Wiktionary defines gentrification as –
The process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces earlier usually poorer residents.
In reality, there is little renewal of any kind, other than in terms of real estate value. Quite the reverse actually, as anyone who has lived in the bowels of any large older city and experienced gentrification first hand can attest, the process can more appropriately be described as that of culturecide:Ā a complete uprooting and annihilation of an existing social ecosystem by mindless external force – more akin to Mongols sacking Baghdad than any fantasy of civilisation being brought to the unwashed.
The larger of our western cities, especially those that have also been major ports, have traditionally been hotbeds of cosmopolitanism where global cultures have no choice but to collide head on and just deal with it, like it or not – and as a result they have also been the centres that have propelled our civilisation forward. At the very beating heart of these centres have always been the Bohemias – variously labeled as the slums, the red light districts, the criminal quarters and other such derisive terms. The places your momma tells you not to go. Full of the scum. The unwanted. The vermin.
Sleaze, drugs and crime. And art, creativity and culture. This is the world of Oscar Wilde, Charles Bukowski, Jean Genet and Dada. It is where most of what makes life worth living springs from.
But then the ’80s happened. Suddenly, the stupidest our society had to offer ran into wealth they did not deserve. Like dominoes, the great Bohemias that remained tumbled one after the other. London, Berlin, San Francisco, New York. I personally witnessed the corruption of Sydney, Australia. It broke my heart. The nouveau riche decided that greater Bohemia was their lifestyle choice, and so it died. Like cockroaches, they overran the kitchen. Seeking a part of the culture they desired, they only succeeded in exterminating it. The sanitation process to remove the unsavory elements that gave Bohemia its very life systematically rooted out the unpleasant, until all that remained was the safe, cappuccino banality of the kind popularised in Friends. They invaded. They destroyed what they coveted.
Essentially, this is what has happened to the atheist movement over the last decade. There are too many colours on the palette. They want to turn a Jackson Pollock into a nice inoffensive, pastel Matisse dogs playing pool scene.Ā And so buffoons like Myers and Watson have come to dominate the landscape.
We have been gentrified. We have been purged.
August 21, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Just being pedantic, but I’m sure Matisse would have had more colours on his pallette than Pollock.
I don’t think Pollock used a pallette much either š
August 21, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Granted. It’s more an argument of order over chaos. Order is just so boring.
August 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm
(To add to the pedantry:)
I see your point, but I too think that Matisse vs. Pollock is a strange choice when there are so many boring academic painters around. I find a lot of joyful chaos in Matisse, while Pollock’s abstractions seem more formulaic to me – in a sense, more ‘orderly’. (I do like Pollock’s work nonetheless.)
August 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm
OK. Dogs playing pool then. I think that’s suitably inconsequential and non-threatening.
August 22, 2011 at 12:25 am
Next time I go visit Matisse’s grave (4 kiloemters away), I’ll let him know you enjoy his work. š
And Franc, this was a very moving piece you wrote. Reminds me the way my own neighborhood changed, not for the best.
August 22, 2011 at 12:52 am
Bohemian…now there’s a word that’s been ripped to shreds. Most people just think it’s about purchasing a personality through fashion.
August 22, 2011 at 2:28 am
Kind of like “liberalism” eh? So many words made worthless…
August 22, 2011 at 2:27 am
Hmmmmm…. a bit off topic here but I think it fits in an adjacent sort of way.
I am not a huge opera fan, but I like some of them quite a bit. One of my favorites is “La Boheme”. When I watch this opera I am really moved. It is an expression of how human beings struggle for justice and meaning and how boring powerful idiots often control social rules and the legal system. A masterpiece in my humble estimation.
So, along comes the musical “Rent”. “Rent” is advertized as a kind of modern “La Boheme”. I love Broadway style musicals and see several each year. I love the musical format for some reason…but… the musical “Rent” turns out to be one of my least favorites. The characters are selfish and reckless. The story is non existent. The characters have a narcissistic edge that was not found in the characters in “La Boheme.” The characters in “Rent” are rebels just to be rebels… not seeking justice… not seeking art… just doing really bad performance art like fucking Yoko Ono wannabees.
Perhaps this is relevant to the concept of the bohemian. The modern popular concept of the bohemian is that of a kind of selfish party animal.
More people should watch opera… and not just rich culture fakers.
August 22, 2011 at 2:35 am
Dandy Warhols are a guilty pleasure. Remind me of Sydney circa 1986 –
August 22, 2011 at 2:52 am
Excellent – thanks for sharing the video. It sums up my thinking. No offense to anyone who gets a tattoo, but to me it is the sign of a true fake-bohemian…. like Dr. Seuss and the Sneeches wanting stars upon thars… haha…. to tat or not to tat… and what does that tramp stamp really mean?????
August 22, 2011 at 3:45 am
Brilliant analogy, John. Sneeches and stars.
I have a huge tattoo on my back, but few understand it. No one has anything like it, I’m not defending it, just stating it for full disclosure. I can’t agree with your analogy, and then not admit it.
August 25, 2011 at 1:46 am
This isn’t a case of leisure class fauxhemians purging elements they don’t like. It’s the consequence of atheism being conflated with liberal politics. How often do you run into an atheist who isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal, feminist, and/or vegan? Not very.
It’s all so depressing. (N.B., I’m not the author of the linked article, but I think it’s both insightful and appropriate.)
August 26, 2011 at 5:42 am
So, “Overlord”, all liberals, feminists, and vegans, to be sure, are “foaming-at-the-mouth” types? Do you live your life guided by these cartoonish pictures of what the world out there is like?
I’m a leftist, broadly speaking (and only if I absolutely MUST put a label on myself, knowing all too well that it doesn’t encompass my whole being, same as your “conservative” label doesn’t encompass yours) — and, last time I checked, my mouth wasn’t foaming. I actually CAN have a reasonable discussion with people of different persuasion from my own who will not shout at me and will not engage in character assassination or grandstanding as a favorite bloodsport. (Do any of those things, and the conversation is OVER.)
Now, where do I fit in your gallery of stereotypes?
August 26, 2011 at 11:52 am
To be fair Raimondo, you’re reacting in kind of a Watsonesque manner to liberal poking. South Park feminists hate stereotypes, whilst living up to the worst of them. So do many, many liberals.
Consider, when a terrorist bombing occurs, most accuse those fucking muslims again, and “liberals” call them “bigots”. Trouble is, 95% of the time, those “bigots” are right. Same with Overlords observation of new, new atheists. Just because it offends you and may even seem “bigoted” doesn’t mean it’s not true.
August 27, 2011 at 12:33 am
When was the last time you checked?
August 27, 2011 at 4:59 am
Franc, you’re chasing a phantom. That is not me. You lecture me about how liberals can be jackasses — as if I didn’t know? Or about the responsibility of the muslim mindset in what has metastasized as suicide bombings and terrorism in the name of allah — as if I had accused people of “bigotry” for saying just that, which is something I AGREE WITH?
You seem to have missed my point — which is that “Overlord” appeared to lump all “liberals” and leftists into one big “foaming-at-the-mouth” mythical beastie. That is simply not the case. THAT is “Watsonism”, not my reaction.
I am a leftist, AND I despise liberal or leftist idiocy as much as any other brand of it. Is that hard to grasp? If that is what “Overlord” meant to convey, he didn’t do a very good job of it.
August 27, 2011 at 11:46 am
OK Raimondo, my apologies then. Where do you want the jello and plastic sheets so you two can wrestle it out?
August 27, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Come on, man. let’s end the foolishness. š
August 25, 2011 at 4:31 am
An interesting video from someone who was at the conference where Watson was supposedly “elevatorized”:
August 25, 2011 at 4:35 am
Watson = narcissistic personality disorder ???????
August 25, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Watson = narcissistic personality disorder ???????
I believe that is the point I have been making right from the start – complete absence of empathy; obsessively self-centered (it’s all about me!); complete disregard for consequences or how her actions affect others etc.
It’s classic narcissist psycho/sociopath. Read the clinical explanations of these conditions. It’s not what’s in the movies.
August 25, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Yeah, many many valid points. Humanism vs. feminism at the heart of it – the actual middle east woman emphasising the former. One quibble, “Rebecca, you’re an attractive woman, guys are going to hit on you…”
a) Not anymore. Not ones in either movement anyway.
b) May have been cute once, but after her behaviour is now about as attractive to me as a puddle of puke. The ugly that’s inside will always win out. Like they say, you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.
August 26, 2011 at 5:47 am
Well, the guy was trying to be nice. For me as well, Rebecca is not at all attractive, but individual opinions will differ. š
August 26, 2011 at 3:12 am
great video. Pleasant, articulate, kind. He’s a good guy.
I like that he brought up Maryam Namazie and her speech, and how she spoke of human rights, and civil rights, not women’s rights.
“feminism is an outdated word” indeed.
August 26, 2011 at 3:17 am
Maryam Namazie:
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-inquisition.html?spref=tw
August 25, 2011 at 5:10 am
I don’t intend to wear out my welcome, but here’s another video whose author, I think, makes a series of valid points:
August 25, 2011 at 9:41 am
Yer man in the video from Ireland and Strasbourg or whatever seems unwarrantably concerned.
Seems to have swallowed the “feminism” schtick.
This weren’t it. Feminism, my arse.
Relax, fella. A pint of plain is your only man.
“It is a truth universally acknowledged,. that even a beta neckbeard in possession of a good pension plan, own home and tenure, is everywhere in want of a better wife.”
Or failing that, a neckbeard in possession of citizenship of one of the world’s most bountiful welfare states. That doesn’t involve learning a nasty forn langwidj. With liberal divorce laws. Seeing as how we’re knocking on a bit now. The big three-oh.
Dear Jane would have minced these sacred cows and served them up as a fancy, with weak tea, in about three-and-a-half pages. Comic irony much?
August 25, 2011 at 10:03 am
What’s your point, “dustbubble”? It went lost on me, in all the bluster, jargon (WTF is a “neckbeard”?) and attitudinizing.
And why exactly do you need to take a dump on the “man in the video from Ireland and Strasbourg or whatever”? (It’s Ireland, by the way, not “Strasbourg or whatever”. He says as much in the video.)
Given how he makes no bones of his criticism of Watson, what “feminism shtick” did he “swallow”, exactly?
Did you even listen to the whole thing?
August 25, 2011 at 11:07 am
Yes I did. He seems to be getting a sweat on about an imaginary enemy.
By taking Watson’s rote-learned “radical” guff at face value.
And crediting her with an acuity and probity she plainly does not possess.
(I lost my shit at “attractive”, I must confess. Is he fucking blind and deaf?).
A “neckbeard” is how non-attendees of these pointless jamborees categorise the male contingent thereat.
The guy made a painful and entirely superfluous point of his position in the EU insttutions, in an apparent attempt to out-“feminist” La Skepchick.
As though it gave him more credibility with women than any common oul’ fella off the street. Some of my best friends are black, etc.
Clue: Irish bloke and sunglasses boy.
This whole extended farce, starting with an apparently irrational pop at what appeared to them to be the dominant female, Paula Kirby, and vicious and well-over-the-top follow-up swipes at more nubile, intelligent and junior pack females, all the while placing themselves constantly and to advantage in the orbit of “rich old white guys”, well above and beyond the call of duty …
.. and when one of the old high-status males finally notices the caterwauling, it’s bruited as a “Score!”
It’s not about “feminism”.
It’s about the main chance.
Time waits for no woman.
I confess the kid with the Joey Ramone shades had me wandering in search of coffee by about halfway.
Anybody who thinks any of this has anything to do with ‘Feminism 101’ needs to pinch themselves harder.
(I’ve got loads more of this shit backed up my bum, if you like)
August 25, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Dustbubble – I’ll say you have this stuff backed up your bum…. because it is complete shit. (you have to admit that you made this too easy for me)… :^)
August 26, 2011 at 2:11 am
In all honesty, dear “dustbubble”, you sound like an overeducated shithead with delusions of eloquence.
Just like that guy in “Psycho Killer”, “you’re talkin’ a lot, but you’re not sayin’ anything”.
August 26, 2011 at 6:09 am
Shithead? More than likely. They’re vanishingly rare on the web, I believe.
But exactly how wrong am I?
Thought I’d pretty much made a decent stab at dragging this ridiculous affair into a coherent story, with motives and stuff. Otherwise it’s just an inexplicable mess.
Always keen to learn more.
August 26, 2011 at 9:06 am
How wrong you are? To establish how either “right” or “wrong” you may possibly be, first of all one would have to make sense of WHAT it is that you are saying. With you, it seems to be an impossibility.
But it appears that at least one person loves you — YOU. Good for you. Hold on tight to you.
August 25, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Oh all right then. Have it your way.
August 26, 2011 at 2:06 am
Call me “Video Man”. Here’s another one, featuring ELEVATOR GUY himself!
August 26, 2011 at 3:26 am
Fabulous when Goldie could play a ditsy blonde and the rabid fembots did not try to have her silenced.
It’s fun to be a ditsy blond sometimes.
August 26, 2011 at 5:24 am
Awright — one more from me, “Video Man”… š
(Sorry for the somewhat faulty audio portion.)
August 26, 2011 at 9:49 am
Raimi sez “first of all one would have to make sense of WHAT it is that you are saying. With you, it seems to be an impossibility.”
But not so impossible to understand that you weren’t driven into a hyperventilating tizz from the get-go.
You’re enraged, and apparently personally offended, by some wanker on the internet’s prolix nonsense?
Stay off public transport, mate.
I’ll take questions, if you reckon I’m talking shite. Which is always a strong possibility.
Do you have any?
Or any opinions of your own?
Maybe you could just carry on spamming the joint with tedious and irrelevant video clips. I’m sure they have merit. If I could be arsed.
August 26, 2011 at 10:29 am
Here is something concise and to the point for you to ponder: Fuck off.
August 27, 2011 at 2:54 am
Raimondo, I think you are taking Dustbubble’s words too personally…
that reminds me to work on my post about words…
August 29, 2011 at 1:50 am
I am constantly translating English from the UK for Americans.
You may be surprised how difficullt it is for those from the US to grasp the subleties, the terms, and the dripping sarcasm.
It may be the same general language, but there is an enormous disconnect.
August 29, 2011 at 7:15 am
Tell me about it.. I am an Indian working in NY, and sometimes we have video conferences with colleagues from london (multiple accents within that as well). Me and another Indian friend often look at each other and wonder.. WTF are these people saying.. WTF are they talking about. And thats in addition to occasional WTF are the americans saying š I am sure I am at the dishing end too.
August 29, 2011 at 11:23 am
poor astrokid. That sucks. Atleast you have Indian friends there with you to commiserate with.
August 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Dustbubble = troll.
All the signs are present. Discombobulated strange replies that attack others without a cohesive argument followed by a post that says something like “Well… if you think I am a dick then why do you bother to reply… la de da!”
August 27, 2011 at 2:55 am
oh for fuck’s sake John, get a grip.
August 27, 2011 at 3:02 am
Ok…but… I honestly can’t understand Dustbubble. I am not the only one. I guess I am just to stupid to figure out the coherent story that Dustbubble has presented. Ok… probly no troll… its just that I read the the entries and go “what?” Maybe I am just to old to understand all the referential nuances and stuff.
August 27, 2011 at 4:02 am
Either (1) he’s one who has no clue that he’s borderline deranged, and is thus unable to relate to others in a coherent and comprehensible manner; or (2) he is intentionally sowing discord and disruption, i.e., he is a troll and a provocateur.
Either way, he’s not anyone to dignify with much respect. Hence the terse summation in my previous message — which, far from being expressed as a response to a “personal” attack (it’s very likely that a self-deluded jerkoff such as him acts this way with ANYONE who dares be in his way), but done in a spirit of a well-deserved collective middle finger, which I hope others will join me in expressing.
August 28, 2011 at 1:59 am
okay, first, and dustbubble, correct me if I’m wrong, but part of the disconnect is that DB is from the UK, so that is where the the confusion lies with Raimondo and John, (John is from the US, Raimondo is from – ?) and two, Dustbubble IS a provocateur, which does *not* make him a troll.
August 28, 2011 at 6:55 am
Raimondo is from the U.S., FYI.
August 28, 2011 at 6:57 am
A provocateur cannot be a troll? A troll cannot be a provocateur? How does it work?
August 28, 2011 at 11:53 am
A provocateur cannot be a troll? A troll cannot be a provocateur? How does it work?
Raimondo, generally no. Is Hitchens a troll? Of course not. There is a difference between trolls (who are just vandals) and devil’s advocates and provocateurs (who want to goad you into thinking about stuff you don’t want or unmasking your actual sentiments). I hate the former, I love the latter – extremely important tools for discourse. Also trolls virtually never believe their own crap. This article may help.
August 28, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Yeah… I probly don’t understand the King’s English much….
August 29, 2011 at 11:20 am
John, see here: https://greylining.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/the-gentrification-of-atheism/#comment-1174
August 31, 2011 at 6:27 am
I understand your distinction, Franc — I think. But, though I agree that trolls are generally just bent on creating disruption for the sake of it, provocateurs do stoop to using troll-ish tactics on occasion, if they do feel so inclined, don’t they? Also, there are provocateurs whose only aim is to destroy the object of their attentions. Hence the French expression “agent provocateur” from which the word derives, in abbreviated form.
Here is the Oxford definition of “provocateur”:
“Etymology: < French: provocateur person who provokes or incites (a person) to violence, disputes, trouble (c1500 in Middle French), person who incites a person or group to violence or to committing an illegal act in the interests of an opposing party."
So, far from stimulating a productive and fruitful discussion, the (agent) provocateur's aim is actually to sabotage and upend the adversary. At least, that's how I've looked at it thus far. Some may attach a positive connotation to "provocateur" in the instance of Hitchens because they may find themselves on his same side, but, without a doubt, his intent is still to cause distress to the object of his provocations, which is also, by and far, like it or not, the intent of a troll, though perhaps not at the same level of intellectual sophistication.
August 31, 2011 at 6:33 am
Oh, Sacha, I do “get” the “dripping sarcasm” alright. There is a large difference, though, between someone who has something to say and one whose only purpose is to bask in his own perceived “magnificence” at the expense of those he clearly looks at with utter condescension and contempt.
September 1, 2011 at 4:34 am
I like you, Raimondo, I also like Dustbubble.
To me it is exactly what I’ve said about the two different cultures.
September 8, 2011 at 2:26 am
Preach it my brother.