Hot Takes vol. 3

Chris Rock, Zizek, Peterson, Hopper, Beyonce, SNL, and Mariah

No Harping for Hopper

I went to the Edward Hopper exhibit at the Whitney Museum before it closed in early March. I was utterly impressed—not only by Hopper’s work, but by the fact that the captions under each piece were not overtly moralizing or political. Rather, their descriptions and analyses were strictly aesthetic. None of them attempted to spoon-feed the “correct” conclusion that we should walk away with (except for one about a suspender ad he drew which was targeted toward “white upper-class males”). And this is even more surprising considering the display of left neolib slogans in neon lights that overhung the welcome desk in the museum.

The fact that I was surprised by how tame the Hopper commentary was says something about the need for art education…to learn about actual art—meaning aesthetics—and how to read it, rather than to moralize about it and politicize it. There is a need to recover a Wildean “art for art’s sake” vision in order to counter the puritanical moralizing trend—which mirrors much of the Victorian norms that Wilde himself was attempting to challenge during his time. I first understood what was at stake after watching the 1955 Franco-era Spanish film Marcelino Pan y Vino (or The Miracle of Marcelino) for the second time. The first time was in an undergraduate Spanish film course, where the professor taught us to break down (and condemn) the film’s Francoist propaganda. The second time was at a retreat where we analyzed the aesthetic techniques used (cinematography, camera angles, etc.) and existential themes (abandonment, interdependence, the gaze of children). As much as reading art’s political implications holds of value, young people need to be taught to recognize and understand the beauty of art and to recognize the way it can resonate and nourishes us on a metaphysical level.

SNL’s fall (and rise?)

I felt vindicated after happening upon Rob Schneider’s comments on the fall of SNL (and late night comedy shows in general). He posits that one of Kate McKinnon’s 2016 Hillary Clinton sketches was the moment the show died. Contrasting the show since then to the old days, he commented “the idea was to make fun of power and whoever was in power, whether it was Clinton or Bush, at that time. And I think we did that. But I also think it was for laughs not to preach to the choir. There was a famous statement that I made, which has been viral for a few years now and it’s ‘political indoctrination by comedic imposition.’ And I do think that much of late night TV is that." Comedy (especially from historically oppressed communities like Jews—which I wrote about in my review of Billy Eichner’s Bros—and Black Americans) is best when operating as an equal opportunity offender (which I also commented on here), primarily aimed at whoever is in power, but without excluding oneself and one’s own “tribe.” I commented on this in a recent post, and how new cast members like Marcelo Hernandez might be an antidote to SNL’s downward turn.

Chris Rock? Don’t know her…

No, I did not watch Chris Rock’s Netflix special. As I had correctly predicted, the infamous slap was going to be his door to a Netflix special, which would fall into standard Netflix standup tropes, inevitably compromising his integrity as a comedian (who I was once a big fan of). Was it all a psyop…a sacrificial ritual in order to initiate Rock into the upper echelon of the elites? As always, one cannot be sure (but the symbolic promo photos for the special don’t exactly do much to refute my suspicions).

Throwback to the Peterson-Zizek debate

I’m now totally convinced that what Anna Khachiyan said about Jordan Peterson in 2019 is correct: he’s a psyop who was invented to delegitimize anyone who attempts to bring attention to the growing population of disaffected male youths. As much as he makes a number of plausible arguments, he’s gone so far into the ideological reactionary deep end that it’s extremely difficult for one to take him seriously. His recent retweet against what he perceived to be the Pope’s “SJW” reduction of Christianity is—to use one of Peterson’s favorite words—preposterous.

This article does a good job of summing up everything that’s wrong with Peterson’s tweet. Peterson, and his reactionary ilk at Daily Wire, have rendered themselves mere controlled opposition. Their predictable and unoriginal knee-jerk reactions not only do nothing to challenge left-wing rhetoric, but at this point are bolstering its legitimacy in the public eye (I explain more about this here).

It also doesn’t help that in spite of all of Peterson’s harping about heroic masculine virtue, he is frail and cantankerously whiny, embodying little to none of the ideals he is always yapping about. I recently revisited Red Scare’s review of the Peterson-Zizek debate with Amber A’Lee Frost. They do an excellent job breaking down why exactly Zizek is a more compelling father figure for young disaffected men to idolize. Besides the fact that he’s not an incel, he has a sense of humor, doesn’t take himself seriously, and is well-versed both academically and in world affairs.

Interesting>Right

After rewatching the Peterson-Zizek debate, I was reminded of how boring someone can be while having all the “right answers” on paper, and how fascinating someone can be when having all the wrong answers on paper. As Wilde once said, “It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.” Similarly, Zizek himself recently asked “why be happy when you can be interesting?” I think part of what makes Zizek so charming, so interesting despite having several “bad” ideas, is the simple fact that he’s breathing in Slavic rather than Anglo-American air, and that he’s a (Lacanian-)Freudian. Peterson’s confused Jungianism is interesting enough at times, but doesn’t seemed to have been fully integrated into his actual lifestyle.

The Based-Woke Future

Their debate is proof that the only way forward is to transcend the Based vs. Woke (or Based vs. Cringe) paradigm: the future, then, can only be Based-Woke. To choose one or the other is to fall into a Manichean mindset that ignores the totality of factors at stake in our society. To be based—to have esteem for objective (and obvious) truths, for individual agency and personal change—without taking into account the suffering of oppressed communities…and conversely, to be woke—to have esteem for moral purity and social progress, without having regard for the inherent brokenness of the human condition, the hierarchical nature and unpredictability of existence, and aesthetic and metaphysical truth claims…quickly can lead one to a myopic solipsism that will only result in total social division. The based-woke future ought to take its cues from distributists who value both solidarity and subsidiarity, personal responsibility and communal interdependence, like Dorothy Day and Chesterton, the American Solidarity Party and the &Campaign, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the dirtbag left and the new right.

Take the following hot takes on Sheryl Lee Ralph singing the Black national anthem before the regular one at the Super Bowl this year:

woke: Yasss queen! We’re her for the representation.

based: This is an affront to American values and globalist threat to our national identity.

based-woke: This was awesome because the Black national anthem is aesthetically speaking a better song than the boring original one (clearly written by a WASP), also the lyrics have profound theological implications.

[I’m only half serious about this one]

My Red Scare Boycott

I’ve decided to boycott Red Scare for their snide remarks about my exhibit on Nietzsche and American Culture in a recent episode on the Bronze Age Mindset (about 34 minutes in). For the record, I did invite them to see the exhibit. I’ve now started filling my morning commute with The Adam Friedland Show to get back at RS, and must admit that I’m now hooked. I tried getting into Cumtown…but something about Stav’s crass humor repelled me. With him gone, it’s the perfect combination of humor: mixing New York Jewish, dirtbag leftist, and vulgar dude-ish sensibilities.

Update: my boycott of Red Scare only lasted 3 weeks…

Alhamdulillah for Beyonce’s Orientalism

Some old accusations of Beyonce’s orientalism and appropriation of Middle Eastern cultures resurfaced after her performance in Dubai. Beyonce has studied Egyptian musical scales extensively, and has incorporated Arabic melismatic vocal styles and instrumentation into her music. She has cited Fairuz among her influences, and famously sampled a song by Umm Kulthum.

These accusations make me think back to my early teen years when I first really got into her music. It was the summer of 2003 that I remember being captivated by her single “Naughty Girl.” The song combined Arabic motifs, with a Soul/Contemporary R&B foundation, and a sample of Donna Summer’s 1975 Disco hit “Love to Love You Baby.” This amalgam of sounds subconsciously spoke to my “musical formation” up until that point: I grew up hearing the Semitic-inspired melismas of Byzantine chant in the Orthodox Church, the Greek folk music my grandparents would play—which borrows heavily from certain Arabic popular styles (one of the upsides of 400 years of Ottoman enslavement), my dad’s Motown records, and my mom’s Disco ones. “Naughty Girl” acted as the catalyst that sparked by journey into Afrodiasporic music—ranging from contemporary R&B and hip hop, to 80s Soul, 90s quiet storm, early 2000s neosoul, and later into reggaeton, salsa, bacahata, bolero, samba, Brazilian funk, and sertanejo.

I further understood the connections between Mediterranean music (which encompass its Greek, Semitic, Arabic, and Iberian forms) and Afrodiasporic music during my time living in Spain, where I was exposed to Flamenco, Rumba, and Sephardic music. One can find this overlap emphasized in the music of Rosalia (combining flamenco, bolero, reggaeton, and hip hop) and Amr Diab (combining Arabic folk music with rumba flamenco and R&B). As much as arguments regarding cultural appropriation deserve a platform, they ought not overshadow the complexities and richness that make up musical exchanges.

It [should be] a wrap [for Mariah]

On a much lighter note…Mariah Carey’s 2009 song “It’s a Wrap” went viral on TikTok last month. This has incited people to revisit her album Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel, which is still my second favorite album of hers, and in my humble opinion, is the last album of hers on which she could actually sing. There comes a time when an artist ought to bow out with grace. That time for Mariah Carey was in 2010. Everything from Merry Christmas 2 You on are embarrassments and should be expunged from her catalogue. Her desperate attempts to remain young, sexy, and relevant through the help of various technological enhancements (from her implants to her use of autotune) is ruining her artistic legacy. Mariah, I implore you to heed this devout LAMB’s plea when he asks you, with utter humility and deference, to hang it up already. As you say yourself, “it’s a wrap, for you baby.”

$upport CracksInPomo by choosing a paid subscription of this page, or by offering a donation through Anchor. Check out my podcast on Anchor and YouTube and follow me on Instagram and Twitter.

Photos taken while visiting the Whitney Museum in Manhattan.