Wingnuts in Excelsis Deo

Um, I’m not entirely sure AT ALL what’s exactly going on here (neck-breaking, sodomistic vampirism perhaps?), but this, believe it or not, is a screengrab of the header from a charming new (well, new to me anyway) “Bloggin’ Tory” site of a Mark Steyn fan called “The Blog of Walker”…

The Blogging Tories, ladies and gentlemen — attracting the very best and brightest of the luminous (or is that lunarian?) Canadian right wing! Not to mention being an irresistible magnet for yet another exemplar of that hardy, old-fashioned “cold right-wing logic” that the hacktacular Stephen Taylor purports is characteristic of his philosophy.

34 Replies to “Wingnuts in Excelsis Deo”

  1. It’s a bit large and cumbersome for a banner but otherwise I think it is a wonderful statement on the preoccupation of many blogging tory posts(hellfire, savage killing, and homoeroticism).

  2. Quite so. It strikes me as rather disturbing. I’m cool with the homoeroticism, but much less so with the “hellfire” and “savage killing”…

  3. It’s an illustration of a scene in Dante’s Commedia. Dante’s the guy in the red, and his guide Virgil is the one with leaves in his hair. The two naked dudes are a couple of damned souls, er, fighting each other.

  4. Hmmm … wonder what those poor boys’ souls were damned for. Bet I know! Looks like they’re rather enjoying themselves, in any case. The one on the right is quite attractive, pulling his man’s hair and all. 🙂 Kudos to the BTs for finally coming out and fully embracing the S&M scene.

  5. I have to say that, regardless of what anyone may think of Walker’s opinions, THAT IMAGE is quite extraordinary.

  6. Eowyn — Indeed, it’s quite “eye-catching” one might say. 😉

    It’s kind of funny that such lurid sexual and metaphorical imagery was standard fare in the circles of “academic” art during the mid to late 19th century and yet many of the so-called Impressionists (I’m thinking of Courbet, Manet and Degas in particular) were considered dangerously “subversive” in their time for rendering scenes of daily life in more realistic terms.

  7. That sort of imagery was ‘standard’ fare because nudity and other ‘lewd’ depictions were verboten by the Powers That Be – especially the all powerful Church. Approved artwork in the Christian sphere (but not only the Christian sphere) existed as religious icons with manifest spiritual power and were supposed to *stay* that way.

    But ‘western’ artists (being the cunning deviants they are) subverted it by depicting ‘classical’ events Theological, Allegorical, and Historical in the most uhm…earthy way possible.

    Everyone snuck in everything from real faces to architecture to nature to fashion to food to omigod anatomy anatomy anatomy (everything else aside, the illustration RT has put up is a glory – deliberately so – of showing off the artist’s expertise of rendering the male form and lighting).

    Depicting ‘Normal’ life for its own sake was considered shallow, worldly puffery as a central theme, although artists (like Bosch and Bruegel) took their observations to the secular edge and danced there going nyah nyah long before the 1800s.

    By the time of Manet et al, not only was secularism gaining freedom around the artistic world, but so was modern photography, the existence of which sent many artists to explore ideas cameras couldn’t attain.

    I wonder if the ‘conservatives’ who align themselves with older pieces of art are more identifying with the classically approved themes (Dante’s Inferno dealing with punishment of the Wicked and reward of the Christian Righteous – even Virgil the wise pagan guide wasn’t allowed into Heaven for having the temerity to have been born before the great revelation of Christ) rather than the artworks themselves.

    After all, they are more than willing to swallow Bill C-10 on McVety’s say-so of wickedness in films like “Young People F**king” rather than the actual content of the film. They really don’t seem able to see what is ground for being told it is sky.

    Thankfully, artists enjoy subverting *that* too.

  8. RT … I must say. ANYTHING anyone says about anything is suspect, it seems, anymore.

    Can’t anyone say anything, about anything, without it being dissected into non-being?

    (Apologies)

  9. Eowyn — It does seem that way sometimes. The microscopic eye of 24-hour cable news and the Internet is ridiculous when it comes to parsing every little thing the candidates say and do.

  10. ahahaha

    awesome. Thanks for the link, mate!

    Homoeroticism is the name of the game, I suppose. I mean, politics really get quite boring on their own.

    But I wonder if it’s somewhat telling that you have little comment on the actual content of my blog. Merely the heading picture, which is an illustration that I called up while I was forming the blog when I was in rather of a pretentious mood.

    But like I said. Thanks for the link! This should help my technorati rating!

  11. Oh, I’ll get to your content in due course. You actually pointed me in the direction of a story on Whatcott that was highly amusing. I’ve been running a little off kilter because my computer was in the shop for some of last week.

  12. haha

    I enjoyed reading about the part where he was sort of half-jogging on his run away from campus security.

    And that he had a guerilla activist at his side only made the situation more humorous.

    A very easy fellow to make fun of, but I will say this, that he is quite dedicated to his cause.

    And at least he’s not a Phelpsoid.

  13. Yes, you mentioned that in your post, as I recall.

    It’s hard to work up much enthusiasm for such tireless dedication when it’s serving a cause so woefully misbegotten, hateful and, quite frankly, delusional.

    Not exactly a poster boy for “family values” that one. Glad he’s on “your” side. 😉

  14. “Have I done something to offend?”

    good lord. are you ever touchy.

    “Can’t anyone say anything, about anything, without it being dissected into non-being?”

    good lord!

    “You ought to be glad some of your compatriots are standing up for free speech.”

    yeah, ’cause they’re so difficult for me to come by.

    “You may not be willing to stand up for it.”

    it’s that obvious, eh?

    “You may well be sorry you didn’t.”

    i may well be sorry i ever did.

    really, what is it with you conservatives and your perpetual state of imagined victimhood? good lord….

    KEvron

  15. Redtory: Also like I said in my post, I don’t agree with the man on his views. 😉 Just to make that clear.

    And I will take him on “my” side, I guess. I’m more of a libertarian than a Conservative, really, but I don’t mind sharing my company with even rather extreme individuals like Whatcott, I suppose.

    I don’t particularly mind.

    heh. I wonder if he’d like the homoerotic illustrations?

  16. Kevron: it’s less of a matter of “our” victimhood, and more a matter of “all of our” victimhood.

    You can’t carry the weight of the world on your shoulders and not expect it to have a few effects on scary people such as myself, can you?

    😉

  17. “it’s less of a matter of ‘our’ victimhood, and more a matter of ‘all of our’ victimhood.”

    no no, it’s a matter of imagined wounds, like i said.

    “You can’t carry the weight of the world on your shoulders and not expect it to have a few effects on scary people such as myself, can you?”

    yes? no? maybe?

    KEvron

  18. Walker — I couldn’t possibly speculate as to his taste in art. Or hot dog toppings, for that matter. I really couldn’t care less what he thinks about anything.

    Libertarian, huh? There seem to be a surprising number of folks claiming to be that on the Internets.

  19. “There seem to be a surprising number of folks claiming to be that on the Internets.”

    sadly, “contrarian” was already taken by wall st.

    KEvron

  20. Fortunately for me, it’s a claim I make both on and off the inter-web.

    Although at some point, I may declare myself supreme overlord of some small country or other.

    That’ll be all web-based.

  21. I wasn’t doubting the veracity of it, just noting that a fair number of bloggers and commenters claim to be of that persuasion. In a lot of cases I think it’s just a more fashionable way of saying “Independent” which is not a bad thing to be, but perhaps isn’t quite as stylish.

  22. Oh, ok. Sorry.

    Perhaps libertarian just sounds more….prestigious, to some.

    For me it was about the closest fit I could find, while still having a title.

    heh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s