Reflections From a Murky Pond

That largely sums up why freakshows went the way of the dodo. It literally became impossible to find performers who were sufficiently more freakish than large, liberal swaths of the populace. 😉

That’s both sad and horrific. Oh, not that freakshows are no more. That’s overall a good thing in my mind. The problem is that such freakishness has been normalized by the Left and then demanded to be accepted and promulgated across the country.

It’s happily and a bit surprisingly true. Sydney Sweeney has great genes, great jeans, and great groupings when she runs a combat shooting course. She’s also a classic car lover and actively works on restoring them, especially her 1969 Ford Bronco. And, she’s a recently registered Republican.

Gods! If the nation wasn’t already resounding with the symphony of libtard heads exploding already, it sure would be now that all this data is public.

That is the ad campaign that the woke freaks wanted – demanded, really – American Eagle to make. They wanted the clothing manufacturer to showcase a morbidly obese, ugly, blue-haired, mixed or Black slag – bonus points if it’s a non-passable tranny – not an objectively beautiful and healthy White woman, especially a blond-haired, blue-eyed one like Sydney Sweeney.

These poor, deluded evolutionary dead ends just can’t bring themselves to understand that their day is over and that they’re consigned to the shithole of history now. America is finally healing. 😉

Wrong, as in inaccurate, is wrong, even when they’re Americans. And, this image – understandably, a very common meme right now – is wrong in that the sentiment generally surrounding it is inaccurate. Despite what a lot of us believe, Beyoncé did, in fact, catch a lot of hate and derision over her Levi’s ad campaign, and it was all race-based and racist.

While the privileged, White liberals mostly kept their mouths shut on it, the ever-angry Blacks piled on Beyoncé due to her blond hair and light skin tone. They really, really thought that she was just “too White.”

Apparently, this is a little-known fact, thanks to most of the Lamestream Media staying carefully silent on intraracial hate amongst the Blacks. But yeah, they were even defacing billboards for that Levi’s ad campaign by whitewashing over Beyoncé’s face and exposed skin.

So, while privileged, White liberals might have approved of her and Levi’s ad campaign, many Blacks despised it enough to damage property in “protest.”

So, if you think that Beyoncé’s ads got a free pass, you’re wrong. There was plenty of outrage and outright hate; it just wasn’t mentioned much in media outlets and platform which we frequent.

If you’re reading Reflections From A Murky Pond, you obviously spend time online. In that case, it is statistically true that you know about American Eagle’s new ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, and you’ve had little to no choice but to know the sort and level of outrage it has caused among certain, failed demographics in America.

Yeah, the various grievance-mongering vermin out there in our country immediately took to social media and stridently decried the ad campaign as racist, Nazi propaganda, eugenics, and a call for White Supremacy. They made it abundantly clear that showcasing a blonde-haired, blue-eyed beauty and saying that she had good genes jeans was utterly and completely Wrong in their society.

But let’s leave them aside for now. They don’t matter, and they’re going to fuss no matter what. It’s what gives meaning to their pathetic existences and, in some cases, how they make their money. There are worse problems out there that America needs to address.

Fundamental Wrongness Couched In Reasoned Discourse.

Oddly, MSNC is in this instance the best of breed when it comes to reporting upon American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney jeans campaign. True, it’s the best of an undesired and misborn breed, but still the best of it. In this case, I’m referencing the seminal article outlining the “problems” of this ad campaign by MSNBC’s Hannah Holland. It’s well-written, couched in what reads as if it’s reasoned thought, and shows the more fundamental cultural treason and hate of the Left.

The screed was titled, “Sydney Sweeney’s ad shows an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness” and had the subtitle, “Advertisements are always mirrors of society, and sometimes what they reflect is ugly and startling.” So, right from that, Holland set the doom-filled, negativity, and hate for the article, making sure that the readers would know that American Eagle and Sweeney are evil incarnate. Then she proceeds to lecture everyone on how and why they’re evil and representative of a growing, greater systemic evil.

That’s an important journalistic and educational point. The tone needs to be set right at the get-go. Similarly, when trying to goad people to take action, citing Sydney Sweeney instead of American Eagle gives the reader an individual and harmable target for outrage and reprisal. It’s straight out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

So let’s break down what Holland declares is ugly and startling point by point:

This week, American Eagle, which brought us baby tees and low-rise denim in the aughts, debuted an advertisement campaign starring actor Sydney Sweeney. Sweeney, 27, is featured doing all sorts of Americana things in her American Eagle denim — like leaning over the hood of a white Mustang or lying on the floor holding a long-haired German shepherd puppy. At the end of each video, an off-screen voice speaks over blocky letters declaring that Sweeney — blonde, blue-eyed and white — “has great jeans.”

So, what Holland is saying in a quite eloquent manner is that Americana is bad, as is showcasing a blonde, blue-eyed, White woman.

The backlash has been swift and fierce, and some of it, at least, if you ask me, is fair. The internet has been quick to condemn the advertisement as noninclusive at best and as overtly promoting “white supremacy” and “Nazi propaganda” at worst. These critics point to the copy and the implication of calling a white person superior because of their genes.

Now Holland is making sure that her readers know that “some” of the complaints, e.g., that it’s Nazi propaganda, are fair. And, she then uses the same zero-sum false logic that Woke vermin use to paint Whites as evil by saying that a White woman having good genes means that they are superior to others who aren’t White. She reinforces the argument that saying or showing that anything or anyone that is White is bad because it somehow inherently means that one believes non-White things and people are lesser.

In the videos, Sweeney exudes a sort of vintage sexiness that caters to the male gaze. She embodies the near mythological girl-next-door beautiful but low-maintenance sexy femininity that dominated media in the 1990s and the early 2000s. Together, the campaign feels regressive and not retro, offensive and not cheeky.

First, she rebrands the generally considered positive term, vintage, as a negative, further reinforcing her previous point of the evils of Americana. Then, she reiterates the Feminist shibboleth that “catering to” the male gaze, i.e., enjoying male attention and resultant relationship and reproductive options, is a bad thing, and follows it by decrying low-maintenance femininity, calling the lot of it regressive, one of the strongest epithets of the Left.

The advertisement, the choice of Sweeney as the sole face in it and the internet’s reaction reflect an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness, conservatism and capitalist exploitation. Sweeney is both a symptom and a participant.

She wraps up the salient parts of the article – the rest was filler, some slight apologetics for Sweeney, and plugs for other, previous articles that Holland had written – with the inference that a White should not ever be “the sole face” of anything. They must, instead, be the least among equals alongside non-Whites – novissimus inter pares as opposed to the more normal primus inter pares (first among equals).

And then we have her crescendo, her conclusion, and climax:

“an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness, conservatism and capitalist exploitation”

Right from the start of that climax, we have a tacit admission of what those who hate Whites and America feel. They not just want, but need Whites to be bridled – restrained, silenced, domesticated, and used for the profit of their betters. This is immediately contextualized in terms of “Whiteness,” because somehow showcasing a White is a shift toward “whiteness.” And, apparently, when that is combined with vintage-style casualwear – clothing styles recycle every 20-30 years on average – it is a “horrific” shift towards conservatism, the bugbear of the Left.

As for “capitalist exploitation,” in its purest form, that’s straight-up Marxist (“Capital” Volume 3, Chapter 43) propaganda or dogma, but I think she’s using it in the related, feminist context, and complaining about corporations using beautiful women to sell their products and/or services. That being the case, I have two choices: judge her an idiot, since this is nothing new at all – it’s been done nonstop since Rome – and, hence, not a shift; or, that she’s accidentally admitted that she doesn’t find all the other, non-White and/or non-Beautiful models that have been used to be worthy of being considered exploited.

~*~

But hey! I can sort of understand where Holland and her ilk are coming from. Seeing a beautiful, blond-haired, blue-eyed woman alone in a major ad campaign is a reduction in Liberal Privilege, which would almost always be seen as oppression. 😉