Advertisements

Right Becomes Left

What I’m about to say won’t be popular, but I’ve never been one to chase acclaim or write anything for the sake of people agreeing with me. I’ve said this more than once: I don’t write for anyone but myself, and this time is no exception. I had to consider my reaction to the news that two right-wing activists rushed the stage in New York City during a performance of Julius Caesar.

The play has drawn controversy, because the title character apparently resembles President Trump.

At first, I thought it was a non-story.

There was a small part of me that even laughed a bit, because I admire the refusal to allow the left to normalize violence against the right – especially after the terrorist assassination attempt from a few days ago, the call for the murder of the President from a frothing, sub-cretinous zealot writing for the HuffPost, and the pasty, fat Twitter bitch proudly launching the #HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag after Hodgkinson’s rampage.

But then I walked myself back a bit. What was I thinking?

I was reacting in little more than revenge, stroking a quick schadenboner at the idea of fighting back. But this isn’t fighting back. This isn’t even close.

This is Julius Caesar. The play existed long before Trump.

A few years ago, the same play was performed in a modern vein, with the title character resembling then-President Obama.

This isn’t anything new and different. Shakespeare’s plays are constantly being adapted to modern times. Coriolanus with modern weapons and Serbian landscape, O with Julia Stiles and Mekhi Phifer, modern dialogue reenacting Othello at an elite private high school, The Lion King (if you can’t see Hamlet in that one, I can’t help you), the modern version of The Taming of the Shrew with the late Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles (directors love her for these types of roles, I guess), and the numerous times Romeo and Juliet been redone with a modern flavor, including West Side Story and the odd, but interesting Leonardo di Caprio/Clare Danes film from the 1990s,

This is art. It’s what art does. It reflects modern life, it adapts, it recreates classics for modern audiences, it constructs unique interpretations.

This wasn’t a leftist attempt to somehow normalize violence against the right. Julius Caesar is an inherently political play, and lest we forget, Caesar is assassinated in the middle of the production, the conspirators are forced to flee, and Brutus is filled with doubt and remorse at betraying Caesar until the very end and his suicide. The play does not advocate political assassination. It shows the aftermath of betrayal.

But that didn’t matter to Laura Loomer and Jack Posobiec, who decided it was their right to interrupt others’ work and artistic efforts to spew their froth flecked rhetoric.

This wasn’t courageous protest. This was an obnoxious stunt that interrupted a work of art. Whether or not you agree with the portrayal of Caesar as Trump – and whether or not you agreed with the 2013 portrayal of Caesar as Obama, it’s art, and these two poo-flinging, froth-flecked chimps had no right to interrupt the play and to try and stifle others’ artistic expression.

There’s no excuse for it. Much like there’s no excuse for Antifarts disrupting peaceful speeches and demonstrations, there’s no excuse for these two incoherent loons disrupting a public performance.

Loomer and Posobiec had no right to that stage. They had no right to interrupt that play and to take a large, steaming dump on the work of others. This wasn’t them exercising their freedom of speech. This was two right-wing assholes acting exactly like the left-wing assholes we criticize for their attempts to shut down voices of dissent.

No, they did not stand up to political violence.

No, this was not a Trump assassination play any more than it was an Obama assassination play four years ago.

I wouldn’t expect Trumpanzees to exhibit deep thinking on any level, but I would at least hope they’ve read Shakespeare in what passes for whatever institution of higher learning that saw it fit to give them their respective degrees.

These two jerks disrupted a Shakespeare play, because their tender snowflake labia were chafed at the main character’s resemblance to the President.

They did it for attention, and now they’re asking equally ignorant supporters to pay legal fees for their obnoxiousness.

What makes them different from any prognazi who disrupts peaceful assemblies or screeches to shut down speech it doesn’t like? What makes them different from Trigglypuff?

What makes Loomer and Posobiec any different than the hysterical turds who shut down Milo Yiannopolous or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Here’s a clue, snowflakes. It doesn’t, and they aren’t.

They were butthurt that their deity in the White House was somehow portrayed as the subject of an assassination. They obviously haven’t read the Shakespeare play. They obviously haven’t seen previous versions, including the one in which the title character was a tall, black man with an obvious resemblance to Barack Obama, and if they did, it certainly didn’t offend them enough to disrupt the performance.

They figured given the inexcusable antics by Kathy Griffin, Madonna’s admission of wishing to burn down the White House, Snoop Dogg’s video in which he shoots Trump in the head, and other violent, cowardly celebutards, they had a free ticket to a bit of asshurt, howling snowflakery.

These two cheese dicks did what any screeching, fascist progtard would do. And there are supporters out there who are raising money for Loomer’s legal defense?

First, it’s incendiary political speech. Then it’s Shakespeare. I can’t wait until these perpetually offended loons start protesting The Lion King for portraying the assassination of a benevolent orange and ginger leader by his evil sibling. Pretty soon we will become a vanilla society, afraid to offend anyone who screeches loudly enough, facing fines for uttering a bad word, and afraid to speak our minds in public.

What these two did was emulate perfectly and with a not insignificant amount of tone deafness everything we hate about the fascist left.

Congrats, Loomer and Posobiec. You’ve become the left.

Advertisements

69 responses

  1. Well, darn it. You’re right.

    Like

    1. I’m waiting for an influx of rabid Trumpanzees to tell me how wrong I am. 😉

      Like

      1. Well, if you like, here goes.
        Your so wrong, your wrongness is Yuuuuuge!!!!
        Unbelievable!

        Like

  2. Thought provoking post, Nicki. I can see where you’re coming from, and I think you’re right.

    But, I can also see why – given all the calls for assassination of Trump from the Left, as well as the ‘killing him in effigy’ examples – why these two guys pretty much saw it as killing Trump in effigy. I can get why Trump supporters are getting more than sick of it at this point – this shit didn’t happen in the same volume as when Obama got elected.

    Heck, I’m not in the US, and I’m sick of it too (It’s June! Don’t they have work, or lives, or anything else?!) By the way, I’m in the “He’s the president, and I hope, for the sake of America, and the US, that Trump does wonderfully” camp; you need a stretch of good years. I’m in the “I fucking hope he’s the best president y’all have had since Reagan because he pisses all the people I don’t like, and it’d be good if America had a good President” side.

    I guess I’m saying “I sympathise with, and understand the reasons, but what they did is wrong.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Everyone is getting sick of it. But it’s fucking Shakespeare, ferpetessake! Had they even read Julius Caesar, they’d be embarrassed for their own behavior, especially since the play is essentially a proscription against political assassination. But hey, maybe not. They’re not known to be deep thinkers.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, it’s Shakespeare! (But, does anyone even get it taught any more? Probably not; they prolly get the favorite leftwing author du jour now…)

        I honestly think putting the resemblance of an actual president, either sitting or previous, in that role is in bad taste, myself. A fictional one, isn’t.

        West Side Story was a better modernization example, in my opinion. Should’ve gone that route, but that, methinks, might’ve been tooooo much effort.

        Like

        1. LOL – They did it with a tall, black man in the title role a few years ago, and someone no one screeched about assassination porn!

          I would love to see JC in a musical, though. And now, I want to go re-read Henry V

          Liked by 1 person

        2. You know, I’ve never heard of it until you mentioned it. And I’m rather surprised there was no outrage, especially given how the media and the left reacted to the rodeo clown Obama.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I know, right? Because Shakespeare’s plays get adapted for modern times all the time, and no one was stupid enough to go all Social Justice Howler Monkey about it until now.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Yeah, I question how much the Guthrie theater’s production was really “about” Obama. So far all I can find when researching is that some reviewers projected that onto the play because Ceaser was played by a black man. Which… is kind of racist on the one hand. As Andrew Klavan pointed out, acting companies can’t always be choosey about who gets roles, it could have been happenstance that Bjorn DuPaty played Ceaser rather than any intended message. One atlantic article I found outright quotes this review with:

          His Caesar (the suavely confident Bjorn DuPaty) is a tall, charismatic African-American politician; he doesn’t look or sound much like Obama (he more closely recalls Michael Jordan), but the audience is unquestionably going to read him as an Obama stand-in nonetheless, particularly when his opponents bear a marked resemblance to Eric Cantor (Sid Solomon’s snappy terrier Cassius) and Mitch McConnell (Kevin Orton’s cynical old pol Casca). Even Mark Antony is recognizable as a standard Democratic politician type, Clinton/Gore division.

          But they didn’t quote further down…

          Second, because the director made the interesting choice to cast another African-American, William Sturdivant as Brutus, and it is his performance that really makes the play. Sturdivant does a pitch-perfect black conservative intellectual – more specifically, the thoughtful, reserved type of black conservative intellectual, a coil of carefully controlled tension. There were times I thought I was watching John McWhorter up there on stage. He managed to give Brutus a shadow of interiority that he so frequently lacks, and to add a whole other dimension of pathos to Brutus’s decision to ally with Cassius.

          Considering the left’s freakout over the rodeo clown and parade float, this all strikes me as another gaslighting attempt. There’s something more to liberals not freaking over the 2012 play and I think Nicki may be too merciful in accepting their narrative on why. Rather, it strikes me that a commentor on the linked article outlined a more subtle difference than “president is murdered.”

          In the 2012 production, Caesar/Obama was portrayed as a “martyred hero,” to borrow MM’s phrase, while the 2017 Caesar/Trump is a “corrupt villain.” The Obama Caesar was assassinated by characters presented as vicious and self-seeking, while the Trump Caesar is depicted as righteously killed by his female and African/American “victims.”

          Oh yeah, and no democrat politicians were shot at during the run of the Guthrie theater’s production. That may make a difference.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. Just a quick FYI – careful with links, because long comments with links get trapped in my spam filter. I’ve unspammed your comment, but sometimes I forget to check the filter, and comments get stuck in there for days. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        6. Thx, Nicki – but I’m in no hurry to break my habit of citations. Especially since I’ve noticed leftists rare seem to use them. 😉

          Like

        7. Oh, I’m not saying you should. Just letting you know that if your comment doesn’t show up immediately, that’s why! 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        8. Thx. I also sometimes wonder if it’s this Brave browser. I like it, but it does make commenting on things like disqus more challenging.

          Like

      2. Though, it does occur to me, wasn’t it the left who pulled that stunt with … Hamilton? Because Pence was watching the play?

        I thought that was disgusting and wrong, what they did.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. It is a difference though, wether someone storms a stage in the middle of a play and interrupts it, or if the actors who had the stage use the situation to adress the vice president with a short statement AFTER the show.
          Wether or not it is appropriate to do so is debateable, but it is a very different situation.

          Like

  3. Nik—it was funny…harmless…nobody got hurt. The Park Actors are snobs of the first calibre who got a taste of what it’s like to have a program rudely interrupted…like, say that obnoxious piece of crap “Hamilton.”

    It made their little performance more memorable…part of the American experience. Shit, I’ve had audience members stick fingers within two inches of my face during little thater performance of “A Taste of Honey,” and whisper loudly to a seat mate “Did you see the look on his face?” I used to pray for a major screw up so I didn’t get bored out of my mind.

    One night my leading lady jumped into my arms in “A Thousand Clowns,” plugged her forehead into my nose, broke it…on stage. I bled like a stuck pig but kept going. The audience knew, of course, but they talk about that night some three decades ago like it was yesterday.

    It’s LIVE theatre. Niki. Barrault said that whatever happens on stage is part of the art. Lighten up. Actors are not, theatre is not sacrosanct.

    I could tell you stories all night…like falling into an audience from a high wire as Ariel in “The Tempest” that would make you roar. Or I could regale you with working backstage supporting a very lit Richard Burton that would touch your heart.

    Live theatre is LIVE for a reason. L & P took advantage of that. I say “Good on ’em. Mate.”

    Like

    1. It’s bullshit. Let’s not make excuses for shitty behavior on our side. Actors are not sacrosanct. But freedom of expression is. It wasn’t funny. Period.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. You might not have the most popular take on this ” incident”, but you have the only sensible/ logical view.
    The two who went on stage to “protest” Trumps acted out stabbing during the play are no better than the Hamilton actor “lecturing” V.P. Pence.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I see people squawking online about libertards raging against Trump, while others rage against the libertards. I can’t figure out which is worse: having to be aware of it, or realizing that there’s a population demographic of people who devote their lives to being screaming, attention-whoring idiots in public because they have never had a chance to really express anger the way their have now.
    If suppressing childhood anger and angst and sadness causes these things, then there is something wrong with the way those people, now adults, were raised. Screaming tantrums by children are usually played out as a means “getting my way”. Even if the tantrum is completely phony, if’s for the sake of getting attention and not much else.
    These people, whether left or right inclined, all seem to be about rage, not about reality. They screech fascist or nazi or whatever, but they haven’t lived under those systems and if they did, they’d be hiding under their beds. They are mistakenly reading their own vicious and violent responses into everything they see. No matter what you say to them, the fact that you have a firm grasp on reality and they don’t is what makes them seem like crazypants crackpots.
    I’m becoming more and more convinced that people like the shooter last week was raging against the entire world and singled out certain people as targets NOT because they did anything to him personally, but because he put a label on them.
    Personally, I think they’re all nuts. I don’t understand what is prodding them into these rabid howling tantrums, and stalking and shooting people – any of it. As you indicated, it is on both sides of the political fence. It does not make any sense, but maybe it’s because I don’t spend time talking to myself on a smartphone.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Agreed. There comes a point when you just can’t tell the difference anymore. We’ll soon reach the point where we’ll just incoherently screech at one another and not much else.

      Like

      1. If it’s politics that disturbs them, Ian McKellen in the 1995 version of Richard III as the nastiest villain ever spawned was awesome.
        But what if Richard had been played by a black actor working along the lines of Idi Amin? Then we’d get howls of RAAAAYYSSSSIIISSS!
        This is why none of it makes any sense to me.

        Like

        1. Well, there were no howls of RAAAAAACIIIIIISM when the play included a black man in the title role. So I’m not sure that’s true. Especially since this particular play is AGAINST political assassination.

          Like

  6. To put the matter in terms from another of Shakespeare’s plays, read Shylock’s soliloquy to the curt in The Merchant of Venice.

    Like

  7. I’ve read in several places (blogs and such) calls to use the Left’s tactics against itself. This seems to me to be an example of that. At first I thought,”Yeah! That will show them. How do ya like them apples!” Now I just think it’s stupid. If you want to object to something like a play, do it within the traditional, cultural norms of the setting. Don’t like Caesar/Donald Trump getting stabbed-Boo! Boo loudly and Boo long. Have a bunch of friends with do the same. There, you’ve made your point without becoming a Leftist dickhead.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, but you’d have to add several loud shouts of ‘LOUSY ACTING!’ to the booing.

      Like

    2. You should use your enemy’s tactics against them. They use those tactics because they can’t see any way to counter them.

      Like

  8. Spot on.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard | Reply

    I see your point and agree with it.

    My problem is that I think we’ll be seeing “actions against the Left” because people see the Lefties as real threats against them personally.

    These assholes weren’t really threatened by the mock assassination which is why they were in the wrong.

    Mind you, my “nasty side” is telling me that Lefties deserve what ever they get. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They basically felt empowered and entitled to be assholes because the left has been assholes. Except they’re so clueless that they sabotaged their own cause by being completely inappropriate and obnoxious. Their excuse is always, “Well, the left…”

      They just need to stop being stupid. And maybe read the actual play!

      Like

      1. Caveat: the Left have been Assholes, yes. But ***without consequences***, at least visible ones.

        And that, I fear, is what’s going to drive people over the line. The ageless game of “but they did it first”.

        Only with violence. And may God have mercy on us all. . .

        Like

  10. My reaction to the “Trump” Julius Caesar was that it was tacky, but no big deal, mildly annoying. I didn’t know an “Obama” version had been done, but my nonreaction would have been the same.

    OTOH, Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar about… Julius Caesar, who had been gone for centuries, not Elizabeth. And the play is still enjoyable today with the old Roman role. Sometimes I’m entertained by updated versions of classics, but I don’t see it as necessary. And when it’s done to score a political point rather than to make the context more clear for a modern audience, it’s… mildly annoying, which tends to distract me from the entertainment.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. He also wrote it to highlight that political assassination throws the republic into war and chaos and wreaks havoc with the assassins themselves and their sense of humanity.

      These jackasses really should READ.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We’re speaking in a way that shows we know what “Caesar” was about. I agree that they should read what the play is truly about. But that means everyone. Even the folks that went just so they could see Trump get assassinated like that “awful” Caesar guy. The remarks I’ve seen people make that either saw it or thought they knew what they were talking about indicate to me that many of them don’t have the slightest idea who or what Caesar was. All it was to them was a play that justified their “feelings”.

        The other play with a black dude as Caesar was not in NYC (I think it was Minnesota or something) nor was it free admission. That cast for that play was almost entirely Black so the odds of a “white” Caesar was very low. When I mentioned that to someone their response was, “But he looked remarkably like Obama.” i wanted to ask if all Black people looked the same to him, but bit my tongue. The only way this guy looked like Obama was that he was Black and wearing a suit.

        Like

        1. It was in MN, and I’ve seen portions of it. I didn’t see it being almost entirely black, unless there were a lot of very light skinned black people, so I’m confused. LOL Shakespeare in the park is always free, so it’s not like it was a clarion call for idiots to come enjoy assassination porn. LOL!

          In any case, I do agree everyone needs to re-read the damn play (or in some people’s case read it for the first time).

          Like

  11. I remember seeing the play “Cats” in my early twenties, I thought it entertaining and at the time was all the rage. This play is really a non issue for me, First, as a public figure, one has to assume people are going to use you as a muse, I don’t agree with what the twatmold Kathy Griffen did, but it was her right to do it and I personally would not have issue with her if she had be honest instead of playing the victim.
    Second, it is a play for Chrissakes! That is what they do, it has been going on for C E N T U R I E S! This is nothing new and not unexpected. Bad taste yes, but again it is freedom of expression. If one does not like, don’t go see it.
    Third, what was the point of rushing the stage. One has now lowered yourself to the level of bad taste and behavior. It accomplishes nothing and for no other purpose Gives this venue more attention than it deserves.

    Like

    1. > right

      Rights don’t enter into it. She was an employee, on company time, with company support, and I’d lay heavy odds with approval of at least her immediate superiors.

      If she was on her own time, political speech would be her right. On the clock, she was representing her employers. And got sacked for it, but that’s what happens when you work for dirtbags.

      Like

  12. If find you to be right in what you say but wrong in what you want.

    Yes, there’s little to no difference in the actions – though much in the responses to them. Yet, so what? This is a war and no war is one by taking the high ground and no war is one from demanding actual moral superiority. Wars are one by force and by changing the balance of terror.

    On the other hand, I utterly approve of your position – in so long as nothing comes of it to prevent the proper and complete prosecution of our war against our domestic enemies. In point of fact, without those of your opinion and belief set, there’d be little point in fighting in the first since we’d not become what we hate, we’d likely become something worse.

    So just set back and let rough men and women do the rough work to keep your privilege to complain about how we go about it. If needful, at the end of things, even take us task for it for the sake of the future. But, if you’re not willing to damn your soul for your people, don’t bother joining the fight and DON’T get in the way since there’s no difference between combatant and collaborator.

    Like

    1. Sorry, but this isn’t part of the war. This is ignorance and stupidity exemplified. If they want a war, I’ll fight a war, with everything those words imply. But I’ll be damned if I applaud puerile tactics that do nothing to support our cause and make us look like utter ignorami. That’s not going to garner our side support. It’s going to drive everyone with a shred of intellect away and leave gibbering chimps yelling at one another and leave the most offended as the victor.

      No thanks.

      Thatisall.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. I think the protestors actions were counter productive as they just confirmed to the actors and potential audience that the play is “Edgy” “Afflicting the comfortable” etc.

    By far the best thing to do is ignore it and, if you really want to do something about it, find a way to hit the thespians in the wallet so they get the clue that gratuitously edgy stuff makes them poorer.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Right Becomes Left

    It’s the “Fringe”.

    We’ve somehow gotten ourselves into this “us and them” routine where anyone to the “Left” of a Conservative or “Right” of a Liberal is “the enemy”.

    The gray areas of politics have been eroded in favor of being defined by the opposite side by the acts of the fringe.

    I lean Left on a lot of things. That doesn’t mean that I am taking to the streets bellyaching about “micro-aggressions” (whatever the fuck those are), nor am I advocating some kind of revolution because something isn’t going the way I think it should.

    An neither are most Conservatives doing the same thing as the Alt-Right people.

    We have to stop defining each other by what the extremes on either side are.

    Milo Yapiwhatshisnose is just a clueless clown. Why there are people on the Left who lose their minds over ANYTHING this twink has to say is beyond me. The same should go for this whatever it was in the park.

    If you don’t like something, DON’T ATTEND IT. It’s a pretty simple concept. You certainly aren’t going to get your feelings hurt if you DON’T see something.

    If you do, then then it is YOU who has the problem.

    Like

  15. I just read another blogger who said pretty much the same thing you said but most of the commenters were in disagreement, some extremely harshly. I mean EXTREMELY! Maybe you stated your case a little better. I usually agree with you and when I don’t, it’s mostly a matter of degree not of substance. I don’t know where to come down on this issue yet but I will say that when taking the high road doesn’t work, we have to develop different tactics. What those tactics will be and when they should be employed is yet to be seen. Another popular blogger wrote several weeks ago that we have to start employing the lefts tactics because our present course seems to be emboldening them to even greater outrages, e.g. shooting a congressman. Reasoning with them doesn’t seem to be in the cards. I don’t know if I agree with him but I do believe a tipping point will be reached sooner rather than later and this theater incident will seem mild by comparison. I take no pleasure in saying this because it bodes ill for our country.

    Like

    1. See, to me this isn’t about taking the high road. It’s about sabotaging our own message. The message in Julius Caesar is that political assassination is a BAD thing, that it causes unrest and instability, and in that case, it drove the assassins to suicide. By being stupid on this issue, we sabotage that message, we paint ourselves to be retards who don’t even know one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays, and that we don’t respect the right of others to perform plays we don’t like. This wasn’t assassination porn of Trump. Another company did JC with an Obama-type lead. This isn’t anything new and different.

      Look, warfare needs to be a combination of conventional action and information operations. It’s one thing to condemn Griffin, or Madonna, or that moron Snoop when they literally and publicly mock beheadings, talk about burning down the White House, or shoot “Trump” in the head in a music video. But to disrupt FUCKING WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S JULIUS CAESAR???? Especially when it condemns political assassinations??? It makes anything else we do as ignorant and counterproductive to any IO campaign we aim to promote.

      Like

  16. bitter clinging swiftie | Reply

    you are damn straight about the right too often echoing the left in tone…I recently started posting in the breitbarts comments, and on a article about the cosby trial someone brought up OJ, and I mentioned that the lead detective onthe case pled to fifth when asked if he planted evidence, and that alone was enough reasonnable doubt for an aquittal………you would have thought I gtook a shit on Reagan’s grave. No arguments, just a lot of invectitve

    Like

    1. I don’t know how you can even tolerate going over to Breitbart anymore. Any resemblance to an honorable news organization has long dissolved. As a former journalist, I literally get enraged every time I wander over there.

      Like

      1. bitter clinging swiftie | Reply

        I guess I just like to remind people that just because you dont worship at the alter of president Biff Tannen, doesnt mean you are maxine FienLosi

        Liked by 1 person

  17. It isn’t really much of a surprise that the right echoes the left in tone, since they are basically mirror images of each other. The further from the middle you go, they still resemble each other, only in opposite. On the fringes, even their tactics and slogans are similar.

    What is most saddening to me, as a person with some college, but certainly no degree, is that many supposedly educated people are not able to look at artistic expression as what it is, an expression of something that either the playwright or the artist wishes to convey to an audience. I can go to an art gallery, or an art museum, and look at works by many different people, from current time, to many, many years ago. Each piece I see is showing how a particular artist saw something at that moment, and tried to show it to the world. Now, I can like what I see, or I can hate it, but that is the beauty of art, in that at least the artist is able to provoke a reaction.

    The same thing goes for performance art, whether it be a play, or a musical work, or a dramatic reading or whatever. If the performers are able to provoke a reaction, a feeling or an emotion from the audience, then they as artists have done their job. If someone from the audience interrupts the performance by inserting themselves into the narrative, then they have done a disservice not only to the players, but also to the rest of the audience.

    I always hate it when one side tries to justify their bad behavior by pointing out the bad behavior of the other. Look how they did the Vice President at Hamilton. That makes it alright for us to do so at this play. Uh, no, that just means that the actors exhibited boorish behavior at the VP, not that you are allowed to do the same thing. The old saw from your mothers about if Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you jump off the bridge also has some truth to it. The goal of everyone should be to stand head and shoulders above the other side as far as integrity and civility, while still fighting hard for the causes in which you believe.

    I remember watching shows like West Side Story and others on television growing up. The thought of watching a play like that, in a major setting in New York, and then, in protest of some symbolism invoked, interjecting myself into the play, and thereby interrupting the experience for everyone else, is simply unimaginable. As an adult, a person should be able to sit and watch something with which they even completely disagree, without making a scene. If you have not learned how to do that, as an adult, then the book for you is Everything I Need to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You know, at the very least, the Hamilton actors addressed Pence after the curtain call. They didn’t disrupt the show to make a political point. And while I think it was boorish to call our the VP while all he was doing is taking his family to see a show, they were at least respectful.

      This cocksucking shrew and her pal called the audience Nazis and compared them to goebbels. Big difference.

      Like

      1. Point taken. I still think it was in poor taste to call out someone who was out with their family in that way. I do understand that a public person lives by different rules then the private citizen but still think that there is a time and place for everything. I do see the difference between during the performance and after, but think it was a captive audience and inappropriate. But I think that civility is sorely lacking on every side right now. And from the response to this post, it seems that many people have opinions about this issue also. Either way, very engaging post, and caused me to think about fairness and such.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. bitter clinging swiftie | Reply

    in 2017, the distinguishing feature of the american political landscape is hypocrisy. I dont give a dman about leftist hypocrisy, because thats what I EXPECT. however from fellow constitutional libertarians, I expect a higher level of intellect and self awareness…..which seems to be in large part missing. for example when I was still on facebook and the huey newton gun club marched armed at the waller county couurthouse, some guys on a 2A forum suggest going through the crowd and checking criminal records, tho whit I replied that if you are pro second amendment you have to be anti-background check as a pre-requisite for firearms ownership, and that if something is a right, it applies to assholes as well as sweethearts…….maaane!!!! you would have thought I posted a video of some diane fienstien-nancy pelosi strap on lesbo action by how mad these dudes were.

    Like

    1. Well, thanks for that visual. I’m going to go barf up the cheese slices I had for lunch.

      Like

      1. bitter clinging texan | Reply

        so Im assuming that you arent interested in buying my nekkid pics of bette midler

        Like

  19. It wasn’t the right wing disrupters who first corrupted the meaning of Julius Ceasar, it was the producers and director who completely missed Shakespeare’s points about political violence in their zeal to mock Trump. The director has been pretty explicit about the political agenda of his staging.

    I suppose the real question is are Alinksy’s rules just for left wing radicals or is it appropriate to use them in the support of constitutional republican government?

    The only way the center-left will recognize the totalitarian threat of the social justice monsters they created is when the monsters bite them on their own asses. Consequently, I can’t get that exercized about a little street theater from the right. You think any of the right-thinking attendees of Ceasar in the Park have had a critical thought about SJW totalitarianism? So, while I agree with Nikki in principle, in reality this doesn’t really bother me.

    Like

    1. It wasn’t the right wing disrupters who first corrupted the meaning of Julius Ceasar, it was the producers and director who completely missed Shakespeare’s points about political violence in their zeal to mock Trump. The director has been pretty explicit about the political agenda of his staging.

      Which is hilarious, because anyone who knows the play and has any depth of understanding greater than a teaspoon, would dismiss it out of hand as stupid.

      In response to your last comment, I’m just going to leave this here. Agree or disagree with it, that’s fine. But please do read it.

      Like

  20. If they really wanted to insult Trump, they would have made the actor portraying Brutus the one who resembled him. Caesar was portrayed as a great man in the play, and killing him, instead of preserving the Republic, almost directly led to the establishment of the Empire. Conservatives seem to be the ones up in arm over this portrayal, but it is the progs who need to get the message.

    Like

  21. If you think this production is “Julius Caesar” then you probably think embalmed corpses are people too. Let’s not kid ourselves: Oskar Eustis wants to assail Trump. Here’s JULIUS CAESAR, that’ll do fine because:

    a) don’t have to pay Will any royalties, we can mess about with the play as we feel like it, and kick Trump but
    b) we can use the title “Julius Caesar” for free advertising and wrap our production in the cover of artistic freedom (“It’s Shakespeare, you bigots!”) even while we smear orange makeup over the corpse of JULIUS CAESAR.

    This play was produced because Eustis is a lazy undertalented hog snouting away in the public trough, sure he can spew his venom so long as it is 200 proof liberal bigotry.
    In all the news coverage and reviews, I’ve never seen this point discussed: when “Caesar” is graphically killed, what is the audience’s reaction? You would think it would be horror at a murder. Surely that is what Will intended. My bet is Eustis knew who he was playing to, and the murder scene gets lots of applause, as the liberal bigots who are his “target” audience see their fantasies acted out.

    I’d be much more impressed with this post if you could point out all the productions of Shakespeare starring Barack Obama e.g Obama as Macbeth or Obama as Iago etc etc. There’s a considerable asymmetry going on here. It does no good to lecture conservatives, “We’re better than the lefty bigots.” That may be, but given the shenanigans Black LIves Matter pulls off with few consequences as just one example, it’s no wonder that many conservatives are in a vile temper. The election of Trump is one sign of this asymmetry. I’ll go farther: Oskar Eustis and James Hodgkinson are cousins. If Hodgkinson had been given big grants, lots of applause, and recognition, he would not have had to shoot up congressionals. He’d be doing it on YouTube, to much applause from SALON, and first in line for a “genius grant” or a spot at the National Endowment for the Humanities trough or a tenured professorship. Conversely, if Eustis had some of Hodgkinson’s drug issues, he’d have been firing bullets. The underlying imbecility is much the same.

    A shorter version of your post could be “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” One wrong doesn’t either, but try getting the government, let alone the Left, to act like there’s one wrong. You need only look at the Berkeley cops, stumped at finding all the rioters in Berkeley to snort with derision at a corrupt ruling class.

    Finally: if you want to make political art, do it yourself. The only reason the “Voodoo” MACBETH is remembered today is because Orson Welles went on to create CITIZEN KANE. Another example, better suited for our times: the career of Huey Long provides interesting notions for those considering President Trump today. Nor am I alone in this. Two great novelists agreed, and that’s why NUMBER ONE by John Dos Passos and ALL THE KING’S MEN by Robert Penn Warren got written. Both novelists thought long and hard about Long’s career, used it as a starting point, and created great works of art that are worth reading today.

    This has been a lot of reading, especially since there are no curse words in it. Many thanks for your time.

    Like

    1. Couple of things here.

      a) This play was produced because Eustis is a lazy undertalented hog snouting away in the public trough, sure he can spew his venom so long as it is 200 proof liberal bigotry.

      You are assailing the quality of the show. I haven’t seen it, so I can’t do that. I haven’t heard anything about Shakespeare’s text being changed. Yeah, Caesar looked like Trump. So what? It could be an awful production. But you know what? We have the freedom to produce awful shows in this country, and people have the right to see them without derptastic morons jumping onto the stage and disrupting the show.

      My bet is Eustis knew who he was playing to, and the murder scene gets lots of applause, as the liberal bigots who are his “target” audience see their fantasies acted out.

      You are assessing motives, which is generally difficult to do on any venue. Maybe he meant to make the leftards happy. Maybe he meant to be edgy. The audience will get what it will get out of it. Again, no excuse for disrupting a performance. You seem to be saying that because the left acts like petulant assholes at peaceful speeches or demonstrations with which we agree, the right should do it too, because ASYMMETRY! No.

      I’d be much more impressed with this post if you could point out all the productions of Shakespeare starring Barack Obama e.g Obama as Macbeth or Obama as Iago etc etc.

      I pointed out one production of JC in 2013 with “Obama” as the title character. I’m unaware of others, but I haven’t kept close track. I’m only aware of one play featuring a “Trump.” Both the far right and the far left have been engaging in unacceptable behavior for years now. Remember Obama as a rodeo clown? Remember this video?

      A shorter version of your wall o’comment could be “Two wrongs don’t make a right, but since left does it, we should too.”

      I couldn’t disagree more. These types of antics rile up the far right, but it’s preaching to the choir. Part of warfare is to win over allies. By engaging and condoning this type of behavior, we’re not going to win over fence sitters – especially Shakespeare fans.

      Like

  22. I think what bugs me is this stuff…

    “One important lesson is that when they go low, going high doesn’t f**king work,” tweeted Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal Center for American Progress think tank, referring to Michelle Obama’s maxim from the 2016 campaign.

    Source

    As Screwtape pointed out in his letters, “Suspicion often creates what it suspects.” Or as the story of the Dazexiang Uprising put it:
    Chen turns to his friend Wu Guang and asks “What’s the penalty for being late?”
    “Death,” says Wu.
    “And what’s the penalty for rebellion?”
    “Death,” says Wu.
    “Well then…” says Chen Sheng.

    I mean, do I have to spell it out? (ok, I did once) If no matter what, one is always guilty (even if really innocent), eventually there’s no reason for one to continue efforts at innocence.

    Like

  23. washingtongkoster | Reply

    Many thanks for your temperate response. For the record I do not think anyone, left or right should be disrupting public performances of art in general. Throw the book at Loomer and Posobiec, say I. We both know this will happen. But the cops can’t even catch the Berkeley rioters. I am also confident that should by some miracle, one Berkeley antifa rioter be caught, what will happen? Why the booklet, will be thrown at him. No lawbooks for the Left!

    You say that there was a play about Obama produced during his time in office. He was in office for 8 years, and certainly did more than his share of controversial things. Yet you can only think of one play. Trump has been in office less than six months, and already there’s not only a play, but a play produced in a national, prestigious forum, with some government backing. Eustis didn’t even let Trump take the oath of office when he came up with his “edgy” i.e. ‘spit in the middle class’s eye at government expense to elite applause’ idea. Am I assessing motives again? Sure! Juries do it, critics do it, and so does every citizen on this planet every day in deciding responses to actions. You could refrain from doing so, and assume good faith by everyone.How comfortable would you be in assuming good faith by, say, the New York TIMES, one of the world’s most prestigious new sources, in covering conservative activities?

    I repeat, this production is not JULIUS CAESAR, but “Julius Casear” a corpse of Shakespeare’s play with liberal bigotry smeared all over it in a ridiculous attempt to make it “lifelike”. Eustis lacks the talent to imagine Shakespeare for out own time as Laurents, Sondheim, and Bernstein did in WEST SIDE STORY for ROMEO AND JULIET and Dos Passos and Warren did for Huey Long in the 1940s.

    The real weakness in my, and your, positions is that we can’t think of an alternative to imitating the Left’s suppression of speech. It does no good to say we can’t imitate the Left, we’re better than that. On the political level, the GOP has been running their Presidential candidates that way since Reagan, and it hasn’t worked out well. Part of the trouble is that the Left has undertaken a “Long March through the institutions” and has captured the bureaucracies, academia, the press, and way too much of the Bench. The Left can “rear” its young with fellowships in a way that completely outclasses the Right. Again, try proposing a version of MACBETH starring HIllary Clinton to Eustis and see how far you get in realizing your vision. The Left has built up institutions that welcome its side, while starving anyone else into submission or abandoning a career in the institution (and thereby ceding the culture to the Left.) It is a depressing thought that in this fight, conservatives may have to give up their chosen fields and struggle for years with no guarantee of success. In your own way, by writing this blog, you are “doing your bit,” deserve credit for doing so. But match your blog against the New York TIMES and who has more influence, more ability to punish its enemies and reward its friends?

    This is the biggest single factor in Trump’s election. For the record I have never voted for Donald Trump,not in 2012, nor in 2016. His election dismayed me. But this rough beast has done many things I applaud, e.g. judicial appointments, withdrawing from the quack climate change accords, and issuing the executive order saying two old regs must be repealed for every new one published. I must admit Trump’s record beats by ten miles any conceivable Hillary Clinton record should she have won the election.

    Like

  24. bitter clinging swiftie | Reply

    I think the answer to the question of what is justified and what is not justified depends on the answer to this question: is there a bona fide war going on? If you consider yourself to be at war, then there is a lot more leeway on whats acceptable. My personal answer to that question is yes, of course we are at war. This particularly culture war thus far has been fought mosstly with memes, videos, likes and shares rather than kalashnikovs and armalites, but it is a war nonetheless. so then comes the question of effectiveness…..did this stunt have any tactical value? my answer to that is no. it might have made some feel good that the communists got a taste of their own medicine, but it accomplished nothing from a tactical or strategic perspective.

    Like

    1. I think it’s more of an issue of what is effective vice not effective. This is an information war. We already have people on our side, and these types of antics only serve to placate the ones who are CURRENTLY on our side. It’s the fence-sitters that you have to convince. It’s THEIR hearts and minds you have to win. And you’re not going to win them by being stupid.

      Like

      1. bitter clinging swiftie | Reply

        we are pretty much on the same page, then. from a tactical perspective, that stunt achieved nothing. Its interesting you mention hearts and minds. The flipside of that tactic is the necessity of creating true fear in your enemies, which again, this stunt did not do

        Like

        1. That’s true too. It basically painted conservatives as a bunch of morons. Nothing more.

          Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: