Civilization vs. Barbarians
So much for hippies:
“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed. They produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
“In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” — Orson Welles as Harry Lime, The Third Man
I have long thought that “post-modern” (and maybe even “modern”) art is a load of crock, camouflage for the untalented to pretend their talent. It started, of course, with the post-WWI Dadaists (who were really nihilists) and really took off with Marcel Duchamps (may his current body/spirit temperature be set to “BROIL” for all eternity). I mean, seriously?
Now comes this article, which looks at post-modernism’s more deadly aims:
If wisdom begins with the definition of terms, what do you call efforts to deliberately lie about what those definitions actually are? The manipulation of our shared understanding is too calculated to be merely inept; too consistent to be ascribed to simple ignorance; too debased to be just misguided. There is strategy here, relentlessly advanced and ferociously enforced.
Misdirection is at the core of the whole rotten Postmodern gambit. “Who is there among you, who, if his son. asks him for bread, will give him a stone?” The contemporary technocratic managerial class, that’s who. Our culture is saturated with globalist diktats that that are fundamentally at odds with reality. They not only give us stones for bread, they give us leftist activism in place of art, and tell us to swallow it.
Quite right. I’ve studied Art Appreciation quite thoroughly — because Art had always been a hole in my store of knowledge as a younger man, I had to fill it — but try as I may, I could not “get” Modern or Post-Modern Art. When a piece has to be “explained” as to its meaning or direction by either the artist or an “expert” (who may be completely wrong, by the way), I think it’s essentially meaningless. Or, if the interpretation of the work is completely in the eye of the beholder, it’s equally meaningless — it’s a blank page, in other words. (The gallery pic above is therefore quite instructive, in this regard.)
I make a clear distinction between these schools of art and Impressionism, by the way, because at their worst, Impressionist paintings gave you an insight into the artist’s view of the world, even though that view might have been disturbing (hello, Picasso):
But modernist / post-modernist art is nothing like that. Instead, we’re treated to the chaotic randomness of, for instance, Jackson Pollock:
…which tells us absolutely nothing, about anything.
I can live with some of the Modernists like Egon Schiele:
…and ditto the modern Impressionists, like Leonid Afremov:
(That’s his Winter Sun, and it’s hanging on my wall as we speak.)
But the whole school of Post-Modernism screams “FAKE!” at me, every time I see it, and the attempt to redefine terms — as the author explains in the above article — likewise revolts me, and I’m calling bullshit on the whole thing.
It’s not art; it’s anti-art. And a pox on them for their attempts to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy beauty.
So we have this situation:
Calif. School Mural Depicted Aztec Warrior Carrying Out Human Sacrifice With Trump’s Severed Head
And in the absence of outrage from just about everyone in the Commie Media, I only have to respond with my favorite cartoon block of all Chris Muir‘s work:
As the title for this post suggests…
As much as I am in awe of Kim Rhode’s prowess with a shotgun and her Olympic / World Championship achievements, I’m starting to think that she’s an idiot.
California thought they were onto something. Since they can’t seem to control guns, even though they really keep trying to, they decided to control bullets instead. After all, what could go wrong with that.
Well, now the state is staring down the barrel of a lawsuit. It seems that six-time Olympic medalist Kim Rhode takes a bit of exception to the new rules.
So she’s filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that they’re interfering with her livelihood because under their new law, nobody can ship ammunition into California from another state or something like that. (I mostly ignore what California does because they’re batshit crazy and I don’t want any of that crazy to rub off on me.)
Kim (if I can call you that), please. The state of California doesn’t give a rat’s ass about your livelihood. In fact, they hate you and all the other sport shooters in the California because you show that law-abiding gun owners can be trusted and your shooting is a positive thing — and they can’t have that because they’re selling a narrative that all gun owners are eeevil killers and a powder keg waiting to explode and go insane, murdering a whole bunch of Innocent People.
So please, please leave the stupid place and go to Arizona or Texas or somewhere that will appreciate you and your skills and not try to screw you over anyhow they can. You’ve stood up for your principles, and that’s a good thing. But enough is enough; leave them to their own devices and let them sink into the pit of their own construction. All that’s going to happen is that if you win your lawsuit, California will find some other way to mess with gun owners, and another lawsuit will not help there either.
By the way, the above applies to all my other gun-loving Readers stuck in the Golden Shower State. I appreciate your stubbornness and all that good stuff, but really, it’s time to GTF out of there.
Here’s a headline which stopped me in my tracks:
Princess Michael of Kent IS still expected to attend Prince Harry and Meghan’s wedding – following controversial claims she named her two black sheep Venus and Serena
Here’s my question, and it has nothing to do with wedding invitations: are Venus and Serena Williams Black? If so, who could possibly object to someone naming their (black) pets after two well-known Black athletes?
The latter question is rhetorical, or rather, it should be. The sad fact is that in today’s hyper-sensitive world, the simple act of naming one’s pet after someone may be sufficient cause for social ostracism. I could perhaps understand the opprobrium if said Princess had called her two black sheep “Nigger” and “Jigaboo” because Black people seem intent on giving other people the power to offend them by using outdated epithets — but this wasn’t the case, here.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I once owned a pitch-black cat whom I named “Othello”, and another cat whom I named “Rhona Barrett” because she had a big nose and, duh, the names were appropriate. I also had a snow-white cat named “Pig-Pen” because he was always rolling in the dirt and looked scruffy, and once had two ginger cats named “Rusty” and “Ginger” — and in today’s world, if I’d named them “Harry” and “Carrot-Top” I’d probably be accused of a hate crime towards redheads. I’ve never owned a Siamese cat, but if I did and called him “Chop Suey” or something like that, no doubt there’d be calls for my crucifixion (despite my atheism).
And returning to the Princess above: I can think of many words to describe the Williams sisters, but I have to say that “sheep-like” is not one of them. To anyone who’s ever watched them demolish their hapless opponents on the tennis court, “wolf-like” would be more appropriate — unless by making a lupine allusion, I’d be guilty of denigrating their femininity somehow.
Do you see how stupid this all is? And FFS: can’t we all just lighten up a little?
I’m unlikely ever to own a pet again; but if I do, I’m almost certainly going to name it something offensive, just because. Animal types and suggested names in Comments, please. (The more offensive, the better.)
…and I’m not talking about the Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan or the cast of Jersey / Geordie Shores, either. I’m talking about “leakers” — those Snowden types who are entrusted with confidential information, but can’t resist telling other people about it.
I’m going to make a clear distinction between leakers of State secrets — who deserve imprisonment regardless of their motivations, and whom we can discuss some other time — and commercial leakers, such as those addressed in a (leaked!) memo from Apple. I think the Apple folks are precisely correct:
Apple explains that leaked information about a new product can negatively impact sales of the current model, give rival companies more time to build a competing product and hurt sales of a new product when it hits the shelves.
I am unmoved by the apologists who point out that in Apple’s case:
Consumers continue to be in a frenzy each time a new Apple product is rumored, while the tech giant’s stock price has catapulted higher in the past year.
That’s not the point. The point is that when you work for a company, you are privy to information which, as the word “privy” specifically denotes, is privileged information. When you abuse that privilege, the company has “cause” to terminate the leaker (which is spelled out in just about every employment contract, and is implicit in all employment hiring). In extreme cases, as Apple adds in the memo, revealing confidential information can be and has been further grounds for arrest and indictment — which is precisely as it should be. Passing information directly on to a competitor is definitely criminal, and for leaking to the Press, a “scourging” rider should be attached to the criminal penalties.
At best, leaking confidential information is indiscretion; at worst it’s actual espionage. And leaking information just so you can feel important should translate to that feeling of importance as Jamal’s favorite plaything in Cell Block D — and Apple has given its assurance to its employees just how far they will go to making the latter part come true if employees are caught and identified.
I’m no great fan of Apple, but in this case: good for them.
Let us all be perfectly clear about this. We are talking here about ethics — when you are asked on your word of honor to keep a secret, whether on paper or by handshake, you keep your fucking mouth shut.
Lawyers have “client confidentiality” tattooed on their foreheads (metaphorically speaking), and quite frankly, I see no difference between those ethics or any other agreement concerning keeping your mouth shut.
And I don’t care if indiscretion doesn’t lead to any actual harm — e.g. lives being lost as a consequence — because breaching trust of any kind is just plain wrong, regardless of the penalties thereof.
Is that too high a standard? It better not be.
They nailed it perfectly in a bygone era:
…and Apple has simply extended the concept:
I am fully aware of the irony involved in discussing a topic which has arisen from a breach of confidentiality — i.e. a leaked memo from Apple in this particular case — but I could have written this post without any prompting at all. The leaked memo simply provided the spark which resulted in the above. Had I been CEO Tim Cook, I would have posted the memo on the front page of Apple’s website, to inform not only Apple employees but the whole world of its contents. It’s long overdue.