Tag: Culture Wars

Civilization vs. Barbarians

Incomprehensible Fuss

Business, Politics

So one of Wal-Mart’s satellite suppliers was selling “Impeach 45” (i.e. the 45th POTUS, Donald Trump) merchandise, but after some people started squealing, the Big W ordered the stuff pulled.

I have to say that I’m a little nonplussed by the fuss.  Frankly, I remember when a lot more “objectionable” stuff was sold — and still is, e.g. Che Guevara T-shirts — and the world got on just fine.  Even the satirical riffs on the revolting Obama’s “Hope” / “Dream”  logo could have been construed as objectionable, at least to liberals, Commies and Democrats [massive overlap] , but I don’t remember howls of outrage coming from them — and they are quite easily the most-easily-triggered population group ever (see MAGA caps, reaction to).

And I’ll probably get the “But it’s Wal-Mart that’s selling it!”, as though the stereotypical American retailer (with 90% of its inventory carrying a Made-in-China label) should somehow be above such objectionable merchandise.  (I note that the Emperor Misha’s excellent dictum — “Rope.  Tree.  Journalist.  Some Assembly Required.” —  was also pulled from being sold on a T-shirt, as though journalists should not be strung up weekly from lampposts, as commonsense would suggest.  Sheesh.)

But with all the shit that the Left is causing these days, a stupid call for impeachment (which ain’t gonna happen, no matter how many Impeach 45 T-shirts they sell) is small potatoes.  Far more problematic is [list of 2,000 Lefty-loony actions omitted, for space reasons] .

Let’s face it:  we as a nation have a long and proud tradition of using T-shirts, pamphlets and bumper stickers to get under the other guy’s skin and up his nose.  And I’m enough of a capitalist to believe that as long as there’s a market, people should be able to make a buck from it, regardless of offense taken.

Here’s my suggestion for a T-shirt logo which broadens Misha’s thought somewhat:

Think I could get Target to carry it?

Quote Of The Day

QOTD

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

Artsy-Fartsy

Culture

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.

Enough Already

The Gun Thing

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.

Offensive Names

Modernism

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.)