Your Hot Take on Statues is Garbage

2-2-Lenin-statue-demolished-1024x575Ask yourself a question. What moral authority do you have over your neighbor? If your answer is anything other than “None, whatsoever,” we have a serious problem on our hands. We live in an environment right now where large sections of our populous and governing bodies, regardless of intention, are both shameless and authoritarian. Shameless, through nature. Authoritarian, through nurture.

First, you need to know that your wholly unoriginal “hot take” on the very real and, for many, visceral issue of removing certain monuments and statues from the public eye is myopic at best and iconoclastic at worst.

Tearing_Down_King_George_StatueThere are two primary “hot takes” circulating amongst those with an outrageous and unfounded sense of moral superiority. The first being, “You lost, get over it. Losers don’t get statues.” This sentiment is very specific to monuments to the American Confederate Soldiers who lost an economic war during a time of political strife over the legality and moral corruption of slavery. Many of these statues simply honor the memory of the over 200,000 conscripted soldiers who fought for a cause they didn’t necessarily have any stake in whatsoever. Should these men, the history and legacy of an entire section of the now United States, not be remembered?

Don’t get it twisted. These are not Nazis. These are children and men who were handed guns and sent to die.

statueBut let’s take “Losers don’t get statues” a step further. Which losers are we referring to? People who were killed while fighting a cause we now find morally questionable? People who were killed or conquered by American forces? Imagine if that were the case. Just for a second, think outside the bun and imagine a group–just ONE–who were destroyed or conquered throughout American History who we now honor the memory of with our monuments to history. Now imagine ripping them down.

The second “hot take” you’ll be familiar with is, “What do you need statues to remember history for? Can’t go to a museum? Can’t read a book?” This one is a little trickier; because clearly the simple answer is: You don’t need statues. They’re expensive, they’re largely obnoxious, and most of the time they’re actually kind of ugly. The same goes for murals.

(There’s a particularly hideous Bernie Sanders mural in South Philadelphia which would fit the categories of both “Loser” and “What do you need this for?” but, I digress…)

The fact remains, murals, statues and monuments are not only how we preserve and remember our cultural history, but how we ensure that it isn’t erased. A statue to an unknown Confederate soldier may, to practically everyone, stand for a victory over an game-changing dark age in American history. But it may also stand for young men who were both emboldened or conscripted to fight and die for a place they called their home, and a system they felt was tyrannical.

We burned the South to the ground. But then we rebuilt it. We wanted to remember, not erase.

150226104027-isis-destroys-iraq-mosul-artifacts-00002819-large-169While you snicker at those who correctly compare this new iconoclasm to the cultural tornado of ISIS and Al Qaeda, consider the implications of these actions. What does the removal of one group’s heritage from the public square say about the group who removed it? That they’re frightened? Weak? Intimidated by a historical comparisons? When you destroy or dismantle, or relocate something to the halls of a museum, you’re now putting it in a new historic context. Instead of “this is important to this place, and that’s why it is in this place” you’re saying “this needed to be destroyed or removed from its original place because…reasons.”

While the Left enjoys their culturally genocidal game of chicken, they forget that they won’t always be in the position they’re currently in: given free range to hurl tantrums while the would-be adults in the room cave to their demands. What happens when someone else gets to decide what’s allowed in the public square? Statues of Malcolm X? Statues of Lenin? Your only true respite is that the side that you claim to fight is not as keen on ripping shit down as you guys seem to be.

Lastly, you can scoff about the exhausted notion of the “slippery slope,” but it’s been validated with near metaphysical certitude on practically every occasion. It didn’t even take a whole 24-hours for the angry mob to move from memorials of the Confederacy to statues of former Presidents…to statues in memory of Philadelphia’s perhaps most venerated cop and mayor.

cufujblwiaexb4kBut, hey, it’s easy to call the other side “fascists” when you’re the ones destroying art, monuments and culture, right? Especially when the culture you’re destroying isn’t your own.

There is certainly a debate to be had on the subject of Confederate Memorial statues. There’s always a debate. But that debate should be had where they exist and should be of literally negative impact and concern to anyone outside of where they exist.

The fact that people in New York or LA have a say in how the Southern States remember their heritage and history is, frankly, mentally ill. It can not be understated how dangerous of a notion it is for one politically motivated group to decide what statues are allowed to remain.

It won’t stop at Robert E. Lee; because it was never even intended to stop at Robert E. Lee.




I’d Like to Buy the World a Pepsi

In the latest example of “dipshit social justice grandstanding” the bewildered and misguided Left have managed to get Pepsi (the sugar-water you get when the restaurant doesn’t have Coke-brand sugar-water) to pull their latest long-form advertisement from the Interwebz.

The ad, to anyone with a fucking brain in their skull, mimics the sentiment of the classic-but-cringe 1971 Coca Cola “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” ad campaign; albeit with much more heavy-handed gravitas.

It’s difficult to fully grasp the nature and purpose of the outrage over the Pepsi ad campaign, but when have these pink-haired cultists ever made any logical sense before?

If you’d like a brief overview of why your barely literate Facebook friends are so faux-furious over this campaign, it’s because of rationales like this:

In the ad, Kendall Jenner is doing a modeling gig while the rest of the “we don’t remember a world without Internet” generation marches and rallies in some non-disclosed resistance. Then, she realizes she’s done modelling (she’s got plenty of money anyway) and rushes off to voice her opinion with the rest of the musicians, drum-beaters, and self-taking teens.

In the end, Kendall offers a symbol of commercial togetherness by handing a police officer a can of Pepsi, and like a flower in a gun, or a black man with a mission to hug, everyone smiles and appreciates the gesture as one of peace.

But, as we all know, this aggression can not stand; and people need to feign moral outrage at the comparisons to actual Black Lives Matter protests and (for some reason) Martin Luther King, Jr. When, in reality, if this commercial campaign gets just one person to buy a can of Pepsi, it’s already accomplished far more temporary pleasure than Black Lives Matter could ever dream.

But, we’ll chalk this up as another hollow victory for the Fun Police and wait with bated breath for Kendall Jenner‘s unremarkable, unnecessary, and ultimately predictable apology for her “mistake”: taking a gig in a soda commercial that accurately reflects the collective culture and mentality of today’s American protest culture, the heroes of their own delusional fantasies, hilariously shot 2 months ago in Bangkok, Thailand.


(Side Note: I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but has anyone noticed when videos like the above In The Now clip get passed around, they always contain the full script in the Description? Not only do they want you to watch this nonsense, but they expect you to read and repeat their blithering bullshit as rote-memorization. Sick. Sick and sad.)

Streep, Gosling and Sessions: 2017 is Up and Running

There is nothing better than protesters dressed like Klansmen being dragged out of a government building by a black police officer. Soak it in. 2017 is off to a fantastic start.

The protest occurred at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on the appointment of Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessionsno doubt a politically polarizing figure for many groups. By far the most illogical attack on his character is the idea that Sessions is somehow supported by the KKK; and thus you’ve got these horseshit protesters posing as Klansman Cheerleaders.

Beside these hilariously over-privileged ass-clowns are CodePink protesters for gay rights, a topic that was presumably over and done with years ago.

2017 is going to be non-stop winning. I can feel it in my balls. Especially when literally everyone on social media reacts to every news story they can’t be bothered to read anything about like this:


“Considering going back on meds.” You should have never been off them, dopey. Jesus fucking christ…Anyway, let’s get into the Golden Globes for a sec…

Next up, we’ve got, perhaps the most innocuous and saccharine moment from Sunday night’s Golden Globes featuring Ryan Gosling accepting the award for his performance in the Hollywood-celebrating-Hollywood musical, La La Land. If you want to keep your lunch down, fast forward through Amy Schumer’s cringe-potato introduction.

Gosling took the time to thank his wife, Eva Mendes, for the insane sacrifices she’s made as a wife, a mother, and an expecting mother; as well as the enormous hardships she’s going through with her family, helping her brother through cancer.

But leave it to the insufferable cocksuckers at the Indepedent to find something deeply sinister about these comments, as if Gosling is keeping Mendes as his pregnant stationary Queen Bee, locked away at home with the drones so he can further his career as a sad-eyed leading man.

The lovely actress voiced her adoration for the moment on Instagram, subtly captioning a photo of the couple on the red carpet as “obviously not (her) favorite moment of the night.”

And finally, we have the moment everybody’s talking about, the not-so-subtly cringe speech given by a clearly-dying Meryl Streep. In possibly the worst acting job of her career, Streep decided to victimize everyone in the room at the expense of God Emperor Trump. While she never mentioned him by name, she proceeded to brazenly hijack Hugh Laurie‘s well-placed joke about “Hollywood”, “Foreign”, and “Press” being dirty words right now, claim that celebrities and superstars were the real victims of the Trump Administration (that hasn’t yet started), passionately condescend to the vast majority of American sports-fans, patronizingly highlight the importance of Movies and Television over all other arts, and reignite the flames of intellectual dishonesty over the 2015 supposed mocking of a New York Times reporter’s tiny T-Rex arm.

When she angrily refuted a claim made by no-one ever that mixed martial arts is not part of “the arts”; when she asserted that an award-winning writer for one of America’s most powerful editorial rags “lacks the capacity to fight back” as if he’s mentally retarded, Streep cemented her place as an out-of-it old woman, desperately clinging to over a year worth of insufficient celebrity scare-tactics while Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn looked on–as we all did–with eyes rolling back in their skulls.