Channeling White

Having been forced in my youth to wear a uniform designed by the communists who dictated our daily lives, every move and breath we took, you can imagine my dismay at seeing the Socialist Democrat women appearing dressed in white at the State of the Union (SOTU) address of President Trump last night.

Like a high school club of “beautiful girls” who reject the plain girls in class, this group of women was petty, sour, dour, attention-hungry, scowling, smirking disrespectfully, and displaying overt and in-your-face derision, setting aside any statesman’s decorum and propriety, barely engaging their “occasional cortex.”

Were they channeling the White Ladies of Havana, Cuba, who march in silence every Sunday after church to protest the communist regime on behalf of their fathers, brothers, and sons who were jailed and tortured by the Castro brothers’ totalitarian regime for their anti-communist beliefs?

This Soviet-funded and supported rule had destroyed the formerly prosperous island and had brought it to the brink of disaster and total servitude to a tyrannical regime that still pretends today to care for the impoverished proletariat while the elites in power add millions to their bank accounts in the west.

Were the white-clad Democrat women channeling  the abortionist white lab coats, the “angels of death” that kill the innocent unborn under the guise of “choice” and then use their discarded and carefully selected body parts for dubious research?

Were they channeling the racist white-hooded KKK?

Were they channeling the non-existent and invented “white privilege” they’ve been bombarding our society with in the last ten years, poisoning the waters of civil discourse and destroying any divergent ideas in public or in academia?

Were the white outfits an expression of innocence? If so, whose innocence?

White and environmental green must be the new red for these Democrat Socialists in Congress. The sad part is that they were elected to high office by indoctrinated Americans and illegal aliens to represent all of us. They are ruling over our lives without any deception and pretense that there is equal representation or a separation of powers. They flaunt their alliance with a supine academia and media who read on air the daily socialist Democrat message supplied on Teleprompters.

 

Dining on 14th Street in Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. is a very strange city. We were on 14th street today, dining; there are many cafes and eateries frequented mostly by locals. The French restaurant we ate in was packed at 3 p.m. We were able to people-watch while we dined but the diversity of characters Democrats pride on was quite unsettling.

There was a "community day" one street over - no community I would ever want to be a part of;  the people milling at that event were young and old, dressed in 60s flower power outfits, with bongo drums, dreadlocks, and other bizarre outfits and hats.

Young women in the street were dressed in skimpy outfits like hookers; others wore rompers like toddlers, showing too much buttocks and most of their fake breasts. Some women were pretending to be clothed in dresses that were split to their private parts, or just-kidding skimpy skirts and tops showing their underwear and bras. 

Metrosexual-looking men were wearing pants and shirts two sizes too small or wife-beater black shirts with strange-looking shorts that appeared to have been shrunk in the wash. Most of them were latching their bikes to poles in the street like the good environmental commies that they are.

There was a strong presence of millennials with their heavily tattooed and pierced bodies. When the occasional, normally dressed Americans strolled by with their children, you knew they were out-of-towners visiting the big metropolis.

At the other extreme were women clad in 7th century black tents, covered to their eyeballs, running in packs of four with one husband herding them ahead, lest they got lost.

These people are helping run our country? God have mercy on us!

Fashion by Any Other Name Is Still Clothes

A typical Lilly Pulitzer print

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what is pretty and comfortable to some, it is ugly and low class to someone else. We all have different tastes. Aren’t we told all the time that diversity is great?

Not when it comes to clothes. The Washington Post fashion critic excoriated the Lilly Pulitzer for Target line and the brand in general.  She admitted that “The Lilly Pulitzer line is a coup, but what the retailer’s really selling isn’t pretty.” It was a successful retailing debut which sold everything around the country within five minutes and jammed its website, while some of the items showed up on eBay at three times the price. http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-washington-post/20150421/282668980893874/TextView

She declared, “Lilly Pulitzer is not fashion. It is clothes. The classic Lilly Pulitzer dress comes in shrill shades of yellow and pink that are vaguely infantilizing,” a preppy line you can see from far away, “50 paces” to be exact.  I think the middle class is not interested in buying fashion, or high fashion for that matter. They want to buy clothes that are comfortable, reasonably priced, in bright colors that make the wearer happy, a Floridian casual that only the relaxed southerners can truly understand.

“Anyone can work hard and save up enough cash to go out and purchase a Chanel suit or a Gucci handbag. A devoted student of Vogue can cobble together a personal style that speaks to her public identity,” the critic continued.

This is the problem with rich people who live in a bubble, completely disconnected from reality. Nobody in their right mind would save cash to buy an elitist, snobby Chanel suit that is uncomfortable, tight, and impractical in an economy in which many people have a hard time paying their bills and buying decent food for their families. Most Americans do not dress according to Vogue or carry around real Gucci bags when $5,000 is better spent to help the family survive a few months.

It is not true that Lilly Pulitzer represents something that “money cannot buy.” Lilly is just comfortable, relaxed, and reasonably priced everyday clothes. A buyer does not have to forgo important purchases in order to buy snooty high fashion.  The preppy appeal to the college crowd is just that, floral and happy colors appropriate for someone so young who still sees the world with innocent eyes. There is nothing “one-percentish” or rarified “clubby” about the Lilly clothes.

What is wrong with people on a budget buying colorful prints, creative designs, and clothes that make them happy? Is it jealousy for a successful marketing strategy? Are shoppers on a low budget not having “discerning tastes” because the Chanel-promoting one-percenters think so? Is it better to buy high-priced designer jeans with holes and rips in them?

Downplaying and ridiculing the entrepreneurship of the Lilly brand and of her now-deceased founder as “a bored, rich house-wife who had started an orange juice stand in Palm Beach, Florida” is definitely not going to win any converts from the middle class to the rarified upper class of Chanel-wearing elites. There was nothing wrong with the entrepreneurial Lilly Pulitzer purchasing the fabric at Woolworth’s and having her dressmaker sew simple chemise dresses. Many American women bought their fabrics and Simplicity dress patterns at Woolworth’s and Hancock’s and then made their own clothes through the early eighties.  

No average American woman in her right mind is going to wear the high-end designer clothes which are not meant to cover someone’s body, they are too short, too tight, too revealing; these clothes are meant to scream to the world, look at me, I have money, I spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on my high-end fashion, I flaunt my wealth this way, and I live a life filled with expensive adornments on my body.

The middle class women do not wait for a sale at Neiman Marcus; they go to Target to buy a $40 Lilly Pulitzer dress or to the flagship store for a $200 one. Yes, the critic is right, “Lilly Pulitzer is a classic. It is always hanging on a rack somewhere, everywhere, in all of its pineapple-print, feel-good, preppy psychedelia.” Ask any southern college girl and they will agree that a Lilly dress on a sunny football weekend is the best. Ask anybody else what they would like to wear to the beach or to a picnic and the answer is Lilly clothes.

I think that most women prefer the inexpensive, feel-good, and colorful “psychedelia” of Lilly Pulitzer over the overpriced, snobby elitist “psychedelia” of ridiculous high-fashion.  I personally remove the label of any clothing as it bothers my sensitive skin. We don’t wear labels to affirm who we are – we know that the handmade, “high-class promised quality” is still “stitched just so” in a couture sweat shop by Chinese hands.

On that note, I am going to wear my light pink Lilly t-shirt which only set me back $40 and makes me happy to wear. Clothes do not make a person good, exceptional, or bad; they just create an illusory image and give a false impression of the wearer. We don’t need a branding or “public identity” expressed through expensive high fashion, we want to be ourselves.