.

[peterm]

Was that pot-soaked mess at Woodstock more revolting for you than the blood-soaked imperialist war which devastated Viet Nam, or the crimes of Nixon-Agnew?

[Tim]

Was that pot-soaked mess at Woodstock more revolting for you than the blood-soaked imperialist war which devastated Viet Nam, or the crimes of Nixon-Agnew?

For the record, I am against all of it.

[peterm]

The point is at the time, it was clear who supported the senseless war, and who opposed it. We wore our uniforms (hair/clothes) mainly to communicate where we stood on that issue.

So to discredit and dismiss “Woodstock” outright, is to also discredit the antiwar movement.

No one anticipated such a massive turnout. It’s also important to note that Woodstock was an experiment, and corrections were made by folks like Bill Graham who avoided the naive mistakes made in upstate NY.

[SDR]

Woodstock was an almost comical combination of events; it almost didn't come off at all, after the original site suddenly became unavailable. Yasgur's farm was a last-minute substitution. And no one counted on the rain. But there was no violence at all. And it was covered extensively in the media, so the world soon learned of the event and were able to judge its significance. Thus the legend was born. Only later was it learned that the producers of the event earned virtually nothing, as the unexpected crush took site security by surprise; thousands who didn't buy tickets were admitted because there was no way to keep them out. The affair became, literally, a labor of love . . .

S

[Roderick Grant]

Honestly, peter, you seem intent on taking everything I post and changing the subject so you can rant. I didn't say nor imply that Woodstock was not the extraordinary event that it was, just that a preponderance of attendees would not have been there at all if they had been required to pay for it. Woodstock is a symbol of the hippie era, just as resistance to the war in Vietnam is; they are, however, two completely different things. Notice that when Nixon eliminated the draft, the fight against the war lost a lot of gas. The protests had a lot to do with teens not wanting to serve. That was certainly a worthwhile fight, in my opinion. (If I had been draft age at the time and sent to war, I would have come home in a body bag. Even taught to do so in basic training, I would not have been able to kill anyone.)

Your claim that attire and tonsure were war-related protests is slightly off, chronologically. The Haight-Ashbury scene was well under way in SF by 1964 when I arrived, and the war was hardly the dominant story of the day. That didn't happen until 1968. Moreover, just to be clear, the war was not of Nixon's making, as you imply. He reduced forces by 90% in his first term. The war is on JFK exclusively and forever.

[peterm]

I never claimed that it was Nixon’s war. I said your rhetoric is rehashed Nixon-Agnew. And Nixon was the president at the time of the Woodstock festival, and he was only going to escalate it. Those are facts. You conveniently omit the invasion and carpet bombing of Cambodia.

I guess when you speak, it’s measured and mature, but when someone strongly disagrees with your proclamations, they are “angry” or it’s a “rant”.

Roderick Grant: “They were the ones who turned the Woodstock farm into a pot-soaked slag heap”,

If you bring up and criticize Woodstockers, I respond. Out of the thousands who attended Woodstock, how many do you think supported the war?

[SDR]

"The protests had a lot to do with teens not wanting to serve." Perhaps so. But what I take from that statement when it comes from a reactionary is this: "There are no idealists in life, only those looking out for themselves. We do it; they do it; everyone does it. Anyone pretending otherwise is a deluded fool, or a dishonest schemer. There are no selfless acts, in nature or in human society."

To which the liberal humanist says: "Wait a minute. Don't foist your heartless world view on me ! Speak for yourself, Jack. . ." or words to that effect.

(Of course, no one likes to be pigeon-holed or categorized by another; we like to choose our own in-group, and proudly proclaim ourselves Gay, or Black, or Conservative or Liberal. We may want to be associated with one group or another--but heaven help the person who beats us to it and states the obvious . . .!)

S

[peterm]

"Wait a minute. Don't foist your heartless world view on me ! Speak for yourself, Jack. . ."

Thank you! I’ll have to remember that.

[Roderick Grant]

My, we have waded into a muddle here. Don't know how to respond to the rambling, but I can respond to the Cambodia comment:

The restriction preventing Nixon from entering Cambodia to fight the Vietnamese was arbitrary at least, even capricious. It was as if Eisenhower had been prevented from treading on Belgian soil to fight the Battle of the Bulge. Nixon had to deal with a Congress as intent on obstructing his presidency as the current House efforts have been to foil anything President Trump attempted to do. Instead of Pelosi, Nixon had Ted Kennedy to deal with.

It cannot be denied that, by 1968, considering what he had been through, Nixon was not mentally stable enough to do his job. He was paranoid, and that was a tragedy. But like Kennedy and Wilson, he soldiered on with a malady that should have prevented him from attaining the high office in the first place. He did not escalate the war. Read a book! Maybe Kissinger's memoir. Nixon waded into a situation beyond control, and did his best. That he had problems (one might reasonably assume) should have brought out some sympathy rather than condemnation at every turn. Withal, he did accomplish one of the most significant efforts of modern times: As fraught as it may have turned out to be, Nixon recognized that China could not be ignored anymore, so he changed the course of history.

The hippies actually guaranteed Nixon's election by rioting against the one politician who would have ended the war forthwith: Hubert Humphrey. Come Hell or high water, Humphrey would have got us out of Vietnam within his first year of a presidency that should have been his for the asking. He may not have gone to China, but he would have reversed the disastrous Vietnam policies of LBJ. There would be statues of Humphrey by now, had he been elected.

The '68 riots in Chicago were caused by a generation of draft-eligible men/boys who didn't want to serve, and who would undoubtedly have done the same if they'd been forced into fighting in WWII, the so-called Good War. Poof, it immediately disappeared in 1972, all the angst and self-righteousness, when Nixon ended the draft.

Don't paint any administration in black and white; there have been good an bad things to come out of every last one of them. Biden will continue the trend.

[peterm]

To reiterate. I never said it was Nixon’s war. If you, by way of Henry Kissinger, don’t consider the invasion of Cambodia to be escalation, that’s fine with me. And if you be want to blame Ted Kennedy for Nixon’s invasion, that’s fine, and the hippies for Nixon’s reelection, that’s also fine.

I find those conclusions to be laughable, since historians agree that the Republican “Southern strategy” (using racism to lure racist Dixiecrats to the GOP), fatigue with the war, Nixon’s promise of immediate peace, and “law and order” won him the election. And you’re forgetting that assassinated RFK was the people’s choice, not Humphrey. Humphrey was tied to LBJ, being the Vice President. Kennedy would have beat Nixon handily.

I cast my first vote in 1972 for George McGovern. The war was still raging. My draft lottery number was 5. Because I am white, I received 4f status for flat feet. I wondered then and now, how many young blacks with flat feet were sent to kill and die?

There was no way I was going to Viet Nam in 1971. I would have left the country, and my parents by then would have supported my decision. So whether it was Kennedy’s or Johnson’s war, Nixon kept it alive and well.

[Roderick Grant]

You voted for George McGovern!? The ultimate opportunist? No wonder everything you post is laughable. Well, not everything. I would never argue music with you, but politics? You need help.

You are correct about one thing: Hubert Humphrey was cowed by LBJ. The "Happy Warrior" lacked that anatomical appendage so often associated with male bravery. He was sidelined early in LBJ's administration for daring to contradict the president. (There's a true example of Fascism if ever one set foot on US soil.) If LBJ had allowed that HHH was smart enough to get some wood on the ball occasionally, the war could have ended during his administration. HHH should have resigned from his post and taken up an anti-war stance. Chicago wouldn't have happened, and HHH would have won the presidency. As it is, HHH's legacy is as one of the most dogged supporters, from the day he arrived in DC in 1948, of civil rights. LBJ signed the bill, but it was HHH who did the lion's share of the work for 16 years.

By the way, I didn't blame Kennedy for Nixon's actions re Vietnam. Kennedy's outrageous behavior during the Robert Bork hearings set the tone for Supreme Court hearings from the left ever since. RBG went through the gauntlet without any attack from the right, while Kavanaugh and Barrett were dragged through the mud by Feinstein, Schumer and Schiff.

[peterm]

I have to give you credit, Roderick. You (and Roger Stone) are among the few who aren’t embarrassed and will publicly admit to voting for criminal Nixon even though he won in a landslide (maybe you stayed home for that one?)

I guess I should have voted for a proven criminal instead of “the ultimate opportunist”? (Btw- I’ve never heard that exact claim before, and have no idea what it might be in reference to. I realize that he made disastrous political mistakes.)

It seems you prefer your presidents paranoid, slightly insane and ultimately impeached, as opposed to those who appeal to idealism.

(Oops, another -ism!)