Tone Matters Much, Instrumentation Matters Little

As is the feeling,
So is the result.

BLUF: Who makes the narrative? Well, clerisy minions, the hive workers, mostly lawyers and professors, here and there, make the narrative, day by day, and pass out those talking points for broadcast by NGOs and media.

But someone is setting the tone, the Weltanschauung that minions then translate out as propaganda (talking points), policies, and, if possible, legislation. Who is that today? Who sets the tone that is the narrative’s prius? Once it was Pamela Harriman. I am not sure who it is today, but I am sure it is a biological she living as a she and that she is active setting the tone of the hive and thus the hive’s output. And she is a courtesan of the first water, as was Pamela.

For identification purposes, this might be a start: whose parties does everyone who is anyone — meaning, everyone who believes they belong with the best someones — lust to attend? Answer that question accurately and chances are you have, not your narrative maker but, your tone setter. She is more important, more causative in the conduct of affairs, than is the narrative or its maker minions.

When I was coming up through music training and music school, a puritanical movement was rampant with regard to playing music by J. S. Bach. Only instruments for which Bach originally composed a piece of music could be used to play a piece of music composed by Bach. Specifically, Bach’s non-organ keyboard music could be played only on a clavichord or harpsichord, not on a piano, because that instrument did not exist when Bach lived, and, Bach’s organ music could be played only on a Silbermann organ or imitation thereof.

Notwithstanding, of course, Bach’s keyboard music was played on pianos in countless concert halls and recording studios, as is done today. Wanda Landowska was famously aggrieved over the sacrilege.

The truth is, Bach’s music of any kind is independent of instrumental rendition. Musicians to the manner born are just has happy reading a score of Bach’s music as hearing it played from an instrument. Such a one hears the music from looking at its notation.

Thus, Bach’s music transcends instrumental rendition of it. Rendition, in fact, means melting down, returning something to its fundamental state. The bodies of animals are rendered into certain chemicals and compounds, for example. To render music through instrumental manipulation is to produce sound waves, noise.

The music, Bach’s music, is a real structure that pre-exists any hearing of it. Playing music, Bach’s music, through any instrument, rendering the music into sound, more or less diminishes — some would say desecrates — the music’s reality.

Playing music on any instrument separates — as diminishment — the reality of the music from its enjoyment and salutary teleology. To play music is to wreck it to some degree or another. When music is well-played, that is because the player(s) did the least possible damage to it.

Thus, debating what instrument is to be used to play the music of Bach — or anyone else — is immaterial, irrelevant, and beside the point. Translating, rendering a piece of music into sound with the least distortion of its real structure is what matters. And the Italian word for translation is traduzione, traducing, slandering.

A musical performance is about reconstructing, or better, reconstituting, or better yet, promulgating an original structure. It is not about sound at all. Not one bit, not one note. It is about concretizing an original structure and that salutary, sociological, and teleologic.

A recital recreates a primal form. This is why Schweitzer said that where the music of Bach is heard, there is The Church. Who hears music is being evangelized. What instrument you hear it through is not important. That you hear it is important.

Tone, not instrument, is the essence of music. Anciently in music circles, tone was called ground. Tone in this sense, as I use the word here, means world view, Gestalt, Weltanschauung, Geist, Zeitgeist.

All of which goes to this point that I wish to make: a group of humans takes its form and destiny from a tone set by one person inside the group. Others in the group imbibe and then execute on the tone set by the tone setter.

In organized invertebrate groups, such as ant and bee colonies, the tone setter is a female. In organized vertebrate groups, such as wolfpacks and human families and voluntary organizations, the tone setter is a male.

In a human family, the husband sets the overall tone for the whole family as facing other families and larger groups and the wife sets the tone as among the husband, wife, and children.

A wife who tries to set the overall tone of a family is described as wearing the pants in the family, and a husband who lets or wants his wife do that is described as pussy whipped.

A husband who fails to set an overall tone that benefits his family is described as a loser, and a wife who abandons her husband and/or children is described as wanton.

A husband and wife who perform their roles are admired and ignored. For, they have done their duty and that itself is their recompense. Who is rewarded for doing what everyone knows they should be doing?

Human groups are neither individuals nor families. They have no center, no unitary authority or telos. But they do have a tone setter.

Many women report that they prefer a man to a woman as their work-setting supervisor. They report as reason for this preference the impulses of women often but not always to summon inner reserves of capriciousness, vindictiveness, and intrigue. In other words, generally but not entirely, women are ill-suited as tone setters for large human groups.

Come we now to present circumstances. Since the latter days of Pamela Harriman at least, the D-R UniParty — now going only under the name of Democratic Party — has been in thrall to a female tone setter. This is unnatural, but it is the case.

Who is the queen bee setting the overall tone of the Democratic Party hive? I am uncertain.

I am certain she is a female by birth and practice and based in Washington D.C. She is a courtesan in the classical sense of that description. Her tone-setting occurs at parties, not at courts, congress, or agencies. Agency, congressional, and NGO minions concretize in propaganda, policies, and legislation tones she sets. Lobbyists foreign and domestic seek her informal and/or intimate audience at parties and other off-record events.

Thus, punishing minions who take initiative to concretize in propaganda, policies, and legislation a tone set by the doyenne, the queen bee of the Democratic Party (D-R UniParty) hive, is petty cash to a real cleaner.

Men would not allow a woman to set the tone of a large group, such as a political party, except she evince reverence for the full system to which the group belongs, in this case a nation state, and also a desire to support and protect that whole’s sovereign freedom.

Thus, the deepest weakness of the Deep State aka Democratic Party (D-R UniParty) hive is their lack of men, not their ideology. As a group, they are losers.

When you want to clean out a treasonous political party, do not waste time messing around with minions, no matter their prominence. The mean girl, the trend setter will simply make more of them.

Instead, recognize the trend setter, the courtesan and target her. Find the D.C. hostess whose parties everyone who is anyone in D.C. lusts to attend. Light her up and treason in the political party she controls vanishes.

When what really exists is only One, there is no room for any difference in attitudes. The same life force that is present in an elephant is also present in a dog or in a cow. Since this life force present in all jivas is one and the same, we observe that everything is an aspect of the divine. So long as you have the feeling of ownership or keep saying, “Mine, Mine, Mine,” you will not have a chance to observe things other than yours. As long as you have this attitude you will never be able to understand what is not yours. On the day when you give up this idea, you will really understand this aspect of equanimity. You must reduce your attachment to things. So long as jealousy and ego are uppermost in your mind, God will be at a distance from you. When you are able to get rid of these qualities, God will come close to you.