RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/fictions-of-emancipation-exhibit-rejects-beauty-and-cultivates-racial-resentment

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has mounted an exhibit whose curatorial philosophy, were it widely adopted, would spell the end of art and of art museums. The art press greeted the show ecstatically, as a sign of the Met’s new direction. This prognosis is undoubtedly correct.

Fictions of Emancipation (on view through March 5, 2023) is built around an 1873 sculpture by the brilliant French sculptor Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux. The marble bust, titled Why Born Enslaved!, portrays a black woman, bound by a rope, looking over her left shoulder with a piercing expression of defiance, incredulity, and contempt.

Why Born Enslaved! has been understood since its creation as an antislavery work. The Met, however, knows better, now that it has been reborn as an “antiracist” institution. Fictions of Emancipation argues that the Carpeaux bust furthers whites’ ongoing “domination over Black people’s bodies,” in the words of the exhibit’s curators. And Carpeaux was not the only artist to give an aesthetic gloss to racial oppression, while seeming to oppose it—Fictions of Emancipation portrays abolitionist art more widely as a fig leaf for Western colonialism and white supremacy.

Arriving at this reading of the Carpeaux statue and of similarly themed works requires the deconstruction of virtually every aspect of artistic creation. An artist’s use of live models, the representation of the nude, the selling and buying of art—all are revealed by the Met as ploys used by a white European power structure to oppress nonwhite people.

The Met’s first engagements with Why Born Enslaved! provided no hint of the revisionist readings to come. In 1997, a donor gave the museum a terra-cotta version of the bust, dating from 1872. In announcing the gift, the Met described Carpeaux as a “liberal romantic” whose “humanitarian sentiments” were manifest in the museum’s new sculpture. The museum was still in the business of stylistic explication rather than ideological denunciation, so it noted the influence of Carpeaux’s most important master in the bust’s “Michelangelesque sideward turn.”

In 2014, the Met assembled a magisterial Carpeaux retrospective, introducing many Americans to this stunningly gifted artist for the first time. The show, The Passions of Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, included some of Carpeaux’s most psychologically acute busts, along with his tormented self-portraits and flamboyantly kinetic paintings. It traced the artist’s hard-fought rise, from son of a stonemason in provincial northern France to premier sculptor of the Second Empire. Carpeaux’s fountains, pediments, and bas-reliefs contributed exuberant beauty to the public-works projects then transforming Paris. (Why Born Enslaved! was an offshoot of one of those commissions, for the Fountain of the Observatory in the Luxembourg Gardens.) The exhibit also marked Carpeaux’s harrowing end, dying in agony at 48 after a botched cancer operation pierced his bladder.

The 2014 show displayed the Met’s terra-cotta version of Why Born Enslaved! Even in 2014, the museum could still discuss the work in sympathetic terms. The bust’s early success was due to the “beauty of the woman’s expression and the powerful emotion to which it gives rise,” the catalog suggested. Art historian Laure de Margerie wrote in a catalog essay that the bust “partook of the prolonged enthusiasm generated by the abolition of slavery in France in 1848 and in the United States in 1865.”

https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/12/bombshells-landmines-and-nemesis/

For much of 2017 through 2021, Americans suffered the “bombshell” and “walls are closing” mythologies first of Russian collusion, then of supposedly vast Russian social media investments to sabotage the election. From there we moved on to the Alfa Bank ping-pong fable, the supposed Putin bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan that Trump was said to have ignored and, of course, the idea that Hunter’s laptop was just “Russian disinformation.” 

These were journalistic sins of commission, warping the news cycle to advance ideological agendas and win elections. There emerged, however, other real landmines of omission—things the media deliberately ignores, but have the potential to go off and blow up a presidency. 

Taxes Paid by Mr. 10 Percent? 

Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) mocks the Hunter Biden laptop scandal of a “half-fake” laptop. Yet such puerile flippancy only confirmed her own trademark arrogance and ignorance. Is she claiming the laptop was, was not, or is just sorta not genuine? Hunter’s lawyers are suing to stop the dissemination of his “half-property”? 

Hunter, who never in the past has denied ownership of the laptop, has now confirmed it really was his. A revisionist Hunter should have first conferred with his dad, since, on the presidential debate stage in 2020, Joe Biden swore to the American people the laptop was a product of Russian disinformation. He cited as support “50 former intelligence officials” who signed a statement claiming as much—all organized to deceive the pre-election electorate by former CIA Directors James Clapper and John Brennan. Both previously were best known for admitting to lying under oath to Congress. 

Any fair examination of the laptop’s contents would conclude that Joe Biden received percentage payments from the various quid pro quo enterprises for the merchandising of his name and status as a senator and then vice president. So it should be a simple task for the IRS to compare his reported income over those years with his net worth and yearly likely expenditures, to determine whether he paid taxes on his alleged 10 percent cut, or whether any of the Biden family paid gift taxes on their various cash interchanges with one another. 

It is one thing to fight the IRS over deductions, but quite another over income. The former can become sticky matters of legal interpretation, the latter is mostly black or white: Money either came in and was reported—or not. If Biden did not pay income tax on percentage payouts to him by his family and business associates, then he committed tax fraud, and likely would be impeached. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/02/bidens_right_his_word_means_nothing.html

“I give you my word as a Biden” just means that whatever is said next is almost certainly untrue

Installed (p)Resident Joe Biden loves to make promises secured by the supposed worth of his family name.  “I give you my word as a Biden,” he said back in March of 2020, “When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”  Again giving his solemn word before the 2020 mail-in ballot presidential selection, he promised both “to turn division into unity and bring us together,” as well as to “be an ally of the light, not the darkness.”  Just over a week ago, he declared, “My word as a Biden: I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.”  My goodness, if only Biden’s family name possessed more value than that of Benedict Arnold’s, we would be blessed with a man in the White House committed to truth, unity, spiritual guidance, and American success.  Yet Biden’s name is synonymous with none of those things, is it?

Instead, the Biden family name has really stood for only two things: buffoonery and corruption.  For fifty years, Joe Biden has managed to hold onto some slice of power in D.C. as a senator, vice president, and Oval Office stooge not because he is renowned for his erudition or virtue but rather because his doltish behavior and venal character make him ideal for others to control.  Perhaps no other Washington relic has accomplished so little for the American people over such a prolonged government career or managed to harness those defects for lucrative advancement more successfully than China Joe. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/bidens-biggest-lie-at-the-state-of-the-union-address/

President Biden’s State of the Union Address missed an opportunity to foster unity and cooperation. Instead of bridging the divide between political parties by appealing to the concerns of Republican members of Congress, who now control the House of Representatives, the president opted to attack them, all while making extremely misleading or downright false claims about his achievements.

For example, Biden dishonestly claimed that Republicans are calling to “sunset” Medicare and Social Security, a move that would eliminate two of America’s biggest social safety nets — even though Republican leadership has consistently said that they have no intention of doing that.

Biden also misleadingly suggested, “Inflation has been a global problem because of the pandemic that disrupted supply chains and Putin’s war that disrupted energy and food supplies.”

Although inflation has undeniably been impacted by supply chain problems and the war in Ukraine, the most significant cause of inflation has been the massive amount of government spending that has occurred over the past three years — the period during which the federal government spent and created more money than any other in US history.

Government spending, not wars on the other side of the world and supply chain problems, has been the primary catalyst for inflation, a reality proven by the fact that our current inflation crisis began before Russia invaded Ukraine but after the supply chain crisis was at its worst (during the coronavirus pandemic).

But of all the dishonest statements made by the president during his latest State of the Union Address, the biggest and most outrageous of them all was the absurd claim that his administration has “created a record 12 million new jobs, more jobs created in two years than any president has ever created in four years.”

Biden’s claim of “creating” 12 million jobs is wildly misleading. The actual number is much lower. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has only seen an increase of 2.7 million new jobs since Biden’s first full month in office, in February 2021. The remaining 9 million jobs were recovered after the COVID-19 lockdowns ended, not because Biden “created” them, but rather because pharmaceutical companies developed vaccines while President Trump was in office that alleviated many of the fears held by policymakers and the public. Businesses that had long been shuttered or were running at partial capacity were suddenly able to reopen or expand, spurring an inevitable recovery.

The fact is, Joe Biden had absolutely nothing to do with most of the job growth that occurred in 2021. Any president, regardless of his or her ideological views or governing abilities, would have experienced a similar result.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/02/13/three-quarters-report-suffering-hardship-from-bidenflation-ii-tipp-poll/

No question about it: Americans are hurting from the surging inflation that began early in President Joe Biden’s first term and that has persisted ever since. Indeed, as the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows, a large majority of Americans now say the sharp rise in inflation has caused them financial hardship.

With inflation running at an average annual rate of 8% last year and 4.7% the year before, Americans are feeling the pinch.

In this month’s online I&I/TIPP Poll, taken Feb. 1-3 from 1,358 adults across the nation, we asked the following question: “How much of a hardship has inflation caused you and your family over the past two years?”

Respondents were given four possible responses: “A severe hardship”, “A moderate hardship,” “No hardship,” or “Not sure.” The poll’s margin of error is +/-2.8 percentage points.

The answer came back loud and clear: 77% said inflation is causing their family hardship, versus just 19% who said it isn’t and only 4% who said they aren’t sure. Of those who said they are suffering from inflation, 24% called it “severe,” while 53% termed it “moderate.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/12/the-retreat-from-globalism/

In the wake of liberal globalism’s failings, a nationalist tide is rising today, not only in China and Russia but also throughout the West. It is a dynamic eerily similar to 100 years ago, when war, pandemic and economic insecurity brought national tensions to the surface. Yet today’s undoubted turn against globalism need not herald a return to the dark days of aggressive nationalism. Instead, we are seeing the rise of a new community-based and self-governing model of localism.

This new localism counteracts some of the worst aspects of globalism – homogeneity, deindustrialisation and ever-growing class divides – while eschewing the authoritarian tendencies often associated with nationalistic fervour. It essentially seeks to replace, where possible, mass institutions and production with local entrepreneurship and competition.

This approach has demonstrated remarkable appeal. The promising evolution of technologies like remote work and 3D printing is already creating opportunities to enhance local economies. In the US, strong majorities trust local governments, compared to the more than half who lack trust in Washington, notes Gallup. Big companies, banks and media receive low marks from the public, but small businesses continue to enjoy widespread support across party lines.

This is not merely an American phenomenon. In France there have been consistent protests against globalisation for decades. Poland and the rest of eastern Europe, recovering from decades of central control and imperial edicts from Moscow, have also favoured localism. There is also pushback against federal encroachment in Canada, while the UK’s turn against globalism was best exemplified by its withdrawal from the EU.

The movement against globalism constitutes an alternative to increasingly intrusive government: such as in Europe, where the unelected EU bureaucracy seeks ever-expanding powers, and in North America and Australia, where national bureaucracies work to undermine traditionally vibrant local communities. It also has strong connections to populism, particularly in Europe. Its base, small business, tends to tilt to the right in most countries, including the US.

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

“America was not built on fear. America was built on courage,on imagination and an unbeatable determination to d0 the job at hand.” President Harry Truman Message to Congress       January 8, 194

 Public    debates, be they high school, college or Presidential, are aimed at diminishing one’s opponent and convincing the audience of one’s superior argument. It is rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Like political campaigns, its goal is to win. In contrast, debates in the classroom – at least in years past – and in legislative bodies – at least when no press is present – are to test one’s argument, to listen to one’s opponent. The purpose is to learn and to come to a consensus. When I was young, I argued with my father; only later did I realize I was trying to understand why he believed as he did.

In a polyglot society, such as the United States, individual identities are natural and differences in ideas are to be expected. The latter should be encouraged, for it is through respectful debate that common ground is found. On the other hand, the political exploitation of group identifications has caused a widening divide among an already fractionated people. Factionalism was a concern of the Founding Fathers. In “Federalist 10,” James Madison warned that it could lead to “…instability, injustice, and confusion…the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.”

Yet politicians today have found that splitting the electorate into manageable pieces makes it easier to campaign and win on specific issues. Thus, we have been divided into victims and assailants. This division makes the insulting assumption that certain races are incapable of competing on merit; so different standards are used for Asians, blacks, and whites in college admissions and jobs. We have been divided by cultural preferences, where gender is seen as a matter of choice, not biology. Dependency on government has come at the expense of individual responsibility and accountability; the concept of equal opportunity has been subordinated to a demand for equal outcomes, and the dignity of work seems an abandoned philosophy. Diversity and inclusion, the battle cry of the Woke, does not include diversity of ideas or the inclusion of those who dare challenge conventional thought.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/society/2023/02/hear-about-the-transurrection-no-of-course-not/

“If the much-denounced Jan 6 ‘insurrection’ by Trump supporters is the yardstick, this week’s invasion of the Oklahoma legislature by an angry, chanting mob should have been front-page news. Ah, but then these protesters were trans activists and rent-a-mob leftoids, so different standards must be applied.”
Insurrection! A violent insurgency has once again hit America, even as Joe Biden rose to the podium to deliver his State of the Union Address. Trespassing on government property and hurling racist chants, the mob of mostly white insurrectionists sought to disrupt constitutional government in the name of “individual autonomy” and “personal liberty”.

A mob of racist heterophobes (above) illegally occupied the Oklahoma State Capitol building Tuesday night in an unsuccessful attempt to disrupt Governor Kevin Stitt’s State of the State Address. Putting lives in danger, the transgender activists yelled “this is our house” and “trans lives matter”.

The first phrase has been widely condemned as a revolutionary slogan used by Trump-MAGA Republicans on January 6, 2021. The second phrase evokes the “all lives matter” bumper stickers that were widely condemned as racist in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

Oklahoma is deep MAGA country. In the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump defeated  Joe Biden by a margin of 2-1, winning every single county in the state. Thus is comes as no
surprise to see white Oklahomans rising up in insurrection, culturally appropriating BLM rhetoric, and pursuing a self-proclaimed “freedom” agenda in defiance of democratic norms.

Strangely, neither the mainstream media in the United States nor Australia’s ABC have covered the insurrection. In fact, it seems that only one American television network (Fox News) has reported on it. Oh, and the Daily Mail.

The far-right Oklahoma insurrectionists object to pending legislation in the state that would insert big government into the lives of ordinary (?) people. Governor Stitt pointed out in his address that “minors can’t vote, can’t purchase alcohol, can’t purchase cigarettes”, implying that in line with these positions “we shouldn’t allow a minor to get a permanent gender altering surgery”.

He called for a ban on “all gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies on minors in the state”.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/02/how_the_administrative_state_subverts_the_constitution.html

The House of Representatives on February 2 passed a bill — H. Con. Res. 9 —  opposing the “implementation of socialist policies” and “denouncing socialism in all its forms.”  More than a hundred Democrats joined Republicans in a 327-86 vote on the bill, fittingly sponsored by Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), daughter of exiles from Fidel Castro’s Cuba.  Fittingly, too, the bill quoted President James Madison, the father of the Constitution, who wrote that the United States “was founded on the belief in the sanctity of the individual, to which the collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms is fundamentally and necessarily opposed.”

How did we get to a state when it has become necessary to denounce socialism by legislation?  For indeed, this is an unprecedented time in America: an Axios and Momentive poll of June 2021 found that 51% of young adults (18–34 years) have a positive view of socialism; age groups 35–64 and 65+, too, showed slight upticks in those favoring socialism.

How did Marxist ideology gain ground in the proud home of individual liberty?  From a representative government beholden to “we the people” and committed to guarding our constitutional rights, how did we get to a government that tells citizens what they can and cannot do, all in the name of the public good?

Trust Us, a new film from the Pacific Legal Foundation, is an excellent chronicle of the socialist seduction of America over 100 years.  It traces the implementation of progressive policies from the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who believed in proactive, expansive government, to the present-day regulatory environment, where unelected, unaccountable “experts” decide on everything from health care to privacy.

This technocracy is rooted in the fin de siècle fascination with the efficient running of giant corporations, particularly with Frederick Winslow Taylor’s “scientific management.”  Taylorism, which many scholars have described as “enlightened despotism,” came into favor in the late 19th century.  Extending the ideas he implemented in factories to government, Taylor believed that expert planning was superior to the instincts of the people and that “consent of the governed” should be supplanted by broad, centralized executive management.  Expert opinion was hubristically seen as superior to that of business-owners with generations of experience, which was dismissed with disdain.

Taylorism was a self-serving idea for progressives, who came to believe that their expert status was the driving force for improving society.  They dismissed the American ideal of the government as a servant of the people and were eager to limit individual rights, categorize people by intelligence and ability, break up jobs into their components, and regiment how they are carried out — all in the name of productivity.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3851981-bad-news-bidens-agenda-will-drive-inflation-higher/

President Biden claims he is laser focused on combatting inflation. His policies say otherwise.

First off, there was little suggestion in Biden’s rambling State of the Union address that exorbitant federal spending – blamed by many economists for sky-high prices – would come down any time soon.  

In addition, Biden’s proposed Buy American program will drive infrastructure costs higher, just as it did under Presidents Obama and Trump.

Add to those two price-inflating factors Biden’s ongoing dedication to unionization, which drives up labor costs, his war on fossil fuels, which has discouraged higher oil and gas production, and his push to increase regulations on businesses, and the Federal Reserve will have its hands full bringing inflation down to 2 percent.

Biden has yet to admit the connection between spending and price inflation. In his speech, he again passed the buck, saying, “Inflation has been a global problem because the pandemic disrupted our supply chains and Putin’s unfair and brutal war in Ukraine disrupted energy supplies as well as food supplies, blocking all that grain in Ukraine.” 

See? It’s all the fault of COVID-19 and Vladimir Putin.

And yet, voters connect those dots, and blame Biden’s blowout budgets for the decades-high hit to middle class real incomes. Consequently, the president dishonestly brags about bringing our deficits down even though the decline is from emergency levels to still elevated totals. We are nowhere near back to “normal.”

In his speech, Biden promised his coming economic plan “is going to cut the deficit by another $2 trillion.” And yet, his address was peppered with expensive new promises.