Skip to content

Why “Architectural Digest” is offensive


Architectural Digest, published by Condé Nast, is a magazine for homosexuals and liberals who have lots of money and no taste (but who think that they do). I would never have such a magazine in my house, because it’s offensive. We’ll get to why it’s offensive in a moment.

Imagine my surprise when an issue of Architectural Digest arrived in my mailbox, addressed to me specifically. Clearly it was a joke.

I called Architectural Digest and asked how such a joke came to be. It was a gift, they said, an automatic year’s subscription that accompanied something I had ordered from another vendor.

Had I known that “gift” was associated with my order, I would not have ordered it. But the girl on the phone was very nice, and cancelled “my” subscription.

Now, let’s get to why Architectural Digest is offensive. The entire magazine is a collection of ridiculous images with accompanying text that reeks of conceit. I submit four examples for your review. (Note: I do not own these images, nor would I want to.)


Homosexual fashion designers who live in New York City, like Thom Browne, who makes clothes for Dear Leader’s wife. Americans pay for those clothes with their tax dollars. Unfortunately there’s no way to make her look good without major surgery, so those tax dollars are wasted. And really, would you want a man who dresses himself like this designing clothes for you? Not if you’re intelligent. But intelligent people aren’t part of Architectural Digest‘s demographic. Rich narcissists are.


Horrible taste in decor, such as giant elephant heads made out of aluminum foil. There were plenty of examples of decorating stupidity in September’s issue of Architectural Digest (some of those examples were from Ralph Lauren’s houses), but this one made me burst out laughing.


Advertisements for European watches which cost more than the value of your house, and yet are no more reliable or accurate or durable than a twenty-dollar Timex from China. People who buy such watches are merely trying to impress other people. I’m not impressed.


A quantity of shoes so obscene that Imelda Marcos would be jealous. And horrible taste in chandeliers. And putting a chandelier in a “closet” that’s larger than some apartments in New York City.

I recycled this issue of Architectural Digest with particular satisfaction. At least the paper will be put to better use the next time around.

Comments are closed.