As the regular reader knows, the position of the Daily Stormer is that the celebration of the alleged “artist” Banksy is seriously indicative of the declining state of our society.
Banksy’s alleged “art” amounts to a form of vulgar spam, and his entire image is built around the idea that he is somehow rebellious for doing graffiti, and that it is mysterious that he remains anonymous.
This entire phenomenon is so utterly inorganic and forced that anyone with even a minor sense of what is fashionable or hip would recoil from it as if they’d been shown a rotting corpse hanging from a bridge.
When the media makes him out to be this cool figure, we get the image of a senile old man in his 80s coming up to some teenagers and saying, “hey you kids, what do you think of that Elvis Presley? He sure knows how to shake it, woo-hee.”
Everyone who exists outside of the swamp of modern pop culture is aware that the single fashionable product that the mainstream has produced in the last decade is Billie Eilish. And she is only “gnarly” and “rad” because she’s just an ugly fat bitch who doesn’t give a shit about anything.
She became a lot less cool, I will tell you straight, when she did that sexy video where she said she was fighting back against body-shamers. This is the worst imaginable garbage. No one wants to see your fat body; we liked you for the opposite reason.
This is the exact opposite of what anyone wanted from this bitch, and I believe that she was bullied into it by some Jew producer who was like, “baby, baby, gotta show the boys those titties, they don’t mind you got a couple extra pounds on ya!”
Probably, her brand is now doomed, because that shit was sooooo gay. It just happened in May, so we’ll see how she manages her image going forward, but what a disaster. (Billie, if you’re reading this: you know what’s up, don’t let yourself be pressured into doing uncool things by grimy old Jews.)
Apparently, Billie not being the same as everything else was considered a threat, so they told her to do some “sexy fat bitch” bullshit. They want everything to go in the same direction. They want every idea to swing around to the same place. Banksy is probably the single most representative of that place, to the point where I do not personally believe he is a real person, but rather a CIA culture product.
The product is this: “People with money want to oppress the world through the police, and the way we fight back against that oppression is by having the joy of children, and throwing tantrums like children to destroy the system, because children understand that everyone is equal and they just want to laugh.”
This is a manufactured counterculture message that supports the system, supports the rich people it is claiming to oppose. You are never going to have a society based on a lack of order causing chaos that keeps everyone equal. If you have three barbarians in a cave, they are not equal: one of them is in charge, two of them obey his orders, and of the two obeying orders, one has authority over the other if the one who is in charge is not around.
Because relationships of power is not the way civilization works, it is the way human beings work, biologically. You cannot ever get rid of that, under any system, ever, no matter what. Banksy’s obsession with children is obvious – because only a child could ever believe that you could have a system without adults. So the people who believe in this bullshit idolize children.
Here’s the thing: if people who oppose the political system are not offering a replacement system, but instead claiming that there shouldn’t be any system at all, there is zero chance that they will ever take over the system. So obviously, the people in power love that those who dislike them would embrace the idea that all systems are bad, because they are that way totally neutralized. Furthermore, as we’ve seen with the Antifa rioting against white people, the ruling class is very good at directing chaos and violence in a way that helps their agenda.
The default rebellion is a fake rebellion which necessarily benefits those in power whenever it is expressed as rebellion.
Banksy doesn’t even follow his own beliefs. Allegedly, this person (who again, I don’t believe in) recently bought a boat to help Africans flood Europe. So he’s apparently doing pretty well financially, as boats are very expensive.
This alleged communist is doing well financially because this alleged person is very good at brand management.
An EU court is now threatening his brand management.
A panel of three judges from the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office has ruled against Banksy in a two-year-long trademark dispute with a greeting-card company seeking to use his iconic design of a protestor throwing a bouquet of flowers.
Setting a precedent that may put all of the guerilla artist’s trademarks in jeopardy, the panel ruled that because his identity remains a mystery, he can’t claim trademarks to his works.
Remarkably, the ruling also invalidates his UK trademark for the flower-thrower image.
“Banksy has chosen to remain anonymous and for the most part to paint graffiti on other people’s property without their permission, rather than to paint it on canvases or his own property,” the panel said in its decision, published today.
“It must be pointed out that another factor worthy of consideration is that he cannot be identified as the unquestionable owner of such works as his identity is hidden.”
The card company, Full Colour Black, first initiated legal proceedings against Banksy and his legal team, Pest Control Office, in the fall of 2018. Their case hinged on the claim that the artist had no intention of using the trademark he had taken out on the design in 2014.
The artist responded in distinctly Banksyian fashion, launching a shop called Gross Domestic Product to shamelessly peddle his wares. Ostensibly, the idea was to demonstrate that he was using the trademarks on his work.
“Banksy has been forced into the merchandising market,” the artist’s lawyer Mark Stephens, told Artnet News last year. “The European trademark categories became his muse—you have a ludicrous court action being met by creative genius!”
But the ploy appears to have had the opposite effect. In their ruling, the intellectual property judges called the shop “inconsistent with honest practices.”
“The use, which was only made after the initiation of the present proceedings, was identified as use to circumvent the requirements of trademark law and thus there was no intention to genuinely use the sign as a trademark,” the panel wrote.
In an interview with World Trademark Review, attorney Aaron Wood, who represented Full Colour Black in the case, suggested that it could have serious repercussions for the artist’s other trademarks in the EU and the US.
So, let’s review a story of two artists who identify as political dissidents:
- Banksy is allegedly a rebellious figure who is against the system
- Banksy is celebrated by the entire media as a creative genius
- Banksy is some kind of multimillionaire who is able to buy boats
- Banksy engages in copyright trolling, presumably for the purposes of revenue generation
- Banksy is able to set up stores to sell products and process them using the banking system
- Andrew Anglin is hounded by governments
- Andrew Anglin is censored by every single mega-corporation on the planet, his website was stolen from him, and can only stay online because of the Chinese and because a world-renowned hacker helps him out as charity
- Andrew Anglin is condemned as evil by the media
- Andrew Anglin is as broke as any artist ever was (please donate)
- Andrew Anglin is completely shut out of the entire financial system
I’m not saying I’m right about everything or even that I’m right about anything.
What I will say is this: the system does not view Banksy as a threat. The system views me as a threat. So if you’re comparing two self-proclaimed political dissidents, and you find that one is celebrated by the media and promoted everywhere and the other is condemned as evil and totally and completely censored, you must be able to draw some obvious conclusions here.
The idea that any of this leftist stuff is anything other than controlled, manufactured dissent is simply ridiculous and nonsensical. Anyone who genuinely believes that he’s fighting the power by consuming the products put in front of him by the media is subhuman.
Banksy is no more rebellious than a Disney movie.
In fact, I would actually argue that the Disney film “Mulan” is significantly more rebellious than Banksy, because the actress in it denounced a color revolution and a bunch of CIA shills tried to organize a boycott against it.
I just wish these Anarchists would be honest and say: “we love the system, we are fighting for the system.”