The pseudonymous WorldNetDaily art columnist gets in her seemingly mandated requirement of Obama derangement, but also makes sure to take time to freak out about how undignified it is for a cartoon character to die protecting a gay man.
By Terry Krepel Posted 12/10/2014
Marisa Martin's bio at WorldNetDaily states that she uses a fake name "because she feels it is terribly rude for an artist to criticize other artists and it slows the hate mail down."
Frankly, if we wrote as much paranoid drivel she cranks out, we'd hide behind a fake name too.
"Martin" has been a WND columnist since April 2011, and her anonymity seems to have emboldened her to write those bizarre and paranoid things because she knows she'll never be held personally accountable for them. Which is strange, since her WND bio also describes her as a "Christian, conservative political activist," and we thought Christian conservatives were all about personal responsibility.
Martin is also described as "practicing artist of over 30 years," so her columns are ostensibly supposed to be about art. But somehow they tend to be about how much she hates President Obama
Martin -- as is apparently required of all WND writers -- has a seething hatred of Obama and is desperate to blame anything she can on him. In a November 2012 column, she ranted about how an artist was "interrogated and publicly humiliated" for wearing a "strange watch" while attempting to board a plane at an airport. Martin rather innocuously describes the man's watch as merely having "extra springs, fuses and mechanical pieces, none of them workable or connected, as I understand." But as a picture of the watch (which Martin did not include in her column) indicates, it looks a lot more sinister than that, even if it wasn't functional, and correctly raised the NSA's radar.
Somehow, Martin blamed all of this on Obama, baselessly asserting that his administration is "denounc[ing] and micromanag[ing] artistic expression in the U.S."
In a January 2013 column, Martin likened Obama to Napoleon for purportedly obsessing about his press:
Two centuries later the White House is similarly inhabited by a man obsessed with public opinion and attempting a government made in his image. Streams of rhetoric gush from paid barkers and their collaborating machines (formerly known as the free press.) President Obama is variously compared to JFK, Lincoln, FDR or other titans of humanity with virtually no specific similarity or substance mentioned. Strike a pose and presume ignorance of the masses and it’s been working.
Leaders with world-class egos can be dangerous when slighted. In China, Iran and Russia, naughty press people who just don’t understand the rules have disappeared. Fortunately, we have no such problems in the U.S., as most newscasters and big networks believe exactly what they’re told by the administration and are never unreasonably skeptical. This makes me feel so much safer.
Of course, Martin fails to mention that there is a free press in America, and that the owner of the website that publishes her anti-Obama rants, one Joseph Farah, is even more anti-Obama than she is -- to the point of publishing complete and utter lies about the president, making him a propagandist even more pernicious than what Martin claims the mainstream media to be -- and that he has never so much as been compelled to correct the record, let alone be thrown in jail for countering the "emperor." The president has the makings of a credible and successful libel case against WND, yet one has never been filed.
Martin concluded: "How much high-tech propaganda can be used against Americans without rousing our suspicions -- and how many artists and writers are willing to create it?" But Martin is engaging in her own high-tech propaganda by having her rants published at one of the most notorious propaganda mills in the country, so she might want to rethink this whole thing.
Martin began her Feb. 28 column by asking, "Why do dictators always love enormous, ostentatious and self-aggrandizing art?" She quickly moved from Lenin, Stalin and Mao to, yes, President Obama:
Which brings me to the current administration and their fondness for huge heads ... of Obama.
Last December diplomats with London’s U.S. Embassy were lavished with unusually large portraits of Obama by the famed artist Chuck Close. Described as “tapestries,” the black and white portraits are woven from Polaroid photographs. At 8 feet tall and more than 6 feet wide, the POTUS projects powerfully into the space. It could be considered intimidating, but the attitude is something his diplomats have learned to live with, or perhaps enjoy.
Martin then undermined her own argument by conceding that such large-format portraits are Close's stock in trade, and that Obama "apparently appreciates Close’s work and collects contemporary art." But she quickly got back on her paranoia track by declaring that "There’s an Orwellian element here that can’t be missed" to this work: "The psychology here is: I’m watching you. I’m bigger than you. I’m the alpha dog in this political pack, and I can take your money to make these monuments too."
Martin's crazy (and totally made up) Obama conspiracy
Martin at least began a March 2013 column with a warning that something crazy will follow: "Though based on actual events, portions of this column are dramatized to fit speculation." Indeed, what followed is much heavier on speculation than it is on facts:
On May 1, 1958, a group of 32 Marxist sympathizers met in a Chicago hotel, planning the future disintegration of the American States. Organized by Soviet operatives, they were artists, writers, Hollywood producers, social theorists, professors, politicians and miscellaneous, hardcore Marxists.
Somehow they managed to evade the keen eye of CIA counterintelligence head James Angleton, who had been tracking members of the operation relentlessly, revealing moles and snagging spy networks like a spider in his web. He warned of Soviet disinformation and deception campaigns, which he believed reached into the U.S. government even then but this one, far under the radar, went undetected.
Hours and many arguments later their plans ran aground as they concluded the U.S. military was too strong for any direct assault and the nation’s mindset was decidedly anti-communist. This would all have to change.
Hashing out a long-range plan decade by decade, they hoped to change public perception, weaken American resolve and install their man in the White House within 30 years. It took 50.
But the big prize kept ripening on the stem just out of reach for decades, an open, unapologetic communist in the White House. This required intense planning and a virtual convergence of factors in their favor: willing accomplices in media and Congress, voters equally ignorant of history and the Constitution and a flexible, change agent of their own creation.
9/11 opened the gates of destabilization and national soul-searching while several guerilla-Marxist art collectives saw their chance and rushed in. Quebec-based Deoconiste led the charge aided by the disarmingly named MASS-x, Angry Fishwives, Voxb#x and TuT-tUt.
Needing a blank canvas on which to cast their collective vision, they searched for a human Tabula Rosa, and many fingers pointed to Barrack Obama.
He was young and photogenic, a necessity for the massively visual Hollywood, blockbuster-style public relations campaign they planned. Neither black nor white, Obama could play the race card both ways and read a speech well.
The best part of Obama was his formlessness, the votes he never bothered to cast as an Illinois senator, the missing Selective Service and other records and the multiple personalities and pseudonyms he amassed by a young age.
Promoted through college by wealthy Saudi benefactors and the relentless, Chicago political machine, his tutors and benefactors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn recognized Obama’s potential to spread Marxist power even then. You could do anything with a man like that.
The 2008 presidential campaign was a giant, ongoing, social experiment on America’s citizens. Could their perception and emotions be controlled using new media, mindless slogans and repetition? Would mass public disapproval and primitive psychological punishment, shame relatively conservative citizens into electing an unknown man primarily because of his color?
Hyped through Internet experts in social trust and deception, Obama’s empty phrases and patchy background were crafted into a solidly real man. The mass of citizens were tired of war and trouble and searching for a savior. Open ended “hope” and undefined “change” were filled in by individual minds who set aside rational thought and went with along with the highly entertaining program of the first design president.
Martin then spends the rest of her column defending her Obama derangement:
The assertions I make here are largely factual, but not all the details are. Consider it fictionalized history. Guerilla art collectives, some persons, dates and meetings are speculated details, while major action and background of the recent elections are historic fact.
Why create fictionalized scripts concerning Obama’s past when there is already so much damning evidence of his split loyalties? Won’t this just be assigned to the scrap pile of conspiracy theories already clogging the blogosphere? Yes, and that’s the point.
The very blankness of the man, his interchangeable histories, religions, names and identities, work against anyone who accuses him. It’s all a “conspiracy theory,” and who could prove otherwise? A thinking person of integrity and curiosity will attempt to fill in the gaping blanks and connect the dots, coming up with any number of speculations, which can all easily be denied.
Mindless masses aren’t the Obama administrations’ concern. The people who projected all their hopes for a better future on one human being have proved they are weak and easily manipulated by media hype and propaganda.
Ah, yes, the old WND lament that anyone who voted for Obama is either brainwashed or an idiot (or both). Or, as it's known in the real world, sour grapes.
Martin's Sept. 24 column was devoted to freaking out over an Islamic art exhibit in Los Angeles because it's "propaganda" that hides the fact that Muslims want to kill us all:
Heads are rolling and infidel blood is pouring play the Caliphate rag, boys.
While we’re at it, why don’t we hold a massive, regional art exhibit praising and honoring Islam itself? For its many contributions to culture. It should go far beyond musty, old Islamic museum collections and launch into video, lectures, children’s classes, performances, music and poetry. Whatever helps the cause.
The Los Angeles Islam Arts Initiative, or LA/IAI, will “investigate” Islam through the arts (but not too closely). This massive Islamic love fest involves 30 cultural institutions throughout Los Angeles “to tell various stories of traditional and contemporary art from multiple Islamic regions and their significant global diasporas.”
But why do this massive campaign now just though, when ugly elements surrounding Islamic beliefs besiege us?
Because liberal Los Angeles policy makers are just hip, kind people? Because they “get it,” unlike those poor headless schmucks littering Iraq?
Truly all museum and big cultural initiatives are planned far in advance, and undoubtedly LA/IAI did the same. But even if they began a decade ago, it doesn’t reverse Islamic aggression at the time or now. This feels inappropriate and forced, a city-wide effort at re-education using art as a vehicle. Propaganda.
Understand it is utterly taboo to question a non-Christian religion in America, even if leaders of that religion are attempting to annihilate all civilized life on the planet. Exhibitors for LA/IAI may be allowed to “question” (but never pointedly) and generally gush on in a non-threatening and utterly irrelevant manner.
Perhaps the throat slashers and baby killers will melt with gratitude: “They understand us isn’t it marvelous? There is no need to kill you now, we will go to someone else, perhaps Cincinnati, to demand an Islamic Appreciation Month.”
I say this indelicately and rather crudely to make a point: The rarified atmosphere of art is a red herring to divert the rotten scent of death trailing Islam as it is practiced in much of the world now. Perhaps not when Doris Duke amassed her collection before the subway bombs, bloody videos and emptied cities but there is an agenda. As a government-promoted (and majorly funded) initiative, this is not art for the sheer joy of it, arising from the glad hearts of the people.
If art galleries and initiatives like LA/IAI allow artists to speak on realities and truth instead of obfuscation and magical thinking, they deserve respect. As they stand, most endeavors to promote Islamic culture are the art world’s equivalent of money laundering. It covers the blood quite well through a veneer of respectability and cloaking.
In her July 6 WND column, "Martin" went into full freak-out mode over over the Archie Comics storyline in which Archie dies taking a bullet for his gay best friend:
Archie Andrews was the love of my life at 12 but I was forced to share him with sweet Betty and sultry Veronica, of course. How galling.
Faced with the usual dilemma of gracefully deposing a cartoon character who has “lived” ungodly long periods of time, Archie’s creators had him lay down his life for a friend. Isn’t that wonderful? Just as Jesus commended, but with so many variables ... and the devil lies in the details, as they say.
One of these details is that by 2014 Archie’s taste in friends has greatly changed. Goofy Jughead was replaced by “best friend” Kevin Keller, an open homosexual. From the malt shop podium they could kick back and extol the virtues of the “gay” life, just like Plato and his disciples (although Plato later reversed this, describing the “crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature utterly unholy, odious to the gods and ugliest of ugly things”).
Moving back to Riverdale from Athens, Archie Comics gladly sacrifices their protagonist to homosexual “BFF” Kevin in his final chapter. Although this was issued last month, it’s part of a campaign to reshape comics as a tool of social reeducation.
Progressive “Archie” publisher and co-CEO John Goldwater informed the AP of this himself: “We hope by showing how something so violent can happen to Archie, that we can in some way learn from him.”
It’s understandable that Archie’s publishers would want him bashed, because they obviously reached way beyond the public gullibility point. How many straight guys have a “gay” best friend, anyway? Perhaps an acquaintance or even a few friends, but Kevin and Archie discussing baseball and the comparative hotness of his babes?
Goldwater is a true believer, though. Aggressively pushing a type of “gay” hero worship, he claims to have accidentally stumbled across the story idea.
He eulogizes Archie’s murder in a paean of grandeur and praise for the noble sacrifice of life but it’s obviously all about the homosexuality: “[Archie] dies selflessly in a manner that epitomizes not only the best of Riverdale, but the best in all of us.”
It’s clearly all about the sex, or an “openly gay” character wouldn’t be intrusively inserted into the storyline in Boy Scout country of Riverdale. Merits of homosexuality are never discussed in Goldwater’s interviews or the appropriateness of forcing it on children either. Why not have Archie die for Mother Teresa or a bus load of children? No political capital.
Martin continued her descent over the edge by correctly diagnosing her paranoia, yet reveling in it anyway:
I’ll probably be accused of being a conspiracy theorist for this, but the timing of these social campaigns is extraordinarily coincidental. Goldwater and his cronies launch his big change-the-kids campaign about 2008, the nascent Obama years. Talking points are identical: change, diversity, gun control and promotion of “gay” and alternative lifestyles, specifically in the military oh, and zombie invasions.
I’m sure it’s a total coincidence, though, and Goldwater and his co-workers have never even heard of Obama or the Democratic national platform, nor are they useful lackeys in any way or have they been promised an ambassador’s position in Libya.
Goldwater proudly announces, “A new Riverdale is born!” with the death of traditional “Archie” and friends.
At its heels comes the news of their new series, “Escape from Riverdale.”
Perhaps some merciful writer/artist team will dream up “Escape from the Undead: Liberals Suck Riverdale Dry: Will Archie save the town in time?”
Like we said: If we wrote stuff like this, we'd hide behind a fake name too.