Miley's & Christina's 'Edgy' New Videos Are a Bore

Have you seen the new music videos by Miley Cyrus and Christina Aguilera? If you haven’t, let me save you nine minutes of precious time. Both videos feature the young, attractive, talented singers clad in lingerie dancing, gyrating and engaging in simulated sex acts with both men and women.

In a word, boring.

Rather than hit these two from the completely legitimate position of criticizing their moral bankruptcy (especially in the case of the the underage Cyrus), let’s have some fun and hit them from the other side. That’s right, let’s talk about “art” and “feminism”.

Sure ladies, your new videos are “edgy,” “stylish,” “provocative,” “liberating” and “artistic”….for 1985. Fact is, we’ve seen this all before. The crazy wardrobe, stylized lighting, racy sexuality, blah, blah, blah. Madonna was doing this stuff 25 years ago. I have to laugh when people point out the obvious comparisons between the new Xtina video and Lady Gaga’s recent video achievements. Both of them are simply poor imitations for the “Grandmother of Smut” herself. Taking Xtina to task for ripping off Lady Gaga is like criticizing a Tarantino parrot without acknowledging the wealth of films that QT has paid “homage” to himself.

Post-modernism and the creative mobious strip that we find ourselves in right now are a direct byproduct of the spread of socialism and statist ideology. Reality television and empty studio feature film remakes are the artistic “unintended consequence” of the leftist agenda. As I have pointed out before, stories with strong themes and ideas tend to be conservative. Good story telling and ground breaking art, are at their core, based on individualism. These notions inherently lead to romantic art. Romanticism is the only art form that has value. It portrays an idealized, stylized and unique vision of the world as it should be, not as it is. Romantic notions have no place in a leftist society. Instead, we are treated to the “hip” and “edgy” within the statist environment which ends up being boring, hollow, and derivative. From the wardrobe, to the lighting, to the editing style, these videos are tired and lame. They are old and busted. Despite seeing Christina Aguilera in lace boyshorts, we must ask ourselves “where is the new hotness”?

Anybody and everybody can have sex. That is a fact. Animals have sex. Love and personal connections are based on all sorts of complex things, many of which escape some members of our society. Intelligence, individuality, spirituality, ego, and self-confidence are essential elements to higher levels of human interaction. By pandering to a base level of human nature, “art” that only portrays the primal, sexual urges, seeks to bring all of us down to a less enlightened level. Remember kids, the “equality” sought by the left is an equality at the bottom, not at the top. Only personal achievement and responsibility can get you to the top.

Just check out the lyrics for Madonna’s song “Express Yourself,” the video for which Xtina apes in with her new song.

Don’t go for second best baby

Put your love to the test

You know, you know, you’ve got to

Make him express how he feels

And maybe then you’ll know your love is real

And now from Xtina’s song “Not Myself Tonight.”

Yah, that feels good

I needed that

Get crazy

Let’s go

That’s right

Come on

Give it to me now, don’t stop

Progress? I think not.

With that in mind, I dare say that the music videos of the “white bread” Taylor Swift have more artistic merit with their “cheesy” narratives and chaste images. That’s because they are appealing to higher concepts. True art seeks to inspire, to uplift, and to enlighten the human spirit. Taylor Swift falling in love at the high school dance is more artistic than a bunch of flash frames of Miley Cyrus in thigh-high boots.

Now, onto feminism.

The idea that this nonsense is somehow “liberating” to women is simply laughable. Attractive women, talented women, and intelligent women (or those that are all three) have been victimized by “feminism” for decades. Here’s the big secret. Feminism, as defined in the 1960s, is a conspiracy perpetrated by unattractive, stupid and untalented women with an assist from sexually inept male hippies and sleezy leftist Bill Clinton types. The main purpose of feminism is to diminish the powers and achievements of “Alpha Females.”

By encouraging women to get in touch with their “inner whore”, the feminist forces have created a win-win for themselves. Nobody wants the feminist architects to be more in touch with their sexuality and “put it out there” because they are unattractive. So, the attractive girls are “empowered” to reject their own self-respect. Now, the unattractive feminists have a heightened sense of value. They can point to, and dismiss, the attractive sluts of society and claim a sense of superiority and increased relevance.

The men who are sensitive to feminism also win. By divorcing sexuality from higher, conservative notions of love and mutual respect, loser men gain all sorts of ground. Ladies, you should sleep with worthless hippies and sleezy leftists because in doing so, you are rejecting centuries of patriarchal oppression. That common sense urge to share yourself with true men of character and value is simply social programming. Be independent! Be your own person! Put out for idiots!

The girl who is so enlightened that she carries condoms with her at all times is simply preparing herself for sex with irresponsible, selfish and stupid men. Men who, before the sexual revolution, had little to no chance of scoring. Especially with hot chicks.

This isn’t some sort of untestable theory. There are many real world examples. Angelina Jolie embraces motherhood, economic independence and personal responsibility. She wields her stunning sexuality as a weapon, firmly in her grasp. She is both an artistic and financial powerhouse. She also thinks Obama is an empty suit. Compare that to leftist mockingbirds like Megan Fox and Scarlett Johannsen. Who is more likely to subscribe to “feminist” ideas? Who is more talented? Who is more likely to have their sexuality exploited and manipulated?

And of course, look no further than the treatment of “Caribou Barbie” herself to see where these supposed allies of women truly shake down.

The irony here is that Christina Aguilera leads a very positive, dare I say role model worthy, personal life. She is a mother who married her rather normal looking manager who, by all accounts, is a great guy. She seems to be level headed, hardworking, and nobody can deny the vocal talents that she possesses.

Unfortunately, she either lacks the strength or fails to see the correlation between her personal decisions and ideological compass and her work. To be a true artist, you must meld both. To be a true feminist, you must find a synthesis between the two. Great art, and the supposed goals of feminism, are based on the conservative power of the individual.

The artistic revolution of originality, individualism, and conservatism that is long overdue will happen. But it will only happen when artists embrace the rebellious spirit and financial risk that their idols did. When they do, the industries based on artistic endeavors will experience an economic boom unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

Until then, we will continue to see people “pushing the boundaries” by tarting it up in their panties and doing “groundbreaking” things from the 1990s.

Yawn.