Search Results for: suits ties

Old Ties

Clothing, Fashion, Grooming

At one point in my life I probably owned well over four dozen ties (neckties) simply because I wore a suit to work each day of the work week, and occasionally over the weekends as well (weddings, formal dinners and so on).  The inside of my wardrobe looked very much like this:

Ties back then were not just about dressing well, nor even some kind of workplace uniform.  They were a mark of your individuality, a means whereby you could differentiate yourself from all the other guys dressed like you in their blue or gray pinstripe 3-piece suits.

So I read this article with a certain degree of regret:

While the trouser suit – for men and women – continues to be a staple on catwalks at international fashion weeks, it seems that the old fashioned necktie isn’t quite so in favour with those seeking out business attire.  

On Twitter this week, City worker and think tank owner, William Wright, of New Financial, shared a snap that will strike anxiety into the heart of officewear traditionalists…a very pared down tie display. 

While the neck tie was once considered so vital to employees wearing a whistle-and-flute to the office that it spawned a whole shop – Tie Rack – dedicated to it, it seems the accessory is no longer on trend. 

Ignoring the teeth-grinding and pretentious “on trend” phrase — what we used to refer to simply as “fashionable” — the fact remains that with the trend going from “business suits”  to “business casual” to “casual” to “Jeremy Clarkson” to “one degree above fucking ghetto”, there is no future for men’s ties, which makes me melancholy.  It’s just another manifestation of what was once called “prole drift” — the propensity for society to degrade its appearance and manners towards the underclass and becoming a world of boors.

The plain fact is that putting on a tie makes a man look properly dressed when the occasion demands it.  I couldn’t think of attending something like a wedding, funeral or even a smart sit-down dinner without a tie.  Here’s what I mean:

Without a tie, even a decent suit looks wrong.

So I went over to my tie rack as it stands today, and counted my ties.  Eight neckties, two cravats and a bolo (string) tie — “Texas formal” — and that’s it.

My old tailor at Lightbody’s in Johannesburg is turning in his grave.

Afterthought:  A little while ago, New Wife and I were going out to dinner somewhere, and I put on a suit for the occasion but dispensed with neckwear because it wasn’t that formal an occasion.  When I asked her how I looked, she responded acidly:  “What about your tie?”

I was able to pull the Old Fart card here by putting my hand to my throat and feigning shock at my forgetfulness, but I don’t think she was fooled.  I think she has been sent to chide and chastise me by my late mother.

Suits

Guy Stuff

Every man should have at least one. (I’ve spoken on this topic before, but it bears repeating.)

I can already hear the moans: “I never need to wear one! Why should I own a suit?” and “I hate them?!They’re uncomfortable!” and “I won’t work for a company which insists on men wearing a suit!” and so on, ad nauseam.

Don’t care. There’s something about wearing a decent suit which not only makes a man look good, but feel good — provided, of course, that you feel comfortable wearing one in the first place. (And if you don’t feel comfortable wearing a suit, you should become so, by wearing a decent suit until you do.)

“I never go anywhere that requires me to wear a suit!” Then it’s time you upgraded your choice of places to visit.

Here’s the thing: men look good in a well-tailored, stylish suit. It almost doesn’t matter if your body shape is not like a movie star’s, because if the suit is designed properly, it will hide your shortcomings better than any other type of clothing. (And if you don’t care what you look like, or subscribe to the idiot notion that looks shouldn’t matter, then you need to grow the fuck up — because appearance matters, and always has.)

Here’s another thing: women like a man in a suit. You only have to see the female reaction to Mad Men‘s Don Draper and Roger Sterling for proof. Another manifestation is when a women says, “Man! You sure clean up good!”, because believe me, that’s a statement of admiration despite the ungrammatical choice of words. (What it means, by the way, is that she’s looking at you with new eyes — and likes what she sees.) For better or worse, people will always take you more seriously when you’re well-dressed, and a good suit will always leave a favorable impression.

I won’t even go into the topic of the importance of wearing a suit when applying for a job, because that’s self-evident.

As for color, it’s simple: dark and muted, grey or blue (charcoal or navy-blue, for the uninitiated). And it should be fashionable. Men are blessed with the fact that suits’ fashions don’t change from year to year, but they do change from decade to decade, which is at least as often as you should buy a new one.

And lastly, there’s a very good reason to have at least one suit handy: there will come a time when you absolutely have to have one. It might be a funeral, a restaurant with a dress code (and spare me the gripe that you’ll never go to a place that has a dress code — once again, grow the fuck up), or maybe there’ll just be a time when you have to impress somebody.

Here’s a little scenario for you all to chew on. Imagine that you achieve something of importance: you saved someone’s life, you donated a large sum of money to a charity, you won a sporting competition, whatever. Let’s say that a consequence of this achievement is that you’re invited to the state capitol so that the Governor can shake your hand.

Let’s be clear about this: you can’t go in jeans and a fucking t-shirt, because that shows immense disrespect to the person who wants to honor you. You’ll need to wear a decent suit.

A suit is like a gun: you hardly ever need one, but when you do, you’ll need it really badly. So have that suit handy, and every so often, wear it out to dinner or some social event. You’ll be amazed at the reaction. The old truism still applies when it comes to going out:  men wear suits; boys wear casual clothes. (In an old Cary Grant movie, a flashback made the 40-year-old Grant look like a teenager just by dressing him in casual clothes; when coming back to the present day, he wore suits — and matured instantly.)

Oh, and one last thing: colored shirts, no matter what the fashion magazines say, are for pimps and parvenu yuppies. The proper shirt color is white, with maybe a tiny pinstripe if you’re adventurous. (I have a number of identical “dress” shirts, all with a red pinstripe, because I once saw a good deal at Marshall Field and snagged a dozen. Good, discreetly-tailored shirts never go out of fashion.) And have half a dozen decent ties — not from WalMart or Target — at your disposal; once again, discreet “rep” ties with diagonal stripes never go out of fashion, ditto monocolored silk ones. And FFS: get a decent pair of black lace-up shoes to go with your suit, and keep them polished.

Take a look at the pics below: there’s barely a woman alive who wouldn’t respond positively to a man dressed like that — and if she doesn’t, she probably isn’t worth bothering with.

And the Governor would be equally impressed.

Two Views On Oppression

Deep Thoughts

This article by Gustavo Jalife at TCW opened up a new line of thought for me.  He starts off by quoting Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves To Death:

‘Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.’

Jalife continues:

Over the last two decades the expansion of police society – across both capitalist and non-capitalist systems – has intensified, fueled by online minorities and off-line majorities that cry out for protection and assurances.

…the ghastly Covid restrictions on personal movement and social intercourse being an excellent example.

In the Bad Old Days — inhabited by people like George Orwell — oppression was simply a function of the State, whether post-Revolutionary Jacobin France, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union or the MiniTrue of WWII British Government.  It was, if you like, a brutish system wherein the various police forces arrested, imprisoned, or executed anyone seen as resistant (“counter-revolutionary”), non-compliant or (to use the word beloved by oppressors) deviant, if not “treasonous”.  We can call it the “Orwell” model, and while it lasts, it’s reasonably effective.

Aldous Huxley, on the other hand, took a different view.  Huxley based his thesis on the old Roman panem et circenses (bread & circuses) philosophy, whereby people in general will almost always take the easy and more pleasurable option when it comes to dealing with life.  In that, people are distracted from opposition to the ruling diktat  by drugs (soma), spectacle (Olympic Games) or immersive entertainment like the “feelies”.  What’s mistaken about Huxley’s thesis is thinking that the State would create such diversionary pursuits — in most cases, such technology is beyond the capacity of the State to create — whereas we all know those pursuits could only be created by private corporations, a.k.a. Big Tech.

It would appear that modern Western society is operating more on the Huxley model, whereas the Orwell model is being used by the North Korea / CCP regimes, as well as the religious autocracies like Islam.  But there’s another twist to this.

We all know that the “ruling diktat ” (sometimes called The Narrative) differs between the West and the Rest.

For the Rest, it’s simple:  dogma, whether political (Marxism) or religious (Islam) forms the diktat  and prescribes the actions to be followed.

In the West?  Well, that’s not so simple.  In the absence of a strict political- or religious foundation, there are many other contenders:  political correctness, multiculturalism, environmentalism:  you name it.  People need a flag to follow, and the power-seekers and social controllers are only too pleased to provide them.

And as long as there’s enough soma to go round to deaden the senses, it doesn’t matter how silly, impractical, illogical or even destructive those flag-standards are.  Let’s be honest:  without all the in-home distractions provided by streaming movie services, Zoom calls and the like, the Covid restrictions wouldn’t have lasted longer than a few days.  Even more ironically, when the Covid crackdowns were ignored or actively opposed, the State (in whichever nation) used some very old-school methods to punish or suppress.

Gustavo Jalife poses the question:  “Do we actually like being controlled?”

I would phrase it rather differently.  “Do we actually care about whether we’re being controlled or not?”

“More soma?”

Sure, why not.  Let’s go shopping on Amazon, doomscroll, play a video game, watch some porn or scroll through the options on Netflix for a few hours until bedtime.  Adderall and Xanax are for losers, dude.  We can munch on some “edibles” while we play — it’s not harmful, really:  all the studies point to that.

That Epstein Thing

Crime, Politics

The Divine Sarah has an opinion about the Epstein thing, and it makes a great deal of sense.  The biggest part:

“No, it is not actually credible that Trump was ‘in the Epstein list’ because if he had been, the Biden DOJ who had control of that list would have published it or at least published that bit of it, with corroboration, instead of going after washed up socialites and media personalities oh, and porn actresses to try to smear Trump.”

That makes a great deal of sense.  Of course, assuming that if such a list even existed — and maybe it did, or maybe it was all in Epstein’s (now-deceased) head, or maybe it used to exist and was so incriminating for a whole bunch of Democrat bigwigs that the Democrat-controlled FBI destroyed it and all its supporting evidence during the arrest and search (which took place, lest we forget, in 2019).

Equally germane to the whole “Epstein coverup” is that the loudest voices now screaming for Bondi’s removal and ritual beheading are either extremist MAGA nutcases or rabid lefties like Keith Olberman.

Why would the Left suddenly be calling for the removal of Trump’s attorney-general?

I dunno, but here’s one reason:

The Department of Justice and the FBI have been quietly building a major criminal conspiracy case targeting the Deep State’s decade-long effort to derail Donald Trump. According to Solomon, the scope of the investigation could finally deliver the accountability that many in the MAGA movement have long demanded.

Now that’s a bigger deal than a pedophile’s little black book that may or may not exist.

Look, I don’t like the fact that the Epstein files were on Bondi’s desk (by her own admission) and it turned out that they were just a big nothingburger.

And I’ll also buy the fact that Epstein may well have killed himself, with the absolute assistance of corrupt criminal officials (surveillance video turned off, the guards “on break”, etc.), because that’s how things work in a corrupt Democrat bureaucracy.

Frankly, I’m more interested that these assholes get to wear prison jumpsuits:


…than a bunch of wealthy or politically-active assholes who liked shagging young girls.  Both would be good, I agree;  but if forced to pick one group, I’d pick to one containing Brennan, Comey and McCabe et al.

And if it were to turn out that the Clintons were involved in that criminal conspiracy — and I’m not taking bets they weren’t — we’d most likely be getting a twofer, given the likely intersect.

Speaking of a real MAGA issue being more important than Epstein, there’s also this one:

The Supreme Court delivered an opinion last week that not even the best of the punditry class was prepared to understand. The decision was Trump vs. CASA, and the topic concerned the nationwide injunction against Trump’s management of U.S. immigration policy. As with more than 40 other cases, federal district judges have intervened to stop the president from exercising executive powers.

The opinion could not be plainer: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” That principle applies not only to this case but to the whole panoply of cases that have tethered the ability of the president to manage executive branch operations. The courts have presumed authority over the president that the Constitution plainly does not grant.

I would suggest that the whole Epstein argy-bargy is a sideshow compared to the above two issues, and it’s them we should be going after.  Yeah, maybe Bill Clinton was an Epstein client / accomplice;  but that he may have escaped justice (for the umpteenth time) is just an irritation, not a critical problem.

A runaway Deep State and an obstructive (and un-Constitutional) judiciary are far more important matters — and that the Trump Administration is dealing with them is more important for our nation’s future than some crowd of foul kiddie-diddlers against whom we have little evidence anyway.

Sucks, but that’s the reality of the thing.

Try That Somewhere Else

Muzzies

This one’s been boiling around the kettle of my fevered brain for a while now, but a comment from Reader TopCat last week brought it steaming out.  His comment was a quote from Raspail’s The Camp Of The  City  Saints, which I had read (in the original French, as part of a class assignment) right after it was first published, but almost forgotten about.

I shouldn’t have.  Here’s the quote:

“Your universe has no meaning to them. They will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak door…”

…and it is one of the most perceptive statements ever made on the topic of mass immigration.

However — and I’m not excusing it — I can almost understand why a tired and cold immigrant might, in extremis, decide to burn a piece of furniture.  There is an extenuating circumstance.

There are no extenuating circumstances for immigrants who arrive in this wonderful country, and then try to set about changing it into the shithole they just left.  We all know about the Communists of the Frankfurt School, of course, and they were (and still are) aided and abetted by our own locally-bred Commies of the Red Diaper persuasion.

And then there’s this little development [sic] :

A video circulating widely on social media has gained widespread attention, claiming that 402 acres in Texas have been purchased to build an “Islamic city that will govern itself.” The project, known as EPIC City, is linked to the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) and is at the center of intense scrutiny and speculation.

EPIC announced plans in early 2024 for what it described as a “historic project”, a residential and commercial development near Josephine, Texas, roughly 30 minutes from its Plano-based mosque, as reported Daily Mail. The project includes proposals for 1,000 homes, a school, a shopping complex, and a central mosque, intended to serve a growing Muslim population.

There has been some opposition to the building of this little self-created ghetto:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has launched more than a dozen state investigations against the development, claiming that EPIC City officials want to impose Sharia law within the community.

…as well he should.  As this article points out:

Deep in the heart of Texas, just outside of Dallas, is the new community of Epic City, a totally Muslim City. Amy Mek sees it as the beginning of the end. It is a big change for Texas. That’s certain.

The problem with Islam is it is a total way of life, political, social, religious, and there can be no other way. Sharia Law cannot coexist with the US Constitution. The US needs people to assimilate.

The project will feature a mosque at its center, surrounded by houses, townhomes, apartments, Muslim schools, parks, gyms, and other facilities.

Many Texans are expressing concerns about EPIC City. Some see it as creating a separate Muslim-only area, which they fear could lead to segregation.

They worry it might become a “no-go zone,” where non-Muslims feel unwelcome. Critics also fear that introducing Sharia law could conflict with U.S. laws and values.

“Could” conflict with U.S. laws and values?  How about “will definitely” do all that? As this article states:

Supporters argue that EPIC City is about religious freedom. Except it’s not simply a religion. It’s a complete life plan.

Of course, the Muslims deny all that:

EPIC City developers said that is simply not true, and its newly-hired attorney Dan Cogdell has called the state’s opposition to the community flat out “racial profiling.”

It has nothing to do with race, you MuzzieSymp fuck;  it has everything to do with culture — and Muslim culture, at its very core, sets out to suppress any culture that isn’t Muslim*.  To argue otherwise is to invoke the oh-so-Muslim practice of taqiyyah — lying to infidels in order to further Islam.  Here’s more from that Green Diaper lawyer:

“If this were a Presbyterian church in Red Oak or a Catholic church in Waxahachie, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” he said on Friday’s airing of “Morning in America.”

Yeah, let’s conflate the hostile and murderous Islam with Presbyterians and Catholics, by all means.

“It’s because they’re Muslim. It’s just that simple,” Cogdell added.

Damn right it is.  And now for the taqiyya:

Cogdell told NewsNation the community does not intend to impose Sharia law as the state of Texas accuses.

“They have no intentions of that. There are 7,000-10,000 that attend the current mosque. There are lawyers, judges, doctors, politicians that attend that church,” he said. “It’s just absurd that that allegation is even being made at this point.”

I know that at some point the WhatAbouts (like this asshole Cogdell) are going to ask me how I feel about the enclaves of Orthodox Jews that are sprinkled about, and my answer is that I have no problem with them — not because they’re Jews, but because Orthodox Jewry is not about forcibly changing U.S. law into Talmudic.

In other words, I believe strongly in the freedom of association (and of religion) embodied in our First Amendment — but not when such association or religion sets about changing our nation and our Constitution into fucking Shari’ah.  If you don’t think that’s their goal, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been happening in Africa (see the link immediately above).  And feel free to consult a poll (any poll, in any country) of Muslims to see under which set of laws a majority of them would want to live.

The Constitution, as the man quite rightly said, is not a suicide pact.

And speaking of majorities:  typically, it doesn’t take a majority of Muslims in a population before the shit starts spraying off the fan blades;  as I recall, anything over 15-18%, and the fun starts.  Sometimes it’s even less.

Make no mistake, this EPIC City thing, if allowed to survive, would not be the only settlement of its kind.  Pretty soon they’d spread throughout the United States like cancer cells in a chainsmoker’s body.  I leave it to your imagination as to what the end result of that would be.

And if you think that EPIC City (or Cities) would not become a breeding ground for Islamist extremism, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

As I see it, though, opposition to EPIC is following a bureaucratic path:

“The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found that the East Plano Islamic Center and affiliated entities have not obtained the required authorizations or permits needed for construction.”

That’s fine;  but if those authorizations or permits are denied, expect lawsuits:  lawsuits that the Muslims might win.  And then what?

Better, I think, to put the issue onto a binding referendum in the November elections.  (The referendum question has to be simple, e.g.:  “Do you think that the state of Texas should allow Muslims to create Muslim-only settlements in Texas?”)

Let’s see how the good people of Texas feel about this.

*My original thought was that I’d test the Muslims’ protestations by recruiting a few beautiful Texas gals, dressing them in the skimpiest-yet-legal clothing, and have them strut past the EPIC mosque during Ramadan, just to see the locals’ response.  (Of course, they’d be accompanied by a few good ol’ Texas boys — carrying concealed guns, as is our right under both U.S. and Texas law — just in case someone might want to harass our young ladies for only doing what they are allowed — nay, encouraged — to do here in the Lone Star State.)

Alternatively, I’d support the application of any Christian church, ditto a few Christian bookstores and a parochial school or two, to apply for building- and business permits inside the boundaries of EPIC City, just to test the veracity of their “Oh noes we’re not exclusively Muslim!”  claims.

I welcome a discussion of the Christians’ chances of success.

And yes, I’ve spoken about this topic before, and also here.

Every Minute

Fashion

…a fool is born, goes the saying.  And chances are that the first thing said fool will do is slap down $600 for a pair of… flip-flops?

I’m not kidding.

How the humble flip-flop became the shoe of the summer with unbelievable price tags to match

JHC.

I remember the wonderful little speech given by Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, in which she schools ingenue Anne Hathaway about the importance of the color “cerise” and how great minds in the fashion industry planned its future appeal, years before it became “fashionable”.  (Don’t bother looking it up;  it’s dark- or cherry pink.)

I thought the speech was a great example of how easily people can be fooled into thinking that something of little value or consequence actually matters.

As an Olde Phartte of many summers, I can recall many stupid fashions — platform shoes, wide psychedelic neckties, wide lapels on suits, etc. etc.

But I never ever dreamed that fucking flip-flops — which should all be burned on a giant bonfire (along with their wearers*) — would become the new overpriced trend.

When I see F1’s Lewis Hamilton wearing a pair of Laboutin flip-flops in the pits, then I’ll know how far we’ve fallen.

Time for gin?  I think so.

*Note:  No snide references to Australians, the worst offenders in this footwear folly.