As IF Times

link:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15036239/morning-joe-chicago-mayor-brandon-johnson-crime-police.html

Anyone paying even the slightest attention to the news is aware of the rampant crime that’s evident in so many large major cities. Though we observe wanton criminal activity in Europe, the most brazen criminal activity occurs in the large cities of the United States.

For the majority of normal people, this is not a good thing. Despite the political bleats of such as Chicago’s mayor Brandon Johnson, most would prefer a safe city where the average number of shootings on a weekend is not close to an average school classroom.  How can this be allowed to happen on a regular basis?

On a frequent enough level to be newsworthy, a ‘mass’ shooting of some kind takes place in the US and the usual tired narratives of gun restrictions surfaces once again. Conveniently ignored is the fact that a large percentage of these shootings are carried out by mentally disturbed people who are coincidently gender confused. It’s as if they blamed shootings on the guns rather than the obvious fact that all the shooters happened to wear a bear costume.  Like blaming the fork instead of the fat guy.

It’s logical that the ‘population’ will demand that the government in charge do something to keep people safe.  In the UK, there have been rumors of food stores soon requiring digital ID to shop in order to protect from criminals who would enter there to rob or create havoc.  You read that right; people will require digital identification to buy food at the stores.  This is their government’s idea of helping the people.  What could go wrong there?

For some reason, this modus operandi reminds me of a very successful business model that has been in place for centuries.  The model is the Mafia. As in, “nice restaurant you have there.  It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.  Why don’t you pay us a regular fee to keep you safe?”

If we step back and reflect upon the authorities’ attempt to restrict people during the last Covid pandemic charade, the steps taken were all about controlling the movements and activities of people. Where you could go, whom you hung out with and what you could do were all dictated by the state because, you know, to keep everyone safe.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the possible dots on the long range plan for the big cities.  Violence and crime are rampant: citizens will demand action: politicians will decree control measures on everyone, even on your currency. In the nation formerly known as Canada, some of the measures taken to protect the public are straight out of Monty Python.  Some may recall the advice of police regarding car thefts from people’s homes.  Just leave the keys at the front door to make it easier for the thieves.  Recently, a man was charged with aggravated assault for daring to use a knife to fight off intruders in his own home!

People can cluck about the ineffectiveness of politicians; that they don’t know what they’re doing.  But there’s the other possibility….that they know exactly what they’re doing.

In 1967, A company named Star-Kist was marketing canned tuna using a cartoon tuna fish named Charlie, with haughty pretentions to elevated cultural tastes.  Charlie aspired to be accepted into the Star-Kist brand.  However, his tuna colleague told him: “Sorry Charlie, Star-Kist doesn’t want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good”.

American Eagle should steal this sentiment during their present jean marketing campaign with Sydney Sweeney. As most know, Sweeney’s installation as the new poster gal for American Eagle has sparked another manufactured outrage in the perpetually offended community by daring to invoke an attractive blue eyed blonde girl as their brand representative.  Apparently, this has Nazi connotations.  Of course, it doesn’t help that her initials are SS.

As we know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but over the past 10 years, we have been coerced to not believe our own lyin’ eyes but rather to defer to those with more refined sensibilities to tell us what beauty is. Thus, the standard of beauty in women was a matter of ticking the boxes of socially acceptable traits rather than of being a spontaneous visceral response.  It was a pretty audacious marketing excercise, to make ugly the new norm of beauty.

Thus, there were gigantic billboards in New York City with even more gigantic models advertising lingerie as if to convince people that blob was the new chic. Even Victoria’s Secret, the lingerie brand known for their comely models began to have ads that could have been created by National Wildebeest. Clearly these companies are unclear as to their target audience.  Some advice for women out there:  men prefer whoopee the verb; not the noun.

But it’s not just physical beauty. The gas lighting of the public extends into virtually all domains of modern life.  Kamala Harris was presented as a keen intellectual and her word salad speeches were exalted as brilliant rhetoric. Before her, Barack Obama’s speeches were considered stuff to be put on stone tablets. The screeching bile from the hosts of The View and the recently terminated Colbert Show was lauded as high wit.

The natural appreciation of beauty in all forms is of course a subjective thing.  Only the very weak minded can be convinced that what they observe and which resonates at an animal level is not acceptable…that they need validation of their own senses. Women are their own worst enemies. Even in such obvious cases as beauty contests, they allow transgender males to compete and in at least one case, win.  Thus, men are better at being women….than women? The art world has been enormously effective at this for generations. The unwashed are convinced to believe that appreciation of high art is synonymous with high intelligence when really, it’s massive gas-lighting for the weak minded.  A glaring example of this were two ‘works of art’ which hung in Canada’s national gallery in 1962. Here’s how the media describes one of them, entitled No.1, White and Red:

“….A famous red and white painting displayed in a Canadian museum is No. 1, White and Red by Mark Rothko. This artwork, created in 1962, is part of the collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario. The painting measures 259.1 x 228.6 cm and is noted for its use of color and light, which has been described as transcendent and capable of transporting viewers into another space…”

To be clear, it was literally a red and white stripe on a canvas. Not to be outdone another two color piece was also acclaimed as being high art:

“…Another notable red and white painting is Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman, which is displayed at the National Gallery of Canada. This large-scale acrylic on canvas painting, measuring 540 cm × 240 cm, was commissioned for Expo 67 and has been valued at over $40 million. While Voice of Fire is not strictly red and white, it is a significant work of art in Canada…”

This piece was breathtakingly daring in its use of blue and red instead of just white and red. Clearly if you didn’t appreciate the brilliant nuances of these bi-chromatic works, you were less evolved.

As stated earlier, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and there’s a lid for every pot.  It becomes preposterous only when people are convinced that their own sense of what’s attractive should be supplanted by the flawed choices of others and are thus normalized.  Don’t be Charlie.