The Royal Baby Is a Rejection of the Family Chaos Liberalism Feeds UponAin't even kidding.
The birth of Prince George creates a problem for liberals. They love the idea of royalty because it validates their vision of an anointed elite with a divine right to the obedience of their subjects.[Citation needed.]
However, this wonderful couple has created a traditional nuclear family that provides a powerful counterpoint to the kind of freak show dysfunction that liberalism requires to survive.The obvious solution is to give this nation's welfare recipients £202.4 million a year per household and see if they straighten up and fly right.
Meanwhile Ole Perfesser Glenn Reynolds does his bit for narrative reclamation by telling USA Today readers the real "war on women" is being waged by liberals via horndogs Anthony Weiner (dropping in the polls), San Diego Mayor Bob Filner (ditto), and Eliot Spitzer (well, he's running against Scott Springer). Reynolds takes the opportunity to repeat the old tale of Bill Clinton, Rapist, and to heap second-hand insults on Weiner's wife ("leaving some to say that she's even worse than he is") because when you're a men's-rights nut pretending to give a shit about women, you can't get through 800 words without some bitch-slapping.
Anyway the upshot is that Democrats have "a contempt for people in general, and especially for voters," but as usual the real villain is the media, because for them "an isolated remark by a Republican candidate or radio host is treated as representative of the entire party." These narrative-spielers are just twisting Republicans' words! Speaking of which, here are some words that are missing from Reynolds' essay: vaginal wand, abortion restrictions, war on contraception coverage, and criminalized sodomy. These were left out, I suppose, because they're connected to actual Republican policies.
For the easy rule-of-three layup, let's see what the nuts at Acculturated are up to -- ah, here's one: "How Hollywood Has Ruined Sex." It's not just about how tits and grinding ruined author Bruce S. Thornton's moviegoing experience. He's got specifics! For example:
Consider some of those banal conventions that lazy directors and writers throw into sex scenes. There’s what I call the “trail of clothes.” The camera starts with some article of clothing on the floor, and then follows more bits and pieces of attire until it reaches the fornicating couple.I thought this signifier went the way of two cigarettes in the ashtray, but Thornton says he saw it as recently as Bugsy, which came out in 1991. Also:
Then there are the ubiquitous 20-30 candles illuminating every sex-scene. When do those candles get lit?Was there a sex scene in Lincoln? I don't know what the guy's talking about. Maybe he actually wrote this thing twenty years ago, and left it in a bin at the Moral Majority offices that was later bequeathed to Acculturated. I mean, it's a more flattering explanation than assuming someone is still writing shit like this.
UPDATE. In comments, hellslittlestangel: "Mistreat half a dozen women and it's an outrage against humanity; mistreat tens of millions of women and it's a statistic."
Unlike Clinton and Filner, the women Weiner was involved with seem to have been entirely consenting.
ReplyDeleteThis is not how I recall things going with the recipient of his dick pictures, but I may read too many liberal feminists. If your literally in-house source for the definition of "entirely consenting" is the Pied Piper of Men's Rights, YMMV.
Mistreat half a dozen women and it's an outrage against humanity; mistreat tens of millions of women and it's a statistic.
ReplyDeleteWas there a sex scene in Lincoln?
ReplyDeleteindeed there was - the sex was HOT, the production values FIRST RATE - and in keeping with spielberg's fetish for accuracy during filming, a fleshlight was made from a mold of mary todd lincoln's vagina for the penetration scenes.
Does Reynolds even try to pretend he's just a "Libertarian" and not an outright partisan anymore?
ReplyDeleteHe's claimed for years to be pro-choice: what's his reaction to all the Republican state lawmakers restricting abortion and closing clinics? Just that Weiner, Filner and Spitzer are horrible people?
I would read him to try and check but I can't choke down his prose.
That "royal baby" story is literally gibberish. It's simply not possible to understand what in god's name he thinks he's talking about. Libruls LUUUUUV royalty...but they HATE this particular royalty because family values...? I just don't...I suppose it must be really freeing when you have your conclusion--LIBRULS R TEH SUXXORZ--and it does not matter what you say to get there. Does it make no sense? Does it contradict everything else you allegedly believe? Is it literally a series of jumbled, random letters resulting from a primate banging on a keypad? It's all good! Does it wear away your soul? Whatever--you weren't using that thing anyway.
ReplyDeleteSemi-OT: Roy, you should really review the DMOP's book "Men Gone Galt" or something. C'mon it will be fun (for us anyway, for you, well...)
ReplyDeleteYeah, that Bruce Thornton shit is so old it wouldn't spiked anyone's blood pressure fifty years ago at the Will Hays Home for Married People Who Sleep In Separate Beds. But then, this explains a lot:
ReplyDeleteBruce S. Thornton is Professor of Classics and Humanities, California State University, Fresno; Research Fellow, Hoover Institution Fresno, California.
I bet he had his chain-saw stolen by brown people, too.
I gotta admit, the sex stuff on tv is getting really bad. I watched a double feature the other night and every time the characters were about to have sex, the director cut away to a speeding train going into a tunnel.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, maybe the conservatives should combine their obsessions for sex on tv and British royalty. When they hear that whistle blowin, they can just lay back and think of England.
Then there are the ubiquitous 20-30 candles illuminating every sex-scene. When do those candles get lit?
ReplyDeleteForeplay. Jesus, do I really have to teach conservatives everything? Hint: Kiss first! Then try and make your woman aroused. Light candles if you have to. Plus oil. It's not about you! That, or you enjoy rape and celibacy.
You probably had them at consent. Also I fear this: It's not about you! will just confuse them.
ReplyDeleteYou left out the best part of that Acculturated post:
ReplyDeleteOf course, silliest of all is the depiction of the act itself, a
congeries of unbelievable, if not impossible, moves, grapples, and
techniques one would have to be a professional wrestler to pull off
Theory: Bruce S. Thorton dated a woman who was a big fan of The Notebook and wanted to try the Lotus position. Guess who wasn't flexible enough to keep his knees in?
Hoover Institute, Fresno?
ReplyDeleteThat has got to be the academic equivalent of the Underground Gardens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestiere_Underground_Gardens
There's a useful expression, "The pieces were too big for my pipe".
ReplyDeleteThe birth of Prince George creates a problem for liberals.
ReplyDeleteA man and a woman have been fucking without contraception. Eventually a baby came out of the deal. This doesn't exactly blow my little liberal world apart.
"Sure, the royal couple gets paid out of the British treasury, but it
ReplyDeleteisn’t as if Prince William sits around being fanned and fed grapes.
Besides cutting ribbons and promoting charities, he is a warrior who has
proved his courage by seeking service on battlefields he could have
easily avoided. Royalty is a bizarre concept, but he does work for a
living."
Ah, the classic conservative logic by which people who receive millions in subsidies or aid are somehow dynamic wealth-producers. They earned that handout, dammit.
The birth of Prince George creates a problem for liberals. They love the idea of royalty because it validates their vision of an anointed elite with a divine right to the obedience of their subjects.
ReplyDeleteHoly FSM. Apply a few caveats, but: Liberalism emerged in opposition to monarchy. Plenty of modern-day liberals oppose monarchy, and say so. (The same goes for opposing "strong men" like Pinochet and Putin, darlings of the right.) Yes, we're living in the era of revisionist crap like . Yes, the conservative pitch depends on the faithful not remembering high school (or forgetting anything they do know on command, all for the glory of defeating the hated liebruls). And yes, for movement conservatives, it's always projection.
But Great Jefferson's Ghost, part of me still thought "it's always projection" was merely one of their many psychopathologies, not the basis for their entire political ideology. ("Hey poors! Why are you hitting yourself?")
Obligatory:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6vjLoLtmig
Oh, this is just some more major-league, first-class projection. The right wing just loves them some royalty. Remember when the entire right blogosphere had a simultaneous orgasm when the news came out that the Bush clan was distantly related to the Queen?
ReplyDeleteAnd who is it that keeps yammering on about the "special relationship?" These people have so little respect for democracy that I can't help but think they're all descended from Loyalists.
Hmm. Looks as if Acculturated's slip surplice is showing.
ReplyDeleteResearch Fellow, Hoover Institution Fresno, California....
ReplyDeleteThere's got to be a matchbook cover figuring in this.
Most of these people think "foreplay" involves washing the hand first. A significant cohort thinks "blowtorch".
ReplyDeleteI think he's getting hardcore pornography confused with Hollywood movies.
ReplyDeleteAccurately describing reality is not important to wingnuts. It's all about how many points they can score in some political game that exists in their minds.
ReplyDeleteAnd also deserve praise for doing the same thing millions do every day.
ReplyDeletea congeries of unbelievable, if not impossible, moves, grapples, and techniques
ReplyDelete"The Wet Dreams in the Witch House."
Four decades later, Hollywood’s failure to understand that old wisdom has turned nudity and sex in most movies into preposterous conventions that can’t communicate anything interesting about sex, or reveal anything about the development or personality of the characters.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree that sex and romance in mainstream Hollywood is often contrived, cliched and boring (though I think this is getting better, not worse); however, the "old wisdom" he's talking about is that we should go back to implying that Rick and Ilsa had sex by showing them smoking cigarettes on the couch. Which is probably the biggest cliche of all. I have no idea how his proposal of telling, not showing, is going to make for better storytelling.
Actually I think Mr. B. S. Thorton wants to fuck a WWE pro wrestler.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently the "problem" is that we love elitism but hate the nuclear family. I mean, he's right, which is why me and my mates are planning to storm Buckingham Palace and institute a gay childfree dictatorship. Wanna join?
ReplyDeleteA round of applause for Jay "Smoove" B., everybody. Because damn.
ReplyDeletea congeries of unbelievable, if not impossible, moves, grapples, and techniques one would have to be a professional wrestler to pull off
ReplyDelete... I'll be in my bunk.
this wonderful couple has created a traditional nuclear family that provides a powerful counterpoint to the kind of freak show dysfunction that liberalism requires to survivethe new dad grew up in.
ReplyDeleteNone of that is Wills' fault, of course, and after what must have been a pretty shitty childhood in parts, I kind of hope that he gets to have the sort of family life that was impossible for him when he was younger. But as long as shitbirds, both in his own country and across the pond, continue to seek out him and his as some sort of avatars of familial perfection--and soil themselves in absolutely-unconcealed glee when that turns out to not be the case--fat chance of that.
The previous article at the site by Schichter opens: "The agonizing death of Detroit is cause for celebration." Have to admit he has a certain style, hitting the reader right off the bat with something either amazingly offensive or glaringly false. No wonder he was "personally recruited by Andrew Breitbart".
ReplyDeleteThen there are the ubiquitous 20-30 candles illuminating every sex-scene. When do those candles get lit?
ReplyDeleteUbiquitous? Maybe he just watched Bull Durham, with a lot of candles in the bathroom and Costner and Sarandon in the tub. Should we tell this clown that those candles are an expression of her character? Yeah, yeah, never mind.
You all have to admit, it is impossible to predict what these morons will write next, and the tone of wised-up indignation in which they'll write it. The wingnut unconscious is like those ultra-deep trenches in the ocean: no light, no oxygen, and slithering with unimaginable beasts.
Really? Jeez, maybe the wife and I will watch our thus-far neglected screener after all. This sounds *educational.*
ReplyDeleteWhen everything you watch is stolen torrents (don't want any money going to Hollywierd, and besides everyone knows the NSA keeps tabs on your Netflix queue) it can be hard to tell if you'll get Star Trek or Sex Trek.
ReplyDeleteI always just assumed that lighting candles was something done to kill time while waiting for the Viagra to start working. Cause otherwise that's like the boringest 60 minutes ever filmed.
ReplyDeleteThey love the idea of royalty because it validates their vision of an anointed elite with a divine right to the obedience of their subjects.
ReplyDeleteI am not a political science talking guy, but isn't this sentiment right out of that Burke shit the more pretentious wingnuts are always pretending to have read?
I like to think that every movie, like Caligula, has an uncut NC-17 version hidden away somewhere.
ReplyDeleteYes, for the record, the notion that liberals love them some monarchy is complete nonsense, by definition. It's like saying that Luddites are big iPhone users.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to think it's a liberal train (heh) of thought that has stripped our mainstream portrayal of sex down to a few rote, culturally palatable narratives, but like everything else he thinks, that's nonsensical.
ReplyDeletea speeding train going into a tunnel
ReplyDeleteHey, you don't have to be Fellini to figure that out.
Unimaginable beast LIBEL!!!11!!!
ReplyDeleteWe're supposed to love royalty now? When did I get dropped from the "Things Liberals Love" e-mail list? I can't keep up if I'm not informed.
ReplyDeleteThe candles in Bull Durham kinda got to me, too. Very distracting. I wondered: who lit them & how long did it take? Did they light them together? Did One light the candles and the Other set them around the house? weren't they afraid of stepping or -cough- rolling on a half-dozen? I was also worried about a house fire. However none of those things were shown in the movie.
ReplyDelete"hey love the idea of royalty because it validates their vision of an
ReplyDeleteanointed elite with a divine right to the obedience of their subjects."
I thought us liberals were all about equality for the untermenschen -- you know, anybody who's not a white male 'Murkan with more guns than brains. Or was that on alternate Mondays only?
See, I was just thinking that. "But he did his part by volunteering for the military! Like 129,450 regular and territorial troops, and 121,800 regular reserve. Land of Hope and Bloody Glory, eh?"
ReplyDeleteHey, the 'trail of clothes" scene in Prizzi's Honor was great- though it was actually satirising the whole trope.
ReplyDeleteOf course, silliest of all is the depiction of the act itself, a
congeries of unbelievable, if not impossible, moves, grapples, and
techniques one would have to be a professional wrestler to pull off."
She said there was something other than the missionary position. I told her she was a perverted man-hating feminist liberal.
To them it's mistreat tens of millions of women and it's family values
ReplyDelete". . . but he does work for a living."
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't; he's a royal. They don't work in the normal sense of the word, and certainly not for their "living." If William decided to go off on a year-long pilgrimage to a Buddhist temple in Tibet, I'm guessing he'd still have plenty of dough when he got back. Me, however, would be a different story. I "work for a living," which means, you stupid fuck, if I don't work, there's no living.
This sounds like more conservative projection: William works for a living, therefore he's just like me, therefore I'm just like him, which means I'm royalty, too! Kneel, serf!