Displaying posts published in

January 2019

The Avant-Garde’s Slide into Irrelevance written by Michael J. Pearce

https://quillette.com/2018/12/30/the-avant-gardes-

Many adherents to the aesthetics of the avant-garde in tenured positions at American art schools and universities are still enthusiastic supporters of the ideas and strategies that won them the culture wars of the late twentieth century. They steadfastly cleave to the doctrinal ideas that brought them into their positions of power and authority and have entrenched themselves in defense of an exclusively Euro-centric cult of avant-garde art. But as Western culture has changed around them, they have been outflanked by sentiment and technology.

The foundations of the avant-garde were built upon the opposition of true and fake art. The avant-garde provided true, ethical art, while its opposite pole was fake, sentimental kitsch. The Frankfurt School writer Norbert Elias was first to identify sentiment as the enemy, followed by Herman Broch, who provided doctrinal writings describing kitsch as evil, and tying true art to the exposure of social reality. The young Marxist Clement Greenberg came to the game late, famously bringing their ideas to an American audience with avant-garde doctrines that despised kitsch and favored an elitist intellectualism. Regardless of the importance of emotion in human relationships, a fundamentalist rejection of sentiment in art coupled with an embrace of ethical confrontation became doctrinal to the avant-garde throughout the twentieth century.

Representational artists—painters and sculptors who make images of people who look like people and things that look like things—were their favorite targets, partly because this was the dominant art of the West’s Soviet enemies. The Soviets used representational Socialist Realism to propagandize their ideology, and made use of sentiment as a manipulative tool. American Communism had fallen into disarray after the Stalin / Hitler pact in 1939, and after the war revelations about Stalin’s gulags turned many communists anti-Soviet. The US government courted their allegiance, enthusiastic to present America as the open-armed home of free thought – even if that thought was opposed to the government – in contrast to the straight-jacket of totalitarian doctrine. This created the paradox of American Marxist avant-gardists being set against Soviet Socialist Realism. Offering avant-gardism as a liberating alternative to the constrictions of Communism was essential to America’s strategy for winning the cultural Cold War. If the enemy restricted and controlled art in the East, in the West artists were encouraged to provide political commentary and to transgress. The avant-garde was fresh, seductive, and appealing. If sentiment and representation were the tools of our lying enemies, we must offer the opposite—concept and abstraction.

Trump Presidency is the ‘Bain’ of Romney’s Existence By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/02/trump-

Just as the Republican Party is purging itself of hackneyed lawmakers, bitter neoconservative commentators, and insatiable interventionists, along comes Mitt Romney to remind us of what we definitely are not missing.

In a late New Year’s Day sermon published in the Washington Post, the incoming senator expressed his disappointment in the president and, by extension, in all of us. It was filled with the sort of juvenile platitudes that at one time mollified Republican voters, but now either amuse or enrage them. “A president should unite us and inspire us to follow ‘our better angels.’ A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse,” the twice-losing presidential candidate warned. “To reassume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. It includes political parties promoting policies that strengthen us rather than promote tribalism by exploiting fear and resentment.”

Romney then proceeded—oddly—to lament Trump’s unpopularity in the world (sorry to disappoint you, Sweden!) and called for a unified Europe. We must defend the press and labor unions, Romney insisted, despite their failings. And he essentially called Trump a racist, sexist, immigrant-hater.

Real original.

The reaction on the Right to Romney’s missive was fast and furious. His niece, head of the Republican National Committee, sided with Trump, calling the opinion piece written by her wayward kin “disappointing and unproductive.” Trump again teased the man he once teased with the prospect of a cabinet position: “Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful. I won big, and he didn’t. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!” Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Dumb and Increasingly Dumber : Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/01/dumb-and-increasingly-dumber/
“Unfortunately, we are living in a time when a growing number of children and students are being dumbed down and turned out into the world by teachers, lecturers and professors whose minds have been corrupted by disconnected thinking over a long period. The process is akin to communist re-education. ”

If you train the brain to ignore consequences then it seems to me, admittedly as a non-neurologist, that you will perforce become increasingly stupid as the lessons of repeated failure are ignored. And thus, the progressive Left must be treated as a race apart when IQ testing is conducted.

I read something the other day which suggested that intelligence was falling. I couldn’t find the article, which is always annoying, so turned to the internet. Judging by the first Google page, there seems to be a degree of consensus that IQ scores are on the way down in the developed world. God knows what the IQ scores are in the struggling world. A Norwegian study was cited by CNN in June 2018, for example, with the added comment that “similar studies in Denmark, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia have demonstrated a similar downward trend in IQ scores.”

This all means, of course, that younger people, on average, are dafter than older people. It used to be that intelligence was linked to genes. However, the latest fad points to environmental factors like the emergence of the moronic addiction to electronic displays and social media and to the quality of teaching. Me, I don’t discount the brain-sapping effects of screen living or being taught by green-left dolts, but it seems obvious too that the higher survival rates of dullards, who would have otherwise perished because of poor hygiene, nutrition and medical care, does little for average IQs. In sum, if it is happening, it’s probably down to a mixture of environmental factors and genes.

But is it happening? Are the tests reliable? I am no longer sure that it is possible to undertake rigorous studies of intelligence without stratification of the subjects’ political allegiances. In other words, to my point, I wouldn’t be surprised if both older and younger people on the progressive Left were not (downward) biasing the outcome of recent testing.

I conjecture that young conservatives have retained the intelligence of their parents and grandparents. Whereas, those on the progressive Left whether older or younger have regressed. They are, in fact, on this account, more accurately termed ‘regressives’. Why would this be the case, you might ask?

France, the Sick Man of Europe, by S. Trifkovic

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/france-the-sick-man-of-europe

rance’s ambassador to Poland Pierre Levy has said he was “surprised, even shocked,” by the Polish foreign minister, Jacek Czaputowicz, declaring that “something’s not right” with France, and that was “sad because France is the sick man of Europe, dragging Europe down.” M. Levy went on to make an astonishing statement which only confirmed that the Pole was right.

Talking to the media shortly before Christmas, Mr. Czaputowicz said that the protests in recent weeks and the Strasbourg Christmas market attack by a Muslim reflected France’s overall decrepitude. His reference to the jihadist attack was particularly significant—and irksome to the French ambassador—because it clearly alluded to Poland’s refusal to accept any Muslim refugees from Greece and Italy under EU quotas. That position is shared by the other three members of the Visegrad Group, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

Levy warned that populism and “fringe forces” threatened European interests. As for the Strasbourg attack, he said that “the investigation into its roots and causes had not yet been completed.” Levy further asserted that most of the perpetrators of past attacks were motivated by the same forces of economic inequality that gave rise to the yellow vest riots: “The attacks were acts of . . . people who, for various reasons, found themselves on the margins [of society], and who adopted the badge of Islamic radicals, even though, in reality, they weren’t radicals at all.”

This is reminiscent of any number of old jokes where, by trying to establish his rationality, the patient confirms that he is utterly insane.

Writing in these pages three years ago, I diagnosed the disorder which is on such blatant display in Pierre Levy’s statement: members of the elite class “treat the jihadist mindset as a pathology that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself.”

But M. Levy’s task is to represent his country’s government, which in France’s case primarily means President Emanuel Macron. As it happens, Macron is a paradigmatic pastiche—almost a caricature—of Europe’s postmodern, transnational elite. He is an Islamophile open-borders globalist. Two years ago he told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that critics of Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy were guilty of “disgraceful oversimplification.” By allowing over a million aliens into the country, “Merkel and German society as a whole exemplified our common European values. They saved our collective dignity by accepting, accommodating and educating distressed refugees.” He subsequently lampooned Donald Trump’s promise to protect America’s southern border by promising never to build a wall of any kind.

Central American Countries Are Helping Middle Easterners Illegally Enter The United States Panama and Costa Rica are chokepoints on the migrant trail followed by people from other continents seeking easier U.S. entry through our porous border with Mexico. Todd Bensman

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/02/central-american-countries-helping-middle-easterners-illegally-enter-united-states/

In December 2018, the Center for Immigration Studies dispatched Senior National Security Fellow Todd Bensman to Panama and Costa Rica to investigate President Donald Trump’s widely ridiculed assertions that suspected terrorists had been apprehended among Middle East migrants through Latin America. Panama is a geographic chokepoint, or bottleneck, through which migrants from countries of the Middle East, who are moving out of South America, must push on their way to the U.S. border.

The following article is based on Bensman’s on-the-ground research over two weeks. His video reports, photos, and writings from the trip can be found here.

Golfito, Costa Rica — It was here in March 2017, at the main aluminum structure of a government migrant camp, that federal Costa Rican police arrested Ibrahim Qoordheen of Somalia as a suspected al Shabaab terrorist operative on his way to the U.S. southern border.

Qoordheen had been smuggled from Zambia to Brazil, passed through Panama, and was making his way north through Costa Rica when the Americans had him arrested here, 20 miles inside Costa Rica, according to an American intelligence official with knowledge of the case who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Golfito camp, with a capacity of 250, was set up as a two-day rest station for South America-exiting migrants whom the governments of Panama and Costa Rica register and help move through northward to Nicaragua.

Mary Poppins Returns, with a Socialist Subtext By Armond White

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/mary-poppins-returns-with-a-socialist-subtext/

Mary Poppins returns, we’re told, but only Baby Boomers will care. Roma offers the nanny Millennials can relate to. Who is this white British twit with a cinched overcoat and bumbershoot who goes about ordering around her betters and consorting with working-class inferiors? No one asked for Mary Poppins’s return to modern consciousness, but her reappearance unmistakably proves that Hollywood Boomers are desperate to justify their own mediocrity through nostalgic sentiment.

Also unmistakable is the nasty political undercurrent that prevents this reboot from being escapist fun. Take the new politically instructive songs in Mary Poppins Returns. Sure, they’re the usual Marc Shaiman pastiche — cliché Broadway compositions (from the composer of the lame musical Hairspray) that lack the memorable delight of Richard and Robert Sherman’s songs for the original Mary Poppins in 1964.

Incapable of a charming tongue twister, or relatable lyrics about medicine in sugary spoonfuls, Shaiman assimilates the #Resistance mood that has overtaken Broadway and Hollywood. Though pretending to be innocuous family entertainment, the knock-off tunes have a faintly repressive, pedantic note, especially in Shaiman’s balloon-song finale “Nowhere to Go but Up.” To careful listeners, it sounds like showbiz Stalinism: “The past is the past / It lives on as history / Let the past take a bow / Forever is now.” Why should a family-movie ditty recall the essence of Soviet erasure of history?

That erasure also reeducates memories of the first Mary Poppins film in which a subservient female nanny, who shows up weirdly out of nowhere, supports the bumbling male head of a stuffy British banking household. She sustained England’s class system almost supernaturally — or supercalifragilisticexpialidociously. Now Mary returns for no better purpose than commercial repackaging. (Meanwhile, minor characters play out a Socialist subtext, campaigning for underpaid workers.)

Andrew Cuomo: ‘Joe Biden Has the Best Case’ of 2020 Dem. Hopefuls By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cuomo-joe-biden-has-the-best-case-of-2020-dem-hopefuls/

New York governor Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday that Joe Biden has the most “credibility” of the many prospective candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

“I think of all the names that are out there, I think Joe Biden has the best case,” Cuomo told radio station WAMC. “I think Joe Biden has the best case because he brings the most of the secret ingredient you need to win for a Democrat, which is credibility.”

Cuomo, who himself was rumored to be exploring a presidential run until he ruled it out several weeks ago, also said he expected the primary field to be crowded.

“I think there’s going to be a big field,” Cuomo said in response to questions about the candidacy of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who announced that she was forming an exploratory committee earlier this week. Other possible Democratic candidates include Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

“I think the problem for the Democrats is going to be this: It is going to be credibility,” Cuomo said. “I think that the main issue for the Democrats is not going to be the articulation of the negative. It is going to be the articulation of the positive.”

Mitt Romney’s Naïve Incoherence By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mitt-romneys-naive-incoherence/

Mitt Romney is a fine and decent person, whom I voted for without regret, then or now, and who strangely just published a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post about President Trump days before assuming office as Utah’s newly elected junior senator. But why in the world would he reserve his invective for January, rather than in October, when it surely would have had greater force?

As far as Romney’s calls for Trump to be less ad hominem in his retaliatory remarks, he may be right, both in terms of presidential behavior and political wisdom (given that Trump needs to capture 5-8 percent additional support from suburbanites and minorities). And he is correct to draw attention to reckless federal spending and this apparent bipartisan custom of borrowing a near trillion dollars a year. Let us hope that Romney’s proven financial sobriety will help galvanize the congress to prune reckless deficits.

But that said, I fear that much of Romney’s invective is utterly incoherent. The departures of many top-cabinet officials in some cases were regrettable, in some understandable, but most were likely because Trump ran on an agenda neither traditionally Republican nor Democratic. Trump was the first president without either political or military experience. So there always was also going to be difficulty (and paradoxes) in matching his outsider policies with experienced insider administrators. We should, however, remember that the tenures of Department of Defense secretaries (four in the respective Obama and Truman administrations) and White House chiefs of staff (four respectively for Reagan and Clinton, five for Obama) are historically not always particularly long.

Romney is, euphemistically, accurate in stating that he opposed Trump (“Donald Trump was not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination”). And he explains, admirably so, that he hoped that “his [Trump’s] campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not.” And Romney was further disappointed that “on balance, his [Trump’s] conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”

But, ironically, all such long-standing repulsion at Trump’s behavior (even if it did crest in December as Romney alleges) raises the question, again, why would Romney have accepted Trump’s endorsement for his senate run in 2018, especially given the fact that he probably did not need it to be elected in Utah?

Elizabeth Warren: Dead phony walking By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/elizabeth_warren_dead_phony_walking.html

Elizabeth Warren obviously has no concept of the damage she already has done to her future in national politics by revealing her DNA test results showing that she has less Native America DNA than the average citizen of this country. How else could she have issued her bizarre Instagram video announcing her presidential campaign? The live-feed video she posted to Instagram (but did not archive) lives on and has made her into a national joke, confirming that deep down, the genuine, authentic Elizabeth Warren is a phony.

The estimable William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection dubs the video her “Dukakis Tank Moment,” a judgment shared by Boston Herald columnist Jaclyn Cashman.

Warren’s cringeworthy event – streamed on Instagram Live on New Year’s Eve – is a friendly chat with her followers.

“I’m here in my kitchen – and um – I thought maybe we’d just take some questions and I’d see what I can do,” Warren said.

At which point she not-so-casually said she would grab a beer. Seems innocuous enough. Beer has a time-honored place in presidential politics. But this resident of Cambridge’s la-di-dah Linnaean Street and erstwhile Harvard elitist is really an extra oaky chardonnay kind of lady. Her poor husband was so befuddled – apparently not fully clued in on the stunt – that when she offered him one he declined. More of a 20-year-old tawny port sipper, no doubt.

The most authentic thing about the video, in fact, was its bogusness: Warren once again trying to pretend she is something she is not.

It is widely believed that the stunt in which presidential candidate Dukakis rode in a tank with a tanker’s helmet on – an effort to prove his toughness on national security – backfired, as he looked completely unnatural.

The Romney Revival Project Who’s buying the latest repositioning from Utah’s new senator? By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-romney-revival-project-11546463147

Just before taking his seat as Utah’s newest U.S. Senator, former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is condemning the character of President Donald Trump. But given Mr. Romney’s history, some members of the press corps are withholding the strange new respect customarily accorded to Republicans who criticize the President.

Mr. Romney states in an op-ed for the Washington Post that Mr. Trump “has not risen to the mantle of the office.” Mr. Romney presents himself as being moved by recent events to make his latest declaration of principle. Writes Mr. Romney:

The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December. The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down.

Certainly a duly-elected President has the right to choose his subordinates. And if Mr. Romney was truly moved to condemn an “abandonment of allies,” wouldn’t he at least go to the trouble of naming them and spending at least a portion of the op-ed describing the details of their predicament? From the context it seems likely he was referring to the Kurds or others fighting against remaining ISIS forces in Syria, but the rest of the op-ed addresses various threats around the world and what Mr. Romney sees as a fraying of alliances with friends in Europe and Asia.

It’s also hard to believe that Mr. Romney is suddenly and deeply offended by Mr. Trump’s recent comment that Americans are no longer “suckers.” For better or worse, the idea that the U.S. government has been shouldering too much of the world’s defense burden has been a central part of the Trump message for years. It’s especially hard to believe that Utah’s newest senator thinks this insult is beyond the pale given that in 2016 Mr. Romney said that candidate Donald Trump was “playing the members of the American public for suckers.” Will Mr. Romney now apologize to the roughly 63 million Americans who voted for the Republican candidate in the last presidential election?

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post is among the media folk who aren’t sure they should take the latest Romney declaration at face value. Mr. Blake writes in the Post:

Romney criticized Trump in more severe terms than just about anybody in 2016, even after Trump was the de facto GOP nominee. But he’s also been happy to play ball and accept his help. As the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, he flew out to accept an endorsement from Trump, then in the throes of birtherism. After Trump was elected president, Romney interviewed to be Trump’s secretary of state.

When Romney decided to run for Senate, he accepted Trump’s endorsement again and backed off his previous criticisms of the leader. At a debate three months ago, Romney was asked three times whether he still thought Trump was a fraud and a phony. “I’m going to talk about the future,” he responded.

His op-ed seems, in part, to be an effort to explain his many about-faces. CONTINUE AT SITE