Comedians Snorting with Soldiers at Golgotha: Gaslighting by Gasbags

“Quis deridet derisores?” Who mocks the mockers?

Straw Dogs, Straw God, Comedy Captivation and False Friends

We wanted a laugh and you brought us a lash. ‘You nailed it’ is right. We’ll not cross you. Comedians and humour go together. You must humour them or they get nasty. Scoffers get very sanctimonious don’t they? Do you ever detect the almost psychopathic bullying in some very successful comedians who appear genial as they demonstrate their genius for being mean about meaning in a supposedly well-meaning way and then start whinging when people are supposedly mean to them? The enduring characteristic of Bolshevism is Godlessness and we might add humourlessness. That is why comedians are useful for BlackRock-Bolshevism making AI-posthumanism - because they know a thing or two and are thrice blest here. The last laughs that Christ heard were from mockers but they were never really the last ones and comedians certainly won’t have them.

Let’s give credit to the successful funny men and women. It’s good to hear that some like Eddie Murphy managed to avoid the tragic path of John Belushi or Robin Williams and survive fame or that Hart and Rock or Chapelle don’t make atheism their aim in their own apotheosis. But remember they do get paid for it. Handsomely. They obviously serve a purpose to the system that rewards them. In the US some avoid a head on entanglement with God. But what about all those celebrated for their theological views which inevitably act like serial-killers of God?

There is not much worse ‘entertainment’ than establishment-promotion of integrity of comedians. But are comedians merely hyper-sensitives who get their retaliation in first and then work for the Man? When so many people suffer from existential despair do comedians help or hound them? Like an elephant has a trunk you may identify a fair few successful comedians by having mocked God and Christ and often regularly so. But it is amazing how many comedians are extraordinary hypocrites with political Alzheimers about what they do, enter the culture wars and pick easy targets and slink away. Culture wars were launched in Europe against the Catholic Church i.e. Kulturkampf. Having made political correctness they may then disappear and in a new guise join the opponents thereof. The association applies to satirical writers who complement and compliment them. As the Scots say, it gars me boke.

When you salivate over the satirist Christopher Hitchens’ sallies - remember his brother said that revolutionaries like them had been willing to wade through a sea of blood to get to their paradise. When I read the comments on Stephen Fry assisting Christopher Hitchens in arguing that the Catholic Church is not a force for good, it is striking how much fawning and undeserved praise he gets. Hitchens was a political actor, a neocon warmonger who loved Trotsky. How do his heroes, which he continued to serve, allow him be a paragon of virtue? Should we avoid criticising Fry because he does not like it himself? He seems thin-skinned. The false arguments and paper tigers he sets up to easily knock down are welcomed as evidence of his brilliance and tolerated because of his British gentlemanly front. Yet I recall him berating an African Christian for their attitude to homosexuality when the vast majority of anti-homosexual legislation in the world came directly from the British Empire he appears to personify. That has been well studied. He said elsewhere Jesus would throw up if He came back, I know the feeling after being exposed to the fawning, robotic or otherwise, about the cleverness of his vehement atheism which seems to put him into a less gentlemanly mode very quickly. Is Jesus real or not for him? Though he loves Oscar Wilde, does he dismiss Oscar’s realisation about Jesus in prison in his deepest despair? What about the loss of meaning and despair that creates to many lost men and women?

Ricky Gervais is the David Brent of philosophy, science and theology fond of his own jabs. I can see him working as a jolly parson when others went to war. He must feel very funny when he hangs around with his straight-men scientific buddies as they un-ironically criticise others for making stuff up. Maybe they’ll find the formula for funniness. Behind their make-up, comedians often make up a God and religion they insist on as real. When they have set up their unreasonable, nasty and ridiculous fake faith they cut it down with their measured nice and common sense reason. Thanks be to God for reasonable comedians! They talk about a phantom that they have created and accuse other people of doing so. Then they establish a new god of reason, scientism, industry, power or AI - believing they are somehow free of the religion they make. Further if Mammon likes you and you are on message, you get some of the stuff that makes the golden calf. It is not 100 per cent one way. Steve Martin sings in Atheists Don’t Have no Songs,

“Catholics, Dress up for Mass. And listen to, Gregorian chants.

Atheists, Just take a pass. Watch football in their underpants.”

You are meant to say Ricky Gervais is the height of common sense, the working-class lad that has become some sort of scientific philosopher loved by reasonable people. But list all the major things he does not speak of from his mansions when he is being promoted. Why is his needle stuck in the God groove when he does not believe? Should I be guided by people like him about needles in my body or mind? Scientist?

I see the comedian Jimmy Carr is playing a vicar in a recent film. You can add in Rowan Atkinson, Whoopi Goldberg, Eric Idle, John Cleese and so on who played the role. They say religion is funny. You could probably come up with a dozen comic performances mocking God or Christ. Now list the same number in Islam, Buddhism etc. Yet many players are overtly and secretly political or involved in very political contests. Pope Francis did not seem too worried and invited 100 comics to Rome. He seemed to have an outdated idea of an unhurtful comedy that brought people together and said you can laugh at God. That was a good one. Conan O’Brien suggested it wasn’t a good idea to let comedians in. I noted that the Pope passed away a few months later. No foul play is suspected… Jim Gaffigan said that being Catholic in comedy is asking for trouble. Let us concede all the niceness and openness. I still think there’s a darker side that risks using humour for political purposes. While the Pope was in touch with the successful comedians he was out of touch in other ways. Is the Church fawning too? In the propaganda model of society with permanent cultural revolution in a mono-revolution, the real, natural, joyful humour that pervades Catholicism might be distinguished from cybernetic or steered comedy for political purposes. Many people comment that Gervais made them atheist. He is cast by admirers as brilliant but rehashes standard arguments. He gets more serious than preachers when he is claiming scientific knowledge which equally fails to explain the mystery.

“They all laughed when I said I wanted to be a comedian. Well, they're not laughing now.”

That was a great line surprisingly from Bob Monkhouse. Snippets of humour go a long way. Canned laughter, script, hypocrisy, cant, self-righteousness and preaching are part of contemporary comedy. But humour as technique often foreshadows doom. Comedians sell us down the river telling us they are truth-telling. You must have realised the joke is on you if you fawn before charlatans. Much promoted modern comedy involves disestablishment of Christ. I like George Carlin but I know what he is doing. I remember him doing a comic straw-man on religion which caricatures God. He makes a straw-God to burn. The problem is his humour delivered sombrely is serious. He re-articulates a position fundamental to anarchists and revolutionary thinkers like Proudhon. As Karl Marx’s daughter said, ridicule works best with the working class. Ridiculing God, so common in comedy, is political. There’s loads they will not ridicule. Comedy in the propaganda model is often culturally corrosive despite the liberation they suggest. We become straw dogs with their straw God. The singular or mono-revolution often comes from the empire and empire of entertainment in the empire of the mind (which Churchill signalled). Chesterton suggested that genuine Christian belief brought humour.

Monkhouse used do the lottery. Many countries use comedians for lotteries. Funny isn’t it, funny peculiar at least. I don’t think Monkhouse was into mocking religion. For others, if you mildly lampoon God, you might get the lottery gig as well. It was on Golgotha.

“And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him, and put on him his own garments, and led him away to crucify him.”

Combined with the mockery,

“And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.”

Comedians seem like your friends but are often fair-weather and false. Like false-friend words. You think gift but it may mean poison in some languages. You think comedians are saying or doing one thing but it is often another. I like Charlie Chaplin and laughed at a bit of Woody Allen and maybe Jim Carrey, but I have no illusion they were moral giants from their lives. What about Cosby? A lot of comedians normalise drugs, alcohol, pot, psychedelics - replacement spirits of God. A lot took cocaine. Laughter did not make them joyful. When they do AA themselves they admit a version of God back. They get the giggles, have a laugh and regularly maintain they are some sort of martyrs like the ones they often replace. They love free speech we are told. But they don’t like when they are subject to criticism, e.g. when they take money in Saudi after criticising others for years. Bill Burr has been in the sights on that. Likewise when the ‘right’ get involved in comedy, it’s not funny to the other side.. Why do they not take fake ghetto stuff to a street corner in the hood in Chicago? Why not get a plane to Mexico and knock on the door of the cartels that supply the cocaine you seem to enjoy and give them a piece of your mind? Speak truth to power like you delude yourself that you do.

The host of the Late Late Show in Ireland (who is apparently a comedian) said Jimmy Kimmel could come to Ireland and say ‘whatever the f… you want.’ This seemed a sick joke in context of repressive legislation and practices in relation to free speech that Ireland has attempted in the globalist takeover. It can only mean, come here we have the same view as you. That is not diversity but consensus and political homogeneity. I know nothing about the host, never heard a joke from him, have no tv, so I make no comments on the man but what he said as presented. One of the most famous Irish comedians was Dave Allen. Unsurprisingly he was noted for his anti-Catholic comedy. This is a consistent theme, a way to get on. Tommy Tiernan, a contemporary Irish comedian, is very critical of Catholicism but I heard him say he wants to see Islam blossom in Ireland. Tim Poole in the US got into a debate with Adam Conover about his double standards in criticising Christianity but not Islam. Ben Elton talked to the Irish Late Late Show and criticised politicians as trolls in a post-truth society in failing democracies. This is a handy term to label people who don’t agree with you when your criteria for truth are not clear or they have been undermined as meaningful considerations. Who seriously think comedians are the guardians of truth? How did you guys get popular unless you were sapping and trolling? Why is it that we go from Edmund Burke to Burqa?

Comedians are shock troops, of the new order, who get fame. Humour has been captured. That which once alleviated social contexts has been re-engineered. It has been assumed by new serious priests who often preach atheism and how you should think if you want to be in the new gang. Social life gets more sombre after their corrections while they are allowed shock us, a bit like an old aunt long past caring what people think about her. If they are not they are often priming us, telling us what will happen and we laughed not realising it was true. When Father Ted had a scene about racism and Chinatown on a little island in Ireland, it was eerily prescient. Likewise you see snippets from Monty Python about not identifying gender which were anticipatory. While I have no doubt there are great comedians we never hear of out ‘on the circuit’ or in the ‘comedy stores’ (like commodities) and a few do address power, comedy has always been under the king’s or queen’s controls as Royal Variety performance and the Honours lists show. Dick Gregory, George Carlin, Bill Hicks seem a different breed because they were addressing serious matters and Katt Williams might be cited today. But though they speak to power, they corroborate that comedy is political and they are just more open or genuinely anarchic. The minority good ones have a strong moral compass and they tell an unfunny truth but majority have none but what they are signalled to do by the system. Carlin has a strong atheistic base associated with English humour. That is political too.

You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. That was why the Master of the Revels was established at the Reformation. Revels are substitute, entertaining rebels under government control. Today, Jerry Langford has been captured and Rupert Pupkin clones have the stage as kings of comedy. These Kings of Comedy want to replace the King. Many comedians are materialist. They work with ‘material.’ Their humour is often related to the gap between belief and religion. Many are atheists will undermine religious institutions. Thus they fit into the mono-revolution. The difference between their approach to Christ and Islam vindicates this. If comedians do get more critical of Islam it will be because the new order has given the green light, perhaps as part of inducing a final religious battle to show how only techno-reason can save you. I don’t suggest they should by the way. But they will be used to foment rebellions…. brave… courageous… shocking… honest… hilarious… Most comedians are control or con-troll merchants not least in their own person. The con is they are challenging power and troll (as well as meaning winding-up) means magic or a strange non-human entity. By the way, winding-up betrays the mechanistic thinking that comedians engage in whilst seeking to appear spontaneous. The Bolsheviks were born in clockmakers’ Clerkenwell in London. Now the trolls tell us only they know truth and democratic politicians are trolls as well as priests.

You choose the Incarnation or Carnivalisation, both dealing with flesh. There used to be a close connection between solemnity and humour in Saturnalia, Mardi Gras, etc. However the fool that could represent Christ or the boy who became a Bishop was not to oust the original. Now we get the fool and the boy in power instead of the original. We get the unholy fools who don’t get the joke and neither do we, disorientated with drunken carnivalesque rotations in permanent revolution. In between was Calvinisation. Notice the connection between Geneva, iconoclasm, revolution, reconstitution of international affairs, tyranny and imposition of consistent views. Calvin managed through the Consistory. Here is continuity with the austere comedians preaching secular morality with a doomsday mentality from ramparts of the righteous. Calvinisation was paralleled with revel-ation in Elizabethan England which couldn’t quite stomach the Scottish-Swiss dourness. Like the cheese it was too holey. Herefrom is where the moral surveillance of the surveillance society comes, something the forward, progressive comedians never seemed bothered with. Orson Welles (like the true magician and comic he was) misdirected us when he suggested Switzerland had only produced the cuckoo-clock. It has contributed to world revolution like few others, bar London. You codded us. Now we have the One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest society. Just note that the comic ‘hero’ ended up too with a crown of thorns in the form of ECT. Old comics are straw dogs. But comedians are more Nurse Ratched these days. Note how many loved the authoritarian hygienism of late. Rebels my a**. Most are bullies for business. That Hugh Grant can morph from a supposedly comedic actor (which seems to mean someone who looks a little silly and smiles) into a horror actor in Heretic who spouts standard Jesus and God myths as nonsense is no real jump. The silly grins are equally horrifying. I only saw some clips.

The mono-revolution parody of Christ is manifested in a similar idea of fishers of men. The ‘hook’ ‘line’ and comedy ‘reels’ from comedians with ‘catch-phrases’ combined with a consistent involvement in attacking Christian religion (often justified in relation to tele-evangelists) by people with a ‘Messiah Complex.’ It is an odd parallel of fishing for atheists and agnostics or at least people who will reject institutions, especially Christian ones. That many of them then end up whining about implosion of a society where they have lit the fuse is either incredibly unaware or shows they are dumb and dumber. The comedy script masquerading as liberation is preamble to replacing old Scripture for a licenced simulacrum of joy with political consensus instead of community. While you might argue we live in a cosmic jest you won’t be laughing with the world we live in soon. It will be dead funny alright. They are not joking when they describe some shows as captivating. Some remind me of Groucho Marx.

“I never forget a face-but in your case, I’ll be glad to make an exception.”

Humour Me Or I’ll Get Petulant

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”

W.C. Fields was good on the one-liners though he fits into the pattern of addiction. Many comedians seem to be addicts as they prescribe remedies for society. Laughter is good for you, a tonic, medicine, nice. But physician heal thyself! Mere association through stage-management should not monopolise it so people think only that is humour. The comedians tell you they are brave, their managers present them as rebels challenging power but they are in fact part and parcel of it. Everyone laughs if the king wants you to. The slap-stick comedy tells you when to laugh and uses a carrot of laughter with a hint of a control-stick. We own your humour. You laugh when we say at what we tell you to laugh at. Laughing at God, Christian religion, state, family traditional natives and men will probably persist because that is the goal of people who own the platforms. We may own you if we can make you laugh on cue.

Those things you used laugh about are no longer acceptable in an controlled society. I don’t like nasty or cruel jokes and politics hidden as fun is no fun. The problem is that promoters of supposedly nice comedy are promoting political agendas not objective truth. Comic writing and comic novels are very rare. I like The Two Philosophers short-story by Irvine Welsh for example. That made me laugh. Name ten great comic novels… I mean ones that made you actually laugh. I did like A Confederacy of Dunces. He was another genuine but tragic comedy writer ignored. Interestingly the comic central character was a medievalist. The doors to tragedy and comedy are adjacent and indistinguishable too. Similarly Brendan Behan was funny and known to some in my family, but he was also sold as typical drunken Irishman and was tragic in many ways. His communist brother met Mao and Stalin. Apparently the Church was worse than the communists. Fry uses an emotive rhetorical argument about burrowing insects in children’s eyes to disprove the existence of God, but is never worried about extremist ‘burrowing in’ to institutions.

The idea of humour as comedy is a secondary meaning. Originally it was medical and psychological diagnostic associated with blood, phlegm and bile. In Elizabethan England it came to refer to activities and actors who demonstrated certain exaggerated pathologies and their disorders. Paranoia, worry and melancholia were related to humours. They still are, but now we package them for sandwich-board carriers often with paid messages, or at least ones that will please the kings and call them comedians. Comedy came from there too, revels/rebels, distraction to support the Royalty in a non-threatening way. Many of them made their merry fun in the places the self-proclaimed divine royalty had just robbed from the Catholics. Oh what a merry time was this revolution! Later you could go to the ‘gods’ and ‘paradise’ in the theatre. God was to come from the machine like the ancient Deus ex machina. Being funny or comedic is funnily enough inherently connected with the reduction of God and Christ as an active control in culture.

James Joyce wrote a cosmic joke of Finnegans Wake punning all the way through the material world from the beyond he had rejected. That’s the problem. When you reject the existing order you must make fun of the absurdity of humans and existence. Joyce’s father was funny by all reports and had witty one-liners. Seeing an abstract portrait of his son after he had emigrated and become known in the avant-garde, he said James has changed a lot since he went over there. Faust becomes a joker when he gets devilish power. You laugh at others and pranks. They’re not fun anymore if you look at the internet, more cruel, witless, mean and even criminal. Irreverence does not stop with God but it comes to your door. It goes like this. I can’t believe in God, or won’t, so that gives me a licence to undermine all with existential anxiety. Humour might be truth wrapped in a smile but comedy is more a mere sharp, cutting shard or splinter wrapped in a snarl. Being deconstructive is deconstructive to Being.

The link between jingles, ads and salesmanship becomes blurred, addiction seems to come with a tendency to the atheist or critical line. Richard Pryor said,

“I‘m not addicted to cocaine. I just like the way it smells.”

Cocaine is good, Christ bad.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit”.

Another contemporary, Sammy Davis Jr., was not a comedian but was a comic performer who flirted with Satanism of the theatrical type. It’s as easy as ABC, Anything But Christ. But paradoxically it is society based on Christian values that gave space for artistic expression building on Greco-Roman and European indigenous traditions.

Comedians. Why Worship Them Instead of God or Christ?

It’s not funny. Endless meaningless chatter substituting real conversation for staged, platformed propaganda lines. Comedians are architects of anxiety manipulation for deconstructive subversive political purposes. They are usually establishment protected pawns given the platform to appear anti-establishment and then de-legitimate certain views and legitimate others. With the establishment platform and fear, opponents to them might be the subject of ridicule. The supposed truth-tellers are not subject to truth-telling bar heckling which is something else.

Comedians like Jimmy Kimmel have been in the headlines for controversial political comments. But all comedians are political. It is all about framing, consensus and subversion and a lot of dialectical materialism or di-electionist material(ism). Why are US comedians so involved in politics and elections? The answer is obvious. They are political actors whether they know it or not. We see the strange nexus of fraternal organisations in the comedic origins of The Shriners.

Do you not find it funny that Ricky Gervais can rightfully say to actors at an award ceremony that - we’re not interested in your views on politics? They were not in a position to lecture the public on anything. Yet we have to listen to his supposedly neutral, objective platforming of atheism. Would we hear so much from this cheeky chappie if he didn’t toe the line? Do you think that deconstruction of Christianity has not been political? Before Russell Brand was baptised he had done a show called the Messiah Complex. Gervais says there is no scientific proof for God. That’s agnostic properly so-called. If he is so interested in science or ‘the science’ why not get budding comedians to explain why their jokes are funny in a scientific way, especially before telling them? He also admits he is neurotic because he wants to control things and art allows your inner fascist come out and you can in art act as God. Many a true word is spoken in jest. He is a truth-teller everyone seems to love but we can’t found a civilisation on a comedians’ frustrations – especially not one who cannot work out the causal connection between increasing violence and diminishing belief in God. Jester as king is no use. I think his speech might be translated as there are certain topics comedians are not allowed to talk about (yet implicitly you can hammer Christ all you want).

Sociologically, comedy is no joke. Orwell said the future was a boot-stamping on the face. I have argued there is a recent phase more akin to TechBondAge bootlicking. Comedians have been one group lauded and glorified in a snivelling supine way as they contribute to corrosion through mockery of Western institutions. In Britain there has been idolisation of comedians or actors, especially if they advocate atheism and ridicule religion. Then they are somehow just neutral, highly intelligent and clever. Thus the (genuinely clever, accomplished and funny) comedian Jonathan Miller was one of The Apostles at Cambridge and involved in Beyond the Fringe and famous sketches, including anti-religious ones. Whilst promoting atheism and undermining religious belief in many tv productions and interviews, he had the gall to insist he was neither an atheist or an agnostic and it had just never crossed his mind we might have a soul. This accords with Marx. What were his productions about then? Was it just mere mockery for fun and laughs or did his productions fulfil purposes and intent of the system that supported and promoted him? He did a lot of propaganda. You were just a fool if you believed in all that religious stuff. Why do they keep harping on against religion? Strategic ambiguity assists an agenda of soft coercion. That’s what happens when you abolish objectivity for mere managed mania.

Ben Elton always appeared uncomfortable being a comedian and seemed more interested in being a politician. He wrote a series of books, one of which is entitled Blind Faith. In this it is humanists, i.e. ones who believe in science, who are persecuted victims. This was indeed bold after the millions killed by people who rejected God in Germany and Russia in the 20^th century. Follow the science. Nice one Ben! By the way, your acknowledgement that science could be blamed for the catastrophe that gave rise to these circumstances is a bit ironic. Innit? I’m more worried about blind faith in scientism, technology and technique and the military-industrial complex they often serve.

The comedian is often not happy, may not even be jolly and most are descending into mere staged and scripted mockery whose real object is often arguably Christian religion. That they don’t know they are enlisted might be testament to a lack of comprehension as well as insight. That they now appear in Saudi Arabia might be used to show emerging employment or deployment in the new world. They will seek safety whilst proclaiming their boldness. The ironic comedian may become a proto-professor of AI-posthumanism, promulgating a nihilistic philosophy. David Foster Wallace and others realised the danger of overstepping the mark. He thought that irony led to despair. The problem is that irony is as much an instrument of permanent revolution as the iron that started the industrial one. The frame of commercial comedy is the same as the frames of production and IT. His humour was defence method to existential crisis that ultimately fails.

Like the Joker, the comedian is avenger, usually full of lefteousness, while the right are usually just mean in that mode. I respect standing up to bullies but you can become what you thought you were fighting against. Comedians often tell us they started being comedic to stand up to bullies, institutional and otherwise. I get the feeling many comedians were not the courageous warriors we thought, but a person who having been bullied wants to get back at someone that can be (or can be painted as) a bully, by getting their retaliation in first. Some are genuine anti-bullying advocates. Resentment was great fuel for the Bolsheviks. Some comedians admit they were the bullies themselves. That the new bully is likely to be a construct still slakes the thirst for revenge. That the new bully is a political operative is becoming inevitable. That comedians are driven people is seldom in question. The bully pulpit allows the preacher feel good often whilst serving the interests and good of other facilitators who tweak or spin or blatantly give the message.

“I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers; How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!”

When power rebuked Falstaff, we see the real relationship. Power may rebuke those comedians after or not at all, though reality may. That comedians continually mock Christianity and not say Islam, is not only because of pragmatic considerations of their own welfare of which they are second to none, but because mockery of Christ and disestablishment of Christian society is the ultimate target of much politicised and instrumentalised comedy. Comedy often does not contain or even correspond with humour. Czars of comedy often corrupt it. Many are not even funny, funnily enough. Sarcasm gets tiring as is constant bullying and hectoring, even with a fake grin, a change in pitch, a grimace of incomprehension or supercilious look and irony all the time. Focusing on consistent human targets is straight out of the book Rules for Radicals. Worse, comedians are often the harbingers of a society of humourlessness they are enlisted to create. We are often treated to trails of woe in their lives and see it as heroic whilst ignoring connection between their disorder and what they sell. Worse, people unconsciously suppose the apparent mental strategy of the successful comedian reflects some deeper insights and intuitions about the nature of reality - and model it. Why do comedians often end up as sad clowns?

Yes I value humour and laugh at things other people do. But I have a belly-full with sanctification of jesters who are not even holy fools or tricksters but often wooden front-men. When the establishment asks us to mourn their losses, we are asked to remember the laughs they gave us like it was the bread of heaven and they were doing good deeds.

Who is the joke on? I am very sorry to say the vast majority of ‘comedians’ now induce a strange sensation in the gut. I suppose that’s the result of grim ‘punchlines.’ In the propaganda model many left-orientated comedians would have heard of, they never see themselves as playing a part in it. They may realise but not really understand they have been a lubricant for the machine of the new world whilst posing as freedom fighters. Their inevitably counter-hegemonic stances often must have a Godless outcome, especially in the UK. They aim to replace transcendence with irony and idols. If some of them are not just script-reading actors and are quick, clever and informed, their justification for ignorance is far less. Whilst successful comedians can say - well I might not be funny to you but I’m clearly promoting some marginal group or worthy cause, they are either blissfully unaware of their pawn status or aware of their political porn-production and dedicated to a radical cause they do not utter.

Zelenksy was a comedian. His comedic path prefigured his political one, as if cosmically illustrating that geopolitics is a charade. Why am I supposed to take Stephen Fry seriously? I see him lauding Christopher Hitchens, whose highest hero was Leon Trotsky. Hitchens is another who people seem afraid to challenge as they laughed nervously lest he’d point at them. Why is it that many comedians have been working so long on eroding belief in God? Why is it that their approach embodies what the daughter of Karl Marx said was the most effective weapon on the working class - ridicule. Why should we have to listen to John Cleese belly-aching about the failure of British society when he worked so hard on it? With all respect to Graham Linehan, he realises that his very funny Father Ted was inevitably sociological and part of social-engineering, so the great injustices he has been subject to for his contemporary position comes with the territory he and his many (fair-weather) friends entered. That is no justification for his treatment.

Some other comedians bleating about political correctness softly brought it in. Do they not recall how they changed language, made certain types of jokes impossible, corrected language and thinking and generally worked to reflect a prior political agenda? Does Cleese not see the blatantly anti-Catholic propaganda he was involved in serving up? Are they connected? There is some awful lack of awareness that is very weird between comedians and mockers and consequences of their actions. Could it be they were more steered than steering? Call it coincidental but the cultural segue between the helicopter coming to the island in The Catholics (1973) and the Father Ted opening is a synchronicity at least and looks intentional.

I like a good laugh. But unfortunately I have had enough of the exaggeration of the supposed nobility of comedians. There are two problems. Many end up being sanctimonious windbags having made a career out of ridiculing sanctimonious windbags. Maybe they are so good at recognising them because they look in the mirror and know them intimately.

We are meant to bow down before the joker and thank them, for their noble presence and identification with the poor and downtrodden from their mansions in Hollywood and Hampstead. We are supposed to marvel at their incredible wit, wisdom and courage. My mother used to use the old phrase ‘Mocking is catching.’ Our public discourse has been poisoned by a constant back and forth of mocking. It is not an accident soldiers mocked Christ during the Passion. Mockery is part of a humiliation ritual, not humility of a courageous soul confronting power.

My mother also used note how someone could smile like a cat or a dog stripping their teeth. That smile is not funny. When an aggressive animal is showing their teeth, it is something different than a relaxation of facial muscles in a convivial social setting of mutual enjoyment. Many front men and women, advertisers and tv comedians do this baring as a prelude to their script. The ritual of control and dominance is allied by a kind of duper’s delight as the narrative is interwoven to reach the target. The traditional power of a comedian was related to the power of the state they often represented and power of the tool of social ridicule. People are afraid of comedians in some way. Many are afraid of being pilloried or ridiculed in public. Talking in public is one of their great fears. Being exposed is another. It is a typical dream people have of being exposed in public. This is a deep fear comedians exploit. It is a threat that invites you to laugh, just as you would in the presence of a dictator or madman who might kill you. They ply their trade between pharmaceutical promotions.

If you look at the comedy film Planes, Trains and Automobiles from another perspective, it is largely a touched-up anxiety dream. It is a very common dream people have of trying to get somewhere and being frustrated. It is funny from a sort of uncanny valley pathway. Jokes can then be added on that make it more comedic but the superstructure is subconscious. Anxiety is fuel of the comedian. Manipulation of it is their art.

Comedians are like magicians. Usually it is power that employs them. One of the reason royalty began to persecute witches is not because they were afraid of feminine power but because they believed in magic and black magic. Men were witches too. The jester works for the king or queen. Certain tv channels promote comedians and you can be sure that such promotion is linked to the propaganda they are peddling.

There is a powerful tradition of speaking truth to power that existed in Celtic lands. However, there was a very rigorous system of social norms which would have facilitated that in a context of many competing kings. Elizabethan England took control of entertainment. That was ultimately where copyright would emerge from and the modern patent system. Again, Ireland has the first copyright system in the world and again it was not from a state regulatory system but case-law.

Comedy was a weapon of governance. Hitler had Lord Haw-Haw, the Irish-American William Joyce. He was later executed in Britain for treason. There is a great irony of course. Many ‘comedians’ work for regimes that are treasonous in themselves. If you look at the ’golden age‘ of British comedy, you will find most were ex-military. They deserve respect but we can also see the system that gave them exposure had been highly regulated, as it would be after a war and considering the propaganda model of society. There is contiguity between comedians and political power and activism. Bob Hope entertains the troops before they might die. We see the odd link with the military and authority reflected in many ‘comic’ writers from Kafka to Pynchon‘s Gravity’s Rainbow to Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 and Kubrick’s film adaptation Dr Strangelove. Laurence Sterne in Tristam Shandy had Uncle Toby. As well as driving dark horror literature, Ireland produced humour, often a dark type - maybe true gallows humour.

The comedian smirks sometimes like the serial killer or psycho we see. They know better. They know something that you don’t. They can wield their power. You better watch out. Pay attention lest you become the butt of the joke. The joke is on us, and probably the actors they turn now into jokers. If you think you are not being mocked along with the previous Christian culture you lived in, bear in mind that control by state intelligence is often referred to as Operation Mockingbird. Leo Strauss argued that the Enlightenment thinkers had to turn to laughter because they could not destroy revelation by reason.

Satire to Set Ire for Materialist Resets

Mockers who are comedians are lubricants for the machine. Genuine satirists are grit in it or the gadfly to the horse. However the latter category is on the margins of power. Swift realised in satire we gaze into a mirror in which we see everyone’s face but our own. This is the cognitive dissonance of the comedian.

I would distinguish satire and comedy. Satire often was a powerful inversion or subversion which was not funny to those in power. I think of a tradition from Jonathan Swift to George Carlin. But if you listen to Carlin, most of his great work that can be accessed on video is an accurate description of society. In many ways, his comments and comedy are strikingly unfunny. The audience is partly laughing in an anxious way because at some level they know it is true but that truth is too great to acknowledge. I remember when I was a boy limping home with a very bloody leg and a gaping wound when I was small. I remember a young girl who saw it seemed to think it was the funniest thing. There are odd reactions we have when we see something shocking. But Carlin did not seam to realise that he was involved in eroding the institutions that protected society against total investment in materialism - capitalist or communist.

The comedian that engages in satire without understanding the complexity of the situation they are confronting engages in a sort of comic scientism which uses the tool for a purpose unconsciously or consciously for another purpose beyond scope of the comic justification. They substitute political consciousness for humour. Many new wave comedians corresponded with the rise of Trotskyism with popular discontent against Thatcherism and had an earnestness, zealousness and humourless disposition that would have made John Knox proud.

Bait-and-Switch: Altering Before the Altar

Here is an example of the bait-and-switch substitution that comedy is involved in. This involves acquiring or associating with some religious place, icons or context and replacing it or obscuring it with comedy, performance, irony or a potentially comic substitute with the intent to alter the altar.

1. The Reformation: The state took over religious institutions and the English modern theatre came instead into indoor spaces with more secular themes away from the religious mystery plays.

2. Sullivans Travels: In the ‘comedy’ film Sullivans Travels (1941), there is a famous paradoxical scene. The largely white chain-gang traipse through Southern swamps to a congregation of noble poor black people who at the time lived under discriminatory conditions. Go down Moses is sung beautifully and movingly by the Pastor played by the great Jess Lee Brooks, mirroring religious sentiment of black spirituals after a compassionate speech. We are baited with the beautiful, good and true. Then we get the magician’s switch. When the eyes of the formerly soul-dead come in, look up they don’t get more of the healing wisdom of the preacher. Instead they see a screen and Mickey Mouse by the grace of Hollywood and they are saved somehow and the director prisoner has an epiphany. The vision is switched to the power of comedy. It is hard not to see an idol insertion here. It is interesting the mother of the real director Preston Sturgess was one of Aleister Crowley’s Scarlet Women, Mary Desti or Soror Virakam. Was the laughter so animated because it was in the Church where the genuine preacher was ousted? Maybe it was a pilgrimage to parody.

3. Hitchmas, Anti-Christmas: All of these funny guys and their scientific foils share the humour of Ebenezer Scrooge before he meets Marley’s Ghost. Not-believing and mocking does create cold hearts who approve of Malthus. I watched a pathetic idolisation by Fry, Dawkins and Murray broadcast at Christmas. The setting up of an idol before Christmas is deliberate and sad. Of how they laughed even when Fry quoted Hitchens talking about burning a rival Trotskyist. Ha Ha! I remember Fry, a representation of a gentlemanly Brit, berating a Christian in Africa for the laws on homosexuality not realising the irony that the British Empire introduced those law and were responsible for the majority of criminalisation in the world. Here the white saviour came again spewing idiocies from ignorance whilst being portrayed as an enlightened being. John Water’s supposedly funny Christmas Album is a similar example, more like an Anti-Christmas one.

4. Idols: Idolatry is a religious offence now become a common entertainment trope as Hitchens showed. “What would winning the Idol programme mean? Everything. Why have you come?” Cue sentimental selling of emotion and commodification of compassion or suffering. Notice stand-up comedians rarely do well in talent shows. If they are ventriloquists or performance humourist they might stand a better chance. Why not wow the public? Most comedians are controlled ventriloquist dummies for something else. The controllers nightmare is when the dummy becomes self-animated like in Dead Of Night (1945). When War of the Worlds was broadcast most people were more interested in the dummy Charlie McCarthy and his uncanny self-motivation. Funny. Audiences treat comedians as real people with independent voices too, even in mainstream media in the propaganda model. Successful comedians will not remain unless they suit the regime perhaps by helping let off legitimate steam.

5. Kalle Anka: Every Christmas Eve Swedes are treated to the same old Disney cartoons as a type of secular ritual, a bit like Sullivan’s Travels, a funny distraction from the original reason. This is followed by another cartoon which involves redistribution of other people’s property. There is laughing alright in mansions of the people who fed this cheap switch.

6. Good Friday Experiment: Tim Leary did a bit of stand-up, was involved in the radical politics, and the Good Friday experiment on psychedelics in 1962 in Marshall church. Divinity students were given drugs in an experiment involving a religious service. Get in the way of the altar again.

7. Thomas Jolly and the Olympics: The Last Supper scene at the Olympics was an example of a subversive artistic appropriation for entertainment, if not humour. Jolly it wasn’t.

8. Clean comedy and Comic preachers: Churches are increasingly becoming performative arenas.

9. Colbert and pharma: The cringeworthy sketch promoting Big-pharma proved their purpose.

10. Clown masses: To the shame of the Catholic Church, the gross parody of the performative post-Vatican II mass has involved clowns in the US.

The Lord Haw-Haws and the moving lights to distract for the mind’s cat to chase are meant to hide awe. Awe was not just the central sensation of the sublime and Romanticism, it was the base of belief in a higher power. The awe was the awful which people forget has a positive connotation as well. Comedy is truly awful now, with few exceptions. That is not in the good sense. Worse its awfulness is part of the simulacrum which will alter or hide the altar or turn it into a stage for a poor substitute performance. The movement is from Incarnation by iconoclasm to Calvinisation to Carnavalisation to Reformation by Idolatry. The thing paid performers and propagandists seem most upset about tells us something about them.

“And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews.”

Bolshie in my day was a word derived from Bolshevik but reduced to a mere contrarian mode, probably deliberately. The Bolsheviks have been let away with too much b******s. BlackRock Bolshevism leads to sili-transubstantiation and the Singularity. This is the mono-revolution or singular revolution and it’s no laughing matter.