Ban All Images Just In Case, For Freedom
WARNING: The artwork contained in this post depicts an occasional nipple and a baby without undies. If you are under 18, don’t look, or you will die!!! If you are 18 or over, proceed at your own risk, but should you believe you may be harmed by the sight of a female breast or a naked infant, I do encourage you to consult your father, clergyman, therapist, your favorite political candidate or your local Chastity Pariah.
You sheeple will be happy to know that conservative heroes have uncovered the real reason Jay Carney’s kitchen has prints of two WWII-era Soviet posters in it: to make you sign up for Obamacare, convert to Bolshevism, embrace the theory of evolution and make Jesus cry. Never mind that these posters are virtually identical to American propaganda posters from the same era. Never mind that the posters convey rather unobjectionable ideas (unless you are a Nazi sympathizer): “Men, enlist! Your country [which, by the way, was actually honest-to-goodness invaded in WWII] needs you.” “Women, do your part on the home front!” (That “Natasha the Riverter” poster actually reads “strong home front — strong war front”.) Never mind that in recent years, vintage Soviet posters have become something of a fad, and their significance to people who hang them in their kitchens, or bathrooms, or dorm rooms, or laundry rooms, is ironic. No — wingnut pundits know upwards of 5 Russian words (including “dacha”, which this native Russian speaker apparently never understood properly), so leave it to them to tell you what these images really say to you, you poor bovine schmucks without understanding or willpower.
So impressed am I by this exercise that I’ve decided to look more closely at some well-known classical paintings and BOY are they full of librul propaganda. Now we know why libruls are so keen on maintaining public art museums and why it’s so important to shutter them as soon as possible, FOR AMERICA.
Let’s take a look:
Giovanni Bellini, “Madonna di Brera” (1510)
This seemingly innocuous painting depicts a young woman holding a baby. Most important, however, is what’s NOT depicted: a man. There is literally no father in the picture. The subliminal message here is that it’s okay to be a single mother, or, even if this woman has a husband, he is superfluous and unnecessary. Also, notice that although the young woman is in her late teens, she only has one child. You know what this means: abortions on demand. Certainly don’t ever let your daughters see this one. If they do, they’ll be turning tricks behind a dumpster within minutes. Also, would it KILL Bellini to depict that bastard baby clothed? Like, I don’t know, put him in some cute American flag overalls? Or at least a diaper? But NOOOO, this eurotrash must appeal to the viewer’s prurient tendencies while pursuing a blatant political agenda.
Sandro Boticelli, “The Birth of Venus” (late 1400’s)
More feminist tripe. Well-known fifteenth-century mangina/white knight Sandro Boticelli symbolically depicts a gynocentric world, where the man is limited to providing improvised air-conditioning to the all-important FEMALE. Look, she’s literally inhaling his life-force, while her less cute girlfriend wraps herself around the man posessively. Disgusting.
Caravaggio, “Boy with Basket of Fruit” (1593)
This sixteenth-century painting, which depicts a good-looking teenager holding a basket of fruit, is thinly-veiled propaganda for Michelle Obama’s “healthy nutrition” agenda. The subliminal message is that you should get on board with banning chips and soda machines from our schools. It tells the viewer they may only eat fruit, and America’s favorite foods — hot dogs, pizza, freedom fries and ketchup — are treated as if they don’t even exist because (sinister grin) they aren’t food and you may not eat them. Don’t let Bloomberg or Caravaggio tell Real Americans what they may or may not eat.
Vasily Perov, “Troika” (1866)
Look at these lazy children, trying to elicit your sympathy. Instead of being enthused, happy and grateful for the opportunity to earn real sips of water, half a hardtack biscuit and a heap of straw, not to mention learning a valuable lesson about a hard night’s work, they act as if work is an imposition. It’s outrageous someone has the chutzpah to display this painting in an age when, thanks to librul legislation, ten-year-olds do nothing but play video games and tweet. The painting is also unfair to these children’s employer, an Honest Job Creator, who takes money out of his own pocket to provide these ingrates with jobs they clearly don’t deserve. The subliminal message is that primary education is a right, not a luxury that must be earned, and that children should not have the freedom to work instead of going to school. It’s an offense to liberty, so, impeach.
Vasily Vereschagin, “Suppression of an Indian Revolt by the British” (1884)
This painting by a self-hating white guy and noted anglophobe Vasily Vereschagin presents a shockingly revisionist view of history. The British are depicted as bad guys who are executing some elderly Indians for no good reason. There is no credit given for the great achievements of Western civilization, notably ending slavery, eradicating racism and inventing shampoo. Vereschagin also passes over the undeniable benefits of colonialism to the colonized, such as roads, Western-style bureaucracy and FREEDOM. Likewise, Vereschagin does not address the profound injustices of the Indian society, such as the caste system and the practice of sati. I mean, it’s not like these so-called victims have never done a thing wrong in their lives, but you don’t get any balance from the painting. Also not addressed is the brutality of Indian rebels towards British civilians in an earlier rebellion in 1847. Fortunately, the original image no longer exists, as patriotic British government officials eventually managed to get their hands on it and destroy it. Unfortunately, thanks to what is surely a liberal conspiracy to besmirch the Western Civilization, numerous prints survive.
Rembrandt, “The Night Watch” (1942)
This painting depicts a large group of men in close physical proximity and dressed in flamboyant styles. At night. The group’s leader is actually dressed in yellow silk, and his henchman is wearing fire-truck red. Lace cuffs are ubiquitous. The scene suggests that the location is an impromptu gay club. Although one female is seen, she appears to be a young girl, so she’s only there to be turned into a lesbian. The message of this painting is clear: Go ahead, son, dress like a queer and have gay orgies. Don’t let your sons see it.
Charles Le Brun, “Apotheosis of Louis XIV” (1677)
The equestrian figure represents Barak HUSSEIN Obama, and the female above him placing a crown on his head is Nancy Pelosy. The horse is trampling a muscular, manly patriot — probably Cliven Bundy — to death. A nubile White House intern in the upper left-hand corner is waiving a blue flag triumphantly. Blue is a color associated with the Democrats. Therefore, the painting depicts the triumph of the Democratic Party and the establishment of Obama’s dictatorship. Meanwhile, Obama’s enemies — True Patriots — are cast into the pit of Hell, naked and without their guns.
I could go on, but since I’m not one of the Lazy Forty-Eight Percent, I have stuff to do, you know. Do your own research, and you’ll agree with me, all art ultimately subjects people to Obama-Hitler’s liberal agenda. Veritas, SPQR and moar gunz!