Fascism and Dark Money

“The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.” — Samuel Huntington

One doesn’t have to look to metaphysics for the meaning of “the dark side” or “the sinister”. It’s there in black and white, as it were, in Mr. Huntington’s formula for the exercise of power. The desirableness of the opacity of power, the lack of transparency of power, the invisibility of power — like “the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz”. Needless to say, it isn’t a formula for democratic power. It’s a formula for fascism.

This darkness is the great danger. The mysterium iniquitatis, as the Church calls it — the “mystery of iniquity”, the “mystery of evil”. It is “mystery” only because it operates in darkness and is not transparent. And the darkness is called “ignorance”. So, it is to the mystery of ignorance we must look for a solution to the mystery of iniquity. It’s that point where the desire of some to remain ignorant meets the desire of others to keep ignorant.

Mr. Huntington’s formula for the exercise of power bears the signature of all the self-contradictions and self-negations of the Modern Era, while pretending to be the exact opposite of all that. It may be rightly called “post-Enlightenment”. Mr. Huntington, who, as a Harvard political scientist of some stature, owes much of his position and stature to the Enlightenment and its principles and values, now inverts and negates those very principles and values to which he, as a scholar, owes his allegiance and his loyalty. Instead of “illumination”, he now embraces the darkness. Instead of truth, deceit and deception. Reason passes over into mere rationality and rationalisation, and therewith into embracing the darkness. It’s a fine example, in fact, of what another political scientist, Sheldon Wollin, refers to as “inverted totalitarianism” in his book Democracy Inc. That sign of self-negation is even the meaning of the “new conservatism”, whose novelty resides largely in the fact that it “conserves” nothing at all, and has become merely a process of negation. And it is, in some ways, a very good example of what Jean Gebser means by “the mental-rational structure of consciousness now functioning in deficient mode.” That is to say, it belongs as a symptom to that structure’s own process of self-negation in destructive self-contradiction.

It’s in relation to Huntington’s formula for the restructuration of power that one has to understand the role of “Dark Money“, as described in a review of the book by Jane Mayer in The Guardian. “Dark Money” here refers to the lack of transparency in the flow of money in political financing and the seductive and subversive power of this dark money. But it’s not so much the opacity of the flow of this dark money as it is a question of the opacity of money itself – its lack of transparency. Money derives its power to subvert and seduce precisely because of the love of money, which we might just as well call the “mystique of money”. Money in itself would have no power to seduce or subvert if it weren’t for the mystique of money, and the desirability of money. Money has power because everyone believes in the power of money.

Such “dark money” also played a significant role in Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. The Nazi Party at one time was finished — bankrupt and in deep debt — until a consortium of German industrialists and businessmen came together to pay off the Party’s debts and provided a fresh injection of new funds. It was “dark money” because the endowment had to be kept secret from the Party’s followers and the public. And, in fact, one of the stipulations of the pay-out was that Hitler would move to suppress the anti-capitalist elements in his party, which he did in the Night of the Long Knives (or Operation Hummingbird).

Iain McGilchrist, in his book The Master and his Emissary, doesn’t spend nearly enough time on money as image and representation of power, although he does point out that the mystique and fascination of money is connected with left-brain dominance or hemispheric disequilibrium, because of the left-hemisphere’s interest in power (and most especially it’s power to inhibit the perceptions of the brain’s right-hemisphere). In this regard, the mystique of money is closely connected then with this inhibition of the intelligence of the right-hemisphere. This strikes me as being highly plausible, given the confusion of “value” and “price” reflected in Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic as one “who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing”. This devaluation of value into mere price (economism) is consistent with McGilchrist’s description of the hyperactivity of the left-hemisphere’s mode of attention at the expense of the right-hemisphere’s mode of attention. The debasement of value into price would parallel the debasement of the whole into a mere totality, as well, and reason into mere rationality equally.

In those terms, it would seem, then, that totalitarianism is the result of the complete inhibition of the mode of attention of the right-hemisphere. And since, “without contraries there is no progression” (as Blake put it and as McGilchrist also quotes him) the result of a unipolar brain (and world) must be uniformity, and ultimately stagnation. And that has, indeed, been the fate of every totalitarian system. Neurodynamics can go a long way in helping to account for present problems of human consciousness, and particularly the “culture of narcissism”.

Fascinum is Latin for an enchantment, a magic spell — to be bound by some power. And it is related to words like fascination and fascism, too. To be under the spell of some power. Money becomes a fascinum when it ceases to be transparent. But it’s all illusion, isn’t it? Because outside a certain economic and social framework, money has no power whatsoever. Dark money and dark power necessarily coincide where money ceases to be transparent and comes to be thought of as having an inherent value, or even life, in itself. Money is in itself a lie. But it’s a lie that everyone choses to believe in. When money acquires power, mystique, and charisma, this is what is called “Mammon”.  And you could say, I suppose, that Mammon, or Moloch, is the god of the left-hemisphere of the brain, and that this is also Blake’s Zoa named “Urizen”.

I haven’t yet finished reading McGilchrist’s fine book on the divided brain. (I’m taking this slower than usual as I’m taking copious notes on the whole thing). But I think it’s safe to say that the extraordinary power of money, however illusory it is in itself, is related to the usurpation of consciousness by the left-hemisphere of the brain and its total inhibition of the mode of perception of the right-hemisphere which becomes “the unconscious” or “the occult” and so on, and that this is the meaning of Gebser’s “deficient perspectivisation”. And I think it’s also safe to say that the tyranny of the left-hemisphere of the brain, in McGilchrist’s terms, is going to become fully manifest in social and political terms, too, which is why Mr McGilchrist seems quite pessimistic about our near future.

 

Advertisements

18 responses to “Fascism and Dark Money”

  1. abdulmonem says :

    I think and feel that the worst and lowest expression of the deficient mental consciousness is reflected in the banking sector the dark money, The dark money. due to its dishonesty and its parasitic nature of thriving on other peoples blood,seek darkness as the natural abode to function in,exactly likes the unjust power that flourishes in darkness. No wonder, the mammonic and the perverted ego carried by the like of those champions who call for the work in darkness. Money is invented as medium of exchange and as a tool to help in production and not to be used as a tool for more money production with all its disastrous consequences. When god has forbidden usury. he knows of all these ill uses and more. Again to the overview vision against the blind single vision, and how the human kills himself by jailing himself in the sensual consciousness. When you befriend god, your vision will be like the vision of god expansive and overall and when you befriend Mammon your vision will be mammonish,limited and in the dark. The wisdom of like flourishes with like. Thank you Scott I never get tired from reading what you write.

  2. abdulmonem says :

    What an ill advice Mr Samuel and what an ill- fated country that follows such an advice.. but the stories of our world,alas, do reflect the intermarriage of these two ills. The domain of invisibility is the domain of the god, while the domain of the human who has been created in the open is the domain of openness, otherwise he would not have been created. I think you remember the story of the hidden treasure that wanted to be exposed. This is why we are forbidden from entering god darkness domain that is full with all sort of calamities for those who entered it to abuse the divine knowledge.This is exactly what we are seeing over the horizon of our unhappy, faithless world. All the stories we are reading are warning signs of the ugliness of the human to be read by the human and to ponder the depth of his corruption to the beautiful,balanced world of the wise creator. In the Quran we read, god destroy no village, without warning. You ignite in the soul painful memories Scott, only to drive us into new level of consciousness. Nothing is unimportant in this juxtaposed world of His.

  3. Mike McDermott says :

    Like us both, the finance philosopher that Warren Buffet modelled his behaviour upon to become so rich, Bill Graham, considered that cash and securities etc. “have no support in concrete realities and which depend for their validity on the persistence of a fundamentally irrational mass psychology”
    Graham, B. 1937. Storage and Stability: A Modern EverNormal Granary . New York: McGrawHill, pp. 10-11.

    And yet the rot goes on. When the Americans said “E Pluribus Unum”, I do not think that they meant unum sucker, the one never to give an even break to. And yet it has come to pass. It seems that the trick to riches is to work on Gerd Gigerenzer’s ecological rationality, not logical rationality. Which explains Jesus’s point about camels and needles.

    Thanks Again,

    PS I love your posts, Scott Preston, but as you see from the above I like to seek out the sources of statements. Thus far, I have been unable to source the quote you call “Khayyam’s caution”, and hope that you will reveal it to me

    • Scott Preston says :

      Depends, I think, which translation of Khayyam you consult. I originally came across it a long time ago as a translation of one of Khayyam’s poems in another book. I was impressed, so I bought a book of Khayyam’s poetry, read through the whole thing, and didn’t find it at all. Not even something that could have looked like it. But then, I found the same thing with translations of Heraclitus, too. I have a book of the Fragments of Heraclitus, and none of the translations by this particular translator sound anything like the familiar ones you hear and read. It seems that some translators take liberties in glossing what they translate and massaging them into notions with which they are familiar.

      I can well believe, though, that it is a more or less accurate translation of the Persian, because the thought at least very much conforms to the Parable of Plato’s Cave and to Blake’s Proverb of Hell, that “Every thing possible to be believ’d is an image of the truth”, which is but another expression of Plato’s Cave — which in Blake is called the “Ulro”, the shadow world of images of the real, and in that sense, fully equivalent to “Khayyam’s Caution”.

      All these are, of course, summarised in Colbert’s brilliant term “truthiness”. So, I suppose I could just as well call it “Colbert’s Caution”.

      The Wikipedia article on Khayyam mentions something about the controversies amongst noted translators of Khayyam: Hedayat, FitzGerald, and Toussaint. I have Hedayat’s translation, so I think what I call “Khayyam’s Caution” might be FitzGerald’s.

      • LittleBigMan says :

        “Depends, I think, which translation of Khayyam you consult. I originally came across it a long time ago as a translation of one of Khayyam’s poems in another book.”

        Excellent and very true, Chief!! If I remember correctly, you have already mentioned that in some cases there are differences of meaning between the original German prose and the translated English version of Jean Gebser’s “The Ever-Present Origin.”

        The same is true – far far more so – when translating Persian poetry into an English version. For the record, in my opinion, English is the most beautiful language.

        Having said that, in my opinion, much of the motivation behind translating Persian poetry into English and other languages is financial gain, given that the translations are often so poor and lack an accurate capture of the real meaning of what the original poet was trying to say that I often think the translations are new poems altogether 🙂 And that the translator(s) should call those works their own original work rather than translations 🙂

        For example, let me cite FitzGerald’s translations and then I will “try” to capture what Khayyam said from the original Persian, so you can be the judge whether or not FitzGerald did a decent job.

        Edward FitzGerald’s version of a translation of “Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam”:

        Rubaiyat #49:

        “Would you that spangle of Existence spend
        About THE SECRET – quick about it, Friend!
        A Hair perhaps divides the False and True
        And Upon what, prithee, may life depend?”

        Rubaiyat #50:

        “A Hair perhaps divides the False and True;
        Yes; and a single Alif were the clue
        Could you but find it – to the Treasure-house,
        And peradventure to THE MASTER too”

        Translation from Khayam’s original Persian text:

        Rubaiyat #49:

        “And as the pure consciousness leaves our bodies in both you and I
        They shall pour dirt on top of those pits of tomb that have both you and I
        And for the dirt needed for the tomb of others who will come after us
        They shall use the dust that remains from our bodies”

        Rubaiyat #50:

        “Drink and be merry as the World has plans for our bodies you and I
        It intends to kill us and has plans for that pure consciousness in you and I
        Sit in the grass and drink from the pure drink of lucidness
        Since even this grass will have its beginning in our dust you and I”

        So, you can see what Fitzgerald claims to be the translation of Khayyam’s poems has very little to nothing in common with a close-to-verbatim translation of those poems. In fact, had it not been for Khayyam’s use of Persian names “Mah and Mahi,” (“the moon and the fish”), which were kept the same in one of the Rubaiyats translated by Fitzgerald, I would’ve never been able to find the original poems 🙂

        I’m sure others have noticed these sorts of discrepancies and flaws in translations, but who has time to make a note of them and alert the publishers/translators.

        • Scott Preston says :

          wow. Excellent! But that raises a conundrum for me now. Do I call it “Khayyam’s Caution” or “FitzGerald’s Kaution”. But I don’t see any connection between the two translations at all. Who translated the second set you cite? Is that Hedayat’s? Maybe they got the numbers of the quatrains mixed up?

          I haven’t consulted Ursprung und Gegenwart (The Ever-Present Origin, in translation) to see if there are discrepancies in the English translation, although the original title translates directly as “Origin and the Present”, or “Primal Leap and the Present”. “Ever-Present Origin” is probably the best translation of it, though.

          It’s in translations of Nietzsche that I’ve noted discrepancies, some of which I’ve mentioned in The Chyrsalis. One notorious one is, of course, the very meaning of übermensch, which has been translated as “superman” or “overman” with often disastrous results. I’ve preferred to translate it as “transhuman”, which gets closer to Nietzsche’s meaning, a meaning that somewhat corresponds with Aurobindo’s “supramental consciousness” or Gebser’s “integral consciousness”. Nietzsche’s übermensch (which a lot of “vulgar Nietzscheans” think they already are) isn’t “human, all-too-human”, but can only be understood as a different species altogether, and not a “super-man”. unless you undertand by that “supra-man” — “beyond man”. It’s Nietzsche’s “metaphysics” in a sense — his idea of the transcendent, a mutant in the Gebserian sense, and certainly not the perversion the fascists made of it.

          Just as bad is the translation of “the stare into the abyss”, which is sometimes translated as “when you stare into the abyss, the abyss begins to stare back at you”, when in the German it stares back not “at” you, but “into” you. Also, “when one goes to fight monsters one should take care not to become a monster oneself”, whereas accurately, it doesn’t say “a monster”, but “the monster” — zum Ungeheuer not “zu einiem Ungeheuer”. It’s little things like that that have big consequences for understanding — the “butterfly effect” as it were.

          • LittleBigMan says :

            “Who translated the second set you cite?”

            That’s from moi 🙂

            “Maybe they got the numbers of the quatrains mixed up?”

            That, too! You see, I bought the version I have for the original Persian, but because that’s the only version the online bookseller had, the book also contained the English translation by Fitzgerald.

            Now, in the original Persian version, #49 and #50 (by Fitzgerald) are actually #150 and #151 (by Khayyam). That’s why I mention above that I got lucky and found a quatrain that contained “Mah and Mahi” in Khayyam’s words where these were translated as “Mah and Mahi” in Fitzgerald’s work.

            Fitzgerald’s translation which has the excerpt you often cite was in both quatrains just before the one that contained “Mah and Mahi.” That’s how I knew what quatrain in Khayyam’s work, Fitzgerald was talking about. By the way, that’s the only quatrain where Khayyam makes any reference to “Mah and Mahi” (the moon and the fish”) 🙂

            “But I don’t see any connection between the two translations at all.”

            Exactly. There are lots and lots of quatrains where that is a problem. I don’t know where Fitzgerald was pulling his translations from. That’s why I say Fitzgerald’s work can safely be assumed his own work rather than Khayyam’s. One might, however, say that he was sort of inspired by Khayyam 🙂

            To demonstrate how bad the problem is, let me show Fitzgerald’s translation of the very first quatrain, and then I will add my own translation of the same quatrain.

            From Fitzgerald’s translation, quatrain #1:

            “AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
            Has flung the stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
            And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
            The Sultan’s Turret in a Noose of Light”

            My translation, quatrain #1:

            “Wake up, Oh you Idol! Bring us that which is owed to our hearts
            With thine beautiful face, cure our broken hearts
            Let’s drink this jug of wine together
            Before they make jugs from our dust”

            You can see again that there’s nothing similar between what Khayyam was saying and what Fitzgerald translated. On the book cover it says that Khayyam’s work was “Rendered into English by Edward Fitzgerald.” 🙂

            Unfortunately, I haven’t seen Hedayat’s translation. But it could only be better than Fitzgerald’s 🙂

            “I haven’t consulted Ursprung und Gegenwart (The Ever-Present Origin, in translation) to see if there are discrepancies in the English translation….”

            Oops! In that case, my memory fooled me into thinking that you had done a bit of that. Sorry about that, Chief! But, I’m glad my comment generated the points you have made about Nietzsche as having been misunderstood in those terms.

  4. LittleBigMan says :

    Outstanding essay!!

    It is quite illuminating to see that the Wiki pages linked to “the Night of the Long Knives” cite personal and political conflicts – rather than “Dark Money” and Hitler’s secret deals with German Industrialists – as the main reason for Hitler’s persecution of some of his closest allies: Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser.

    This is very important, because it appears that had “Dark Money” not been behind the outcomes, any disagreements between Hitler and his top comrades would likely result in some sort of a compromise rather than those men’s death. By extension, we can surmise that many (if not all) similar outcomes in political leadership of various countries are in fact motivated by “Dark Money.”

    “…….When money acquires power, mystique, and charisma, this is what is called “Mammon……..”

    I love it. To add “power, mystique, and charisma” to something, it appears, is to make it “holy.” The road to “Moloch,” then, runs through “holiness.”

    PS – This is the first of your essays I am reading on my new laptop! 🙂 My old SONY VAIO isn’t totally dead yet, but its giant 8 pound bulk (for a laptop!) and 17.3″ screen is a reminder of a poor decision I made in purchasing a laptop some 6 years ago. The RAM in that behemoth of laptops is 4 GB (maximized). Would you believe that, nowadays, with all the different software one has to run on a machine, 4-GB of RAM cannot guarantee a crash-free experience?

    Everybody at the stores was recommending me to go with 8-GB, but I went with 16. What is unconscionable is the number of 4-GB machines still on display at stores all over Silicon Valley!! Relatively speaking, they are tagged for cheap ($400 – $500), but they should’ve rounded these machines off the floor, given that a 4-GB RAM machine is, in this day and age, going to be worth as much as a pile of rocks very very soon. 🙂

    • Scott Preston says :

      I’m rather fond of my lenovo 4GB T61, even if it is a little old. Does everything I need it to do for 265.00. Considering I started with 64K Hyperion originally, 4GB seems like superabundance and high luxury. Since I don’t code any more, I don’t know what I’ld do with 8GB or 16GB anyway. And if I did still code, I’ld probably find some ingenious way to hog it all up so that everyone would have to go to 32GB. Coders tend to do that sort of thing. Give them more memory, they’ll use it up — probably pointlessly.

      • LittleBigMan says :

        LOL…..Well, for one thing, I run “Office 2016 Professional,” and even with the previous “Office 2013 Pro Plus” and Windows 7 operating system I had on my old machine, my 4GB machine was brought to its knees.

        I don’t code (but I hear Python is well worth learning 🙂 ) My decision to purchase a 16GB machine was based on the fact that I don’t know what to expect from the software industry, and new versions of software and operating system appear to just gulp memory like there’s no tomorrow. Hopefully, this machine will help me to use any software (or OS) for years to come without losing speed.

        • LittleBigMan says :

          Oh, by the way, I came close to purchasing a lenovo, but instead went with Asus.

          • alex jay says :

            I’ve got a 2004 Toshiba laptop running on Windows 7 … So there (WTF!)

            I have a better chance of understanding Lithuanian (and I tried) than your last exchange into nerdsville … : )

            Love you guys … From McGilchrist to Khayyam to Nietzsche to lenovo 4GB T61 in one post.

            Surely, Silicon Valley must be the modern equivilant to the Tower of Babel?

            The merger of man and machine – Kurzweil’s folly.

            • LittleBigMan says :

              Wow! You are getting exceptional mileage out of your Toshiba!

              I suppose you must not have newer versions of “Office Professional” installed on your machine. Unfortunately for me, I have no choice. I have to have that on my machine, otherwise, I won’t be able to communicate or keep up with the people I work with.

              “I have a better chance of understanding Lithuanian (and I tried) than your last exchange into nerdsville … : ) ”

              LOL….That just means that you have been lucky enough not to have the various nerve wrecking issues that many (including myself) have had with computers.

              “Surely, Silicon Valley must be the modern equivilant to the Tower of Babel?”

              YES!! 🙂 It’s really suffocating when you attend meeting after meeting that last 90 minutes or more, whereas, you know that the meetings should’ve lasted 30 minutes or less.

              To top it all off, after all that debate and posturing in our organizational meetings, it’s horrendous when you see people vote in favor of things that will shoot themselves in the foot and face. Quite a freak show!

  5. alex jay says :

    “I suppose you must not have newer versions of “Office Professional” …” (LOL)

    I’m just an old retired fart that vaguely remembers the days of cut-and-thrust (not paste) business when utilities like that would have been very useful. I got excited when Texas Instruments produced a super-duper calculator that knocked the pants off my Casio, and I was able to do compound interest rates in a jiffy. Other than that it was basically pen and paper. Mind you, it forced my generation to add, subtract, multiply and divide in our heads – something lacking in my experience of our younger folk who are mentally lost, but dexterously proficient – must be all those digital games. Ouch! My grandaughter got one for Christmas.

    Me? … I’m more into pin-ball.

    And I know I’m not far away from riding into the sunset, as it appears that the cosmic order has decided it’s time for my lot to make way, bearing in mind, that within the last fortnight there seems to be an epidemic of us rock-‘n-rollers kicking the bucket.

    Naming a constellation after David Bowie??? Where’s one for Elvis? Showing my age … : )

    • LittleBigMan says :

      LOL…..yes, gone are the days when spreadsheet programs, for example, couldn’t handle more than 12000 rows of data 🙂 Nowadays, the full blown versions which I’ve installed on my machine can analyze hundreds of millions of rows of data. Not to mention all the free software that are out there that can do incredible work.

      I totally agree, Texas Instrument calculators are awesome. I have one that I bought 12 years ago (TI – 84), and it’s still a joy to work with – even after it was dropped several times (once by myself and several times by those who borrowed it from me 🙂 )

      Coincidentally, here’s a YouTube video clip of the comedian Conan O’Brien giving tribute to David Bowie. Elvis’ name is also mentioned in the clip. At about minute 3:35 he starts to sing for Conan. He’s not even trying, but he still sounds terrific! Great sense of humor, too!

      My mom was crazy about Tom Jones, though 🙂

      • alex jay says :

        Yes … Bowie (Jones) was a lovely man (met him briefly at a party – totally unpretentious – must be his east-end London roots).

        Tom Jones: Still hanging in there despite the cosmetic surgery, and still singing – must be his Welsh roots. Mind you, if Keith Richards skipped one of his annual blood transfusion therapy sessions, he’d still look like Keith Richards lacking the animation – the original zombie with some great rhythm and blues fingers (God bless!).

        Jeez, I hope I’m not jinxing him. I’d prefer a moratorium on rock stars dying … for a few months at least – just to give us a breather from the mainstream media’s obsession with ignoring the real news. : )

        • alex jay says :

          Oh … While Keith Richards found his way into my conscience, I thought I might share one of the Stones’ more astute political contributions within their song-book. Personally, in terms of popular music, along with Barry Mcquire’s “Eve of Destruction”, (there are many others) this ditty pretty much came as a surprise to me from what is basically an “establishment band”, irrespective of their propogandised rebel image. Nice surprisre! … and very now!

          • LittleBigMan says :

            Wow! That’s awesome! Thank you for that. Here are the full lyrics:

            “We sell ’em missiles, we sell ’em tanks
            We give ’em credit, you can call the bank
            It’s just a business, you can pay us in crude
            You love these toys, just go play out your feuds
            Got no pride, don’t know whose boots to lick
            We act so greedy, makes me sick sick sick

            So get up, stand up, out of my way
            I want to talk to the boss right away
            Get up, stand up, whose gonna pay
            I want to talk to the man right away

            We walk the highwire
            Sending the men up to the front line
            Hoping they don’t catch the hell fire
            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            We walk the highwire
            Sending the men up to the front line
            And tell ’em to hotbed the sunshine
            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            Our lives are threatened, our jobs at risk
            Sometimes dictators need a slap on the wrist
            Another Munich we just can’t afford
            We’re gonna send in the eighty-second airborne

            Get up, stand up, who’s gonna pay
            I want to talk to the boss right away
            Get up, stand up, outta my way
            I want to talk to the man right away

            We walk the highwire
            Putting the world out on a deadline
            And hoping they don’t catch the shellfire
            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            We walk the highwire
            Putting the world out on a deadline
            Catching the bite on prime time
            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            Get up! Stand up!
            Dealer! Stealer!

            We walk the highwire
            We send all our men into the front lines
            We’re hoping that we backed the right side
            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            We walk the highwire
            We send all the men up to the front lines
            And hoping they don’t catch the hellfire
            With hot guns and cold cold, cold, cold,
            Cold nights

            We walk the highwire
            We walk the highwire
            With hot guns and cold, cold, cold nights

            With hot guns and cold, cold nights

            Songwriters: KEITH RICHARDS, MICK JAGGER
            © BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT US, LLC
            For non-commercial use only.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: