RUSH: The Smithsonian Institution has decided to remove that video of ants crawling over Jesus. At the Smithsonian, which is a museum, somebody submitted a video — and they approved it and put it on display — of ants crawling all over Jesus. Now, the video’s been removed because of public pressure. And somebody said, ‘Well, the taxpayers are going to fund the Smithsonian the taxpayers have every right to expect…’ That’s not the question. Everybody is (clapping), ‘Okay, we’re gonna give big applause big attaboys for removing it.’ The question is how did it get passed in the first place?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
The video was on display, by the way, the ant video, at the National Portrait Gallery. Now, how does this happen in the first place? How does it get posted in the first place for it to have to be removed later on? Well, we all know the answer. A bunch of corrupt, sick, perverted liberals run these institutions. And the reason that video goes on display is so that they can ram it down the throat of a majority of people in this country, and we hear about bipartisanship and how we’re supposed to get along and somehow find common ground.
Where is the common ground here between religious people and a bunch of artists who film ants or videotape ants crawling over Jesus and then the folks at the Smithsonian who post it? There is no common ground there any way, shape, manner, or form.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, now, this is hilarious. We got the ants crawling on Jesus video at the Smithsonian. People got upset about it, the Smithsonian pulled it. The real question for me is how does it get posted in the first place? I already know the answer, which I’ve explained. The Washington Post arts critic is not happy, ladies and gentlemen. His name is Blake Gopnik, which I think is a perfect name for somebody who would like a video of ants crawling all over Jesus, Blake Gopnik. The headline to Mr. Gopnik’s piece in the Washington Post is: ‘National Portrait Gallery Bows to Censors, Withdraws Wojnarowicz Video on Gay Love.’ Now, I have to admit that I didn’t know until just now that ants crawling on Jesus was gay love. Did you? (interruption) You knew it was about AIDS but you couldn’t figure the connection? Well, I got a still shot here of the video. It’s actually of Jesus on the cross and the ants are going bonkers here crawling all over. Of course, the ants don’t know where they are, what they’re doing. Now, this somehow is about AIDS?
‘Against all odds, the stodgy old National Portrait Gallery has recently become one of the most interesting, daring institutions in Washington. Its 2009 show on Marcel Duchamp’s self-portrayal was important, strange and brave.’ You know, I love this word, ‘important.’ I remember once I found myself in an antique store, and the salesclerk was trying to impress upon me why I should have this particular piece or that, she said, ‘It’s important.’ The first time she said it, ‘Okay, went in one year and out the other,’ and she kept describing other pieces as ‘important.’ I finally said, ‘What’s important about it?’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘It’s a very important piece.’ ‘Yeah, but why? What’s important about it?’ ‘Well, for its day and age, I mean it was big. It was very, very loved and adored. It was very classic.’ I said, ‘Well, why does it make it important?’ She had no answer. So here’s this guy now describing the Marcel Duchamp self-portrayal as important, strange, and brave. This is a term that the artsy croissant crowd uses. It’s kind of like the way financial people have their own vocabulary and you’re not supposed to know what they’re talking about, same thing with this artsy croissant crowd.
So anyway, let me read to you an excerpt from Mr. Blake Gopnik’s piece here on the National Portrait Gallery bowing to censors and withdrawing the video on gay love. He says — and, by the way, it’s a long rant, I mean I printed it out here and it’s four pages, four printed pages. But this little excerpt here captures the spirit of it. ‘If every piece of art that offended some person or some group was removed from a museum, our museums might start looking empty – or would contain nothing more than pabulum. … Norman Rockwell would get the boot, too, if I believed in pulling everything that I’m offended by: I can’t stand the view of America that he presents, which I feel insults a huge number of us non-mainstream folks.’ So here’s a guy ripping Norman Rockwell. If he had his druthers there wouldn’t be any Norman Rockwell art anywhere, much less in a museum.
(imitating Gopnik) ‘Hey, look, I’m open-minded. You know, I hate Rockwell, but I don’t try to get him banned. You people that hate ants crawling all over Jesus, you need to have a little more tolerance,’ is what he’s saying here.
Now, Blake Gopnik might have his job because he’s the brother of Adam Gopnik, who is a writer for The New Yorker, which means he’s an automatic member of the ruling class in the arts. I mean that’s who we’re dealing with. I still can’t figure out the gay love aspect of this or the AIDS aspect. At any rate, the video has been pulled, it’s gone, it’s out of there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: By the way, a question for Blake Gopnik. Mr. Gopnik, if the Smithsonian approved a video, or even worse, a live demonstration of a bunch of cockroaches or ants or pick your insect, crawling all over Mohammed or Allah, would an artist support that? Would the Smithsonian ever put it up? Mr. Gopnik, I’m sure you know some artists out there. Go to an artist say, ‘Look, let’s deal with it this way. Okay, they pull our exhibit here with the ants calling all over Jesus, fine, let’s redo it and replace Jesus with Allah, or Mohammed, and let’s submit that to the Smithsonian and see what they say.’ And I’ll bet that you, Mr. Gopnik, couldn’t even find an artist to do it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It’s really true, folks, Blake Gopnik recently trashed a Norman Rockwell show in Washington because of what he said was Norman Rockwell’s lack of courage. Norman Rockwell’s lack of courage. Okay, so Mr. Gopnik, where is your courage? Let’s see some courage. Why don’t you promote more Mohammed artwork? Any Mohammed artwork would do: Ants crawling on Mohammed, somebody kissing Mohammed, if a guy missing Mohammed, whatever. Any image of Mohammed is considered a desecration, so let’s see your man parts, Mr. Gopnik. Let’s see your courage.