Hollywood Movies ?

Toilet flushing sewage into minds/homes ( my explanation, re ‘Art’—in general ) :

=====
©1993

Defining ‘Art’

— An illness-plagued arts community attests mis-thoughts —

To evoke a feeling, communicate an idea or thing, record an event or thought, or construct a tool by using any material or combination of materials (including the human body), arranged for dynamic or static effect (a mobile or sculpture or painting or teapot), or as a means for manipulation to produce an intangible effect, such as music or singing or tapping fingers, may be defined as ART.

So, most humans are artists. But not all artists are human—some are “professional,” and most professional artists are creatures of emotion.

To evoke feelings is the primary goal of most artists; especially this reigning left-wing majority, which has great difficulty in drawing any rational conclusions about personal welfare or social relationships, or the well-being of society. I know this firsthand, because I’m an artist.

Even though I stand outside the closed circle of my liberal, emoting, artistic friends – because of my rational masculine mind – I am able to dip into my right-brain reservoir of creativity with ease and explore the workings of their emotional mind. And because I know intimately their psychological underpinnings, I’m able to distinguish the true from the false in the professional arts community and expose its purpose:

The professional artist is a self-deceived idolater, whose vain imaginings about his self-importance (ego) is transferred to the object he creates. He hopes that others would pay tribute to his ego through the praise of and/or payment for his creation, thereby confirming for him his self-worth and giving him an income and purpose for living. And he seeks out others who would join with him in a clique of like-minded people (the arts world), whose purpose is to construct and maintain an elaborate and mostly cryptic vocabulary that is totally contrived and virtually meaningless, yet absolutely essential for shamming an ignorant public out of its money.

It doesn’t take a keen observer to note that a vastly disproportionate number of people who call themselves “liberal” suffer physical and emotional distress far more frequently than do those who identify with the term: “conservative” (several studies relate the phenomenon, which supportive conclusions are not counter-intuitive but up-front obvious to everyone)

Even C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, made note of the difference between the health of liberals and conservatives when in 1989, in a nationally televised news broadcast, he evoked a round of laughter by saying about members of religion-guided Americans, “They couldn’t contract AIDS even if they tried,” as if to suggest that those who could get HIV were somehow more sexually hip, better informed, politically astute, and better people for their ability to contract a deadly venereal disease.

While in college thirty years ago I noticed that my liberal friends’ liberalism was killing them—and the nation. Their value-free living these past decades has sickened them, destroyed their interpersonal relationships and helped to generate every major social ill facing America today.

Liberals’ immorality exacts a stern price in physical and mental distress in themselves and those close to them—particularly in their children. And Americans are paying dearly for liberals’ reckless living and ill-conceived social agenda, such as ridding society of any restraints on what children may be exposed to (in books, movies and television sitcoms).

As a rational mind – as one who upholds the moral principles and values embraced in creating this republic – and as an artist among mostly liberal artists, I’ve acquired insight into the liberals’ mind: Their emotionalism blocks the rationalism that could save them. They’re unskilled – or lack the genetic wherewithal? – at using inductive and deductive reasoning. They fail to avoid personal and social behaviors that endanger good health, peace of mind, and domestic tranquility—their illness-plagued lives attest their left-wing mis-thoughts, which is reflected in much of their “art.”

-Rick

#################
#################

—–
©1999
Please, G_d!

N o M o r e A r t i s t s!

Hell hath no advocate like a good-intentioned liberal!

Washington Times columnist Suzanne Fields aids liberalism
by her latest suggestion for helping retreating conservatism.
She advises rightists to find and nurture an artist who can
convey conservatives’ traditional values in the arts world
[“Artist for our times,” Washington Times, May 31].

Good luck! This scribbler was an artist who never once met
a conservative painter or sculptor, which explains why iso-
lation for me was answer to incompatibility in the arts
community [the crafts have a more balanced distribution of
leftists and rightists, possibly because crafts – artistic
expression of a more practical nature – require far more
left-brain mechanical ability (a conservative’s domain)
than painting and sculpting do].

The chances of finding a conservative artist range from nil
to none since artists paint and sculpt from the right side
of the brain, whence political/cultural liberals draw their
good-intentioned, emotion-driven ideas for making everyone
f-e-e-e-l good.

Hell hath no advocate like a good-intentioned liberal, or
an artist hell-bent on improving the world (study Marxian
Jews’ social activism in 20th-century Europe and America).

Artists are the v e r y l a s t pool from which to find
saviors of good civil society. Their inspiration is drawn
from breaking societal boundaries not building or mending
them, which boundaries inspiration-hungry artists tradi-
tionally break by engaging mind-bending drugs, wild sex
and anti-status-quo politics.

If an artist found himself in the middle of a perfect
heaven, he’d begin destroying it by his never-sated hunger
for c h a n g e and, more importantly, for his ego (read
my essay, “My Sick Liberal Friends,” to learn how artists
feed their egos).

Fields also scores conservatives for “rail[ing] against
the culture we live in, but doing little to encourage
changing it.”

In that one remark, she exposes the most treacherous
trick leftists now play against rightists: Liberals have
used activist judges to l i b e r a l i z e laws which,
then, corrupted the citizenry. But now, liberals – and
even a few lame-brained conservatives – cleverly argue
that the citizenry must be changed before good laws can
be recovered.

Do you get that point?:

Good civil society – the one before the insane
Sixties’ hear-Me-Me-Me-roar radical feminism –
had been destroyed by liberals’ court decisions
on issues of citizenship, divorce, parental
rights, abortion, special “civil” rights, por-
nography, immigration, school prayer, flag de-
secration . . . and you get the picture.

But now, conservatives are to make what amounts to law-
driven incivility in people a cause for correction
before judges and legislators can be persuaded to retrieve
those now-lost, ideals-protecting rules (ideals such as
reverence for God, for moral virtues, for the nuclear
family, for wombed babies, and for flag and nationhood).

Conservatism – the nation! – needs tough-as-nails conser-
vative judges on the bench, to re-install civil society,
to muzzle leftists’ sick minority (mostly progressive Jews
leading white Gentiles to genocide and culturicide) that
has shoved its stupidity down the throat of the Christian
majority, so that the now-entrenched liberal majority of
feminized dolts on our courts and in our legislatures is
made to hear over and over again on national news
networks: “It’s the law of the land!”

Fields also claims that conservatives “rail against
obscene or ‘minimal’ art, but they rarely read popular
magazines of criticism and reviews or pay attention to
the cultural news that could foster a climate for the art
they would like,” as if such patronage would ever change
that deadly leopard’s spots.

No! Don’t buy it!

Please, G_d, no more artists!

Enough is enough!

-Rick