Modern art is the product of an old trend in fine arts that began in mid 19th century as a rejection of realist paintings by self-described "revolutionaries" who claimed they were able to give art more "inner sense". Impressionism, expressionism and finally modern art form an unbreakable continuum where one may easily see how by each generation art started to look like the products of a demented mind, all in the name of "imaginative originality" reacting against "realistic convention". Being devoid of aesthetic value (thus not an art), modern art cannot breathe alone and needs publicity, coverage in order to attain ephemeral glory. Before this development, nobody had any difficulty pointing out what art is: pictorial, sculptural or musical illustration driven by aesthetic principles of beauty, order, simplicity and insight. Today, however, art is used to designate its very negation, hence the need to summon an army of critics rationalizing its lack of value as a sign of transcendental sense available only to a chosen few such as themselves.
To be able to please critics, the ultimate figures given the sole right to discriminate art from fraud, modern artists have to fashionable and sport political messages. Artists in the past also had to pay tribute to such considerations, but what makes the difference is that a modern artist’s “work” is just an empty canvas painted by critics’ words: it holds no objective existence outside the closed realm of latter’s specious word games. A literal example was an "artwork" I've seen personally, which consisted of nothing more than a wooden frame, with a "deep" title underneath (something like "existence and being" sorts of). One only has to wonder how the “artist” who produced this garbage obtained his place in this exhibition…
This symbiosis between art and critics casts a beautiful light upon their similarity in character, which is centered upon a lack of scruples inherent of living by deceit.
Modern artists, talentless by definition, belong to two genders: those who achieved fame thanks to positive critics and those who were less fortunate, certain of how their superior artistic innovations weren't fairly understood. They are an unusually decrepit folk, excelling in all vices and even taking pride in their total lack of virtue (which in their mind is inherent of being an “artist”). Their greatest concern is running out of “luck”, which in their case means being forgotten by critics. To be able to keep critics singing, an aspiring modern artist must be able to have “fuel”: money, sex, influence or whatever he/she requires.
Critics are just as dependent on modern artists, without whom they would be out of business. True art is in no need of critics to exist: Van Eyck, Bach or Michelangelo were artists long before a guild of critics was to appear. Although critics’ situation might appear privileged, they are subjected to same rules of survival as artists: they must always be ready to lie, bribe and push others away to advance on the social ladder. But above all, critics need to be “politically correct”, sporting the right “progressive” political persuasion which justifies the “art” they praise.
The fame of modern art and the undeserving attention it receives are a direct product of its counter-cultural nature as well as its socialist tendencies. Modern art, even when performed by gentiles, breathes through the lungs of Jewish critics, Jewish curators and Jewish financers. Jewish involvement in modern art is primarily political, as means to uproot our culture without keeping themselves in the spotlight. As creatures devoid of higher qualities (such as love of beauty), Jews feel right at home with its chaos and hideousness, which is why they are preeminent as "artists", but even more preeminent as curators, critics and propagandists. Modern art, while not Jewish in origin, rests entirely on Jewish shoulders...
More on Jewish sponsorship of modern art here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/26art.htm
Examples of modern art
"It depicts a small plastic crucifix supporting the body of Jesus Christ submerged in a glass of the artist's urine." Very well received among New York critics. "It is referred to in many popular publications including Bill Maher's (JEW) book When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Jew condemning whites for all the evils of the world
Author: Ben Cohen
I remember hearing a story from a friend (who is Jewish) about his German boss complaining to him that the German government was giving too much to the Jews. "It's those damn reparations for the Jews that is hurting Germany," he moaned. "Haven't they taken enough?"
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
For Pat Buchanan to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, and down right racist at worst. And the latter is probably the most likely.
Buchanan is part of a vocal minority that prey on white people's fear. In economically tumultuous times, people like him a particularly dangerous, as they lay the crimes of the wealthy on the backs of minorities. It's a dangerous game, and history tells us the consequence are often none too pretty.
There is a climate of fear gripping America as it comes to terms with its new self. There is a black man in the Oval office, an economic crisis unparalleled in magnitude for 80 years, foreign wars that are not being won, and a massive intellectual vacuum created by the corporate press (or lack thereof).
After years in power, the Right is unused to playing the role of the minority. They are coming out to bat, and they are pulling out every trick in the book. Buchanan is a cheerleader for the cause, flanked by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/msnbc-pull-the-plug-on-pa_b_214903.html
COMMENT
There is nothing that could illustrate Jewish mindset better than this article. For once, the golden rule: Jews never debate, they defame. The point of this article was to smear Pat Buchannan, an American politician blamed by Jews groundlessly of speaking up in favor of Whites, but this particular Jew couldn't have enough and proceeded going for the "great trophy", the White race. The fact that neither the individual nor the race who are being defamed are given the right to retaliate in the "free press" gives a measure of how utterly voided the concept of "free press" is and also of author's complete lack of character by picking a fight with someone that can't defend itself. Although they are not incapable of reason, Jews refrain using it when it's against their agenda. It is like a black whole in their minds, where reality is sucked into the point of no return and what comes out are things totally alien to this world.
The arguments used to defame Whites are the "tried and tested" output of Semitic propasphere, repeated ad nauseam using all means of information available:
1. The Holocaust, which even if true, doesn't prove anything in terms of Jewish victimhood unless one is allowed to investigate whether the act was motivated or not. If unmotivated, it would lay blame on Hitler but it would NOT lay blame on the German people because killing Jews was never part of NSDAP platform when Hitler got elected. The logical inconsistency continues when the acts of a few Germans in 1940s are blamed on all Germans, including those living today, who, according to Jews (including the author) have an obligation to serve Jews for eternity. However, collective bondage that gets passed from generation lies in the fundament of slavery, regardless of its motivations. Therefore, when saying "there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right", the Jew makes a statement where he excludes the possibility of slaves ever getting free, not even buying their freedom. Typical of evil slavemasters, however, Jews flaunt the prospect of freedom to encourage their slaves pay ransom money, but those money are sucked into the vacuum of Jewish conscience, with nothing but Jewish wealth coming out of it.
2. The Native Americans, who were "wiped off the land to make way for white settlers". This is yet another Jewish stratagem, using the German model to lay blame for the PRESUMED acts of some on ALL Whites in the Western hemisphere. The only way OUT for the latter is once again to quench Jewish money and Jewish interests, but this never results into anything more than MORE accusations and more ransom money being asked. The vast exaggerations, the callous way history is only parallelled by the Holocaust: the acts claimed of having happened remain to be proven and their extension to whole ethnic groups, living or deceased, make absolutely no sense. Even Judaized historians of today admit that the vast majority of Indians were killed by European diseases and those that remained more often than not opted for Whites, who even at their worst had the rule of law, instead of their own Indians, who only obeyed the rule of force and were therefore far more brutal. In addition, the act of White conquest is no break from the long history of indian conquering other indians: there is nothing moral or immoral about it. The only way conquest must be judged is through the consequences. The consequence of White conquest was America being teleported from Stone Ages to civilization. Whites have, as this Jew strangely admits, built countries with little to no native involvement and have remained, before societies were controlled by Jews, an example of moral valor for natives to emulate. To be able to see that, it is enough to compare the way North American Indians treated their defeated kin (killing off males and turning their women into concubines) to the way British Americans have built up reservations ("a few crumbs" according to Jews, but immensely more than what this criminal enterprise of organized Jewry has given to this world) to help Indians survive without White interference and, of course, to help Whites prosper without having to fear Indian lawlessness.
3. The Blacks, whom Whites "subjected to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation". Yet another Jewish-manufactured guilt-extortion scheme! Examples for horrific treatment are in very short supply, at least in regions controlled by British Americans. The Blacks of that age had more justice than Whites of our age. Murder of Blacks, even murder of slaves, unless properly motivated, was condemned and very uncommon. In a year in US, Blacks murder more Whites than Whites have murdered Blacks in their whole history. Jews have tried hard to find some examples of brutality and murder and the very fact such examples are few proves my point. Cultural annihilation was indeed a consequence of slavery, but it was never an intended purpose: masters were totally indifferent to their slaves' ethnic background and only required them to speak English to make themselves understood. It must be remembered that slavery is a natural condition of mankind, a consequence of the very unequal distribution of power and luck. Some are quite literally lured into slavery, such as the Whites of today who offer themselves to the Jew, who craves for their destruction. Others were sold by their racial kin rather than being killed for being useless, which is what happened to African slaves, whose society mirrored the Indian by the practice of killing male captives and turning women into concubines. Sold to Sephardic Jewish merchants, who mastered the slave trade (!), many died in the long perilous journey across the Atlantic, but once on American soil they enjoyed quite a decent rate of survival. Only only has to imagine what would have happened if races were reversed: would Whites have got ANY leniency from Blacks, or would they have been subjected to what Blacks routinely do in their homelands (torture, wanton killings, serial rape)? In the end, Whites' good spirit has backfired into a tolerance of Jewry, a fateful action which signaled the death of America long before Blacks were allowed to "express themselves" or doing what they're naturally inclined towards, product of their innate stupidity.
4. White fear, seen as "racist" (the very word coined by a Jew, Magnus Hirshfeld), which is a divine evil that transcends "mere" issues of consistency and reality. To be a racist means to be an anti-human, a White male that dares not smile before his humiliation and ultimate destruction. Since "racism" is as alien to reality as green penguins and since "truth is no defence", one cannot answer to this accusation except by accepting its false reality. That white fear is motivated can easily be justified the concluding statement: "the embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight". Here the Jew inserts a statement of intent!
I remember hearing a story from a friend (who is Jewish) about his German boss complaining to him that the German government was giving too much to the Jews. "It's those damn reparations for the Jews that is hurting Germany," he moaned. "Haven't they taken enough?"
When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.
White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.
White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.
Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.
For Pat Buchanan to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, and down right racist at worst. And the latter is probably the most likely.
Buchanan is part of a vocal minority that prey on white people's fear. In economically tumultuous times, people like him a particularly dangerous, as they lay the crimes of the wealthy on the backs of minorities. It's a dangerous game, and history tells us the consequence are often none too pretty.
There is a climate of fear gripping America as it comes to terms with its new self. There is a black man in the Oval office, an economic crisis unparalleled in magnitude for 80 years, foreign wars that are not being won, and a massive intellectual vacuum created by the corporate press (or lack thereof).
After years in power, the Right is unused to playing the role of the minority. They are coming out to bat, and they are pulling out every trick in the book. Buchanan is a cheerleader for the cause, flanked by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/msnbc-pull-the-plug-on-pa_b_214903.html
COMMENT
There is nothing that could illustrate Jewish mindset better than this article. For once, the golden rule: Jews never debate, they defame. The point of this article was to smear Pat Buchannan, an American politician blamed by Jews groundlessly of speaking up in favor of Whites, but this particular Jew couldn't have enough and proceeded going for the "great trophy", the White race. The fact that neither the individual nor the race who are being defamed are given the right to retaliate in the "free press" gives a measure of how utterly voided the concept of "free press" is and also of author's complete lack of character by picking a fight with someone that can't defend itself. Although they are not incapable of reason, Jews refrain using it when it's against their agenda. It is like a black whole in their minds, where reality is sucked into the point of no return and what comes out are things totally alien to this world.
The arguments used to defame Whites are the "tried and tested" output of Semitic propasphere, repeated ad nauseam using all means of information available:
1. The Holocaust, which even if true, doesn't prove anything in terms of Jewish victimhood unless one is allowed to investigate whether the act was motivated or not. If unmotivated, it would lay blame on Hitler but it would NOT lay blame on the German people because killing Jews was never part of NSDAP platform when Hitler got elected. The logical inconsistency continues when the acts of a few Germans in 1940s are blamed on all Germans, including those living today, who, according to Jews (including the author) have an obligation to serve Jews for eternity. However, collective bondage that gets passed from generation lies in the fundament of slavery, regardless of its motivations. Therefore, when saying "there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right", the Jew makes a statement where he excludes the possibility of slaves ever getting free, not even buying their freedom. Typical of evil slavemasters, however, Jews flaunt the prospect of freedom to encourage their slaves pay ransom money, but those money are sucked into the vacuum of Jewish conscience, with nothing but Jewish wealth coming out of it.
2. The Native Americans, who were "wiped off the land to make way for white settlers". This is yet another Jewish stratagem, using the German model to lay blame for the PRESUMED acts of some on ALL Whites in the Western hemisphere. The only way OUT for the latter is once again to quench Jewish money and Jewish interests, but this never results into anything more than MORE accusations and more ransom money being asked. The vast exaggerations, the callous way history is only parallelled by the Holocaust: the acts claimed of having happened remain to be proven and their extension to whole ethnic groups, living or deceased, make absolutely no sense. Even Judaized historians of today admit that the vast majority of Indians were killed by European diseases and those that remained more often than not opted for Whites, who even at their worst had the rule of law, instead of their own Indians, who only obeyed the rule of force and were therefore far more brutal. In addition, the act of White conquest is no break from the long history of indian conquering other indians: there is nothing moral or immoral about it. The only way conquest must be judged is through the consequences. The consequence of White conquest was America being teleported from Stone Ages to civilization. Whites have, as this Jew strangely admits, built countries with little to no native involvement and have remained, before societies were controlled by Jews, an example of moral valor for natives to emulate. To be able to see that, it is enough to compare the way North American Indians treated their defeated kin (killing off males and turning their women into concubines) to the way British Americans have built up reservations ("a few crumbs" according to Jews, but immensely more than what this criminal enterprise of organized Jewry has given to this world) to help Indians survive without White interference and, of course, to help Whites prosper without having to fear Indian lawlessness.
3. The Blacks, whom Whites "subjected to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation". Yet another Jewish-manufactured guilt-extortion scheme! Examples for horrific treatment are in very short supply, at least in regions controlled by British Americans. The Blacks of that age had more justice than Whites of our age. Murder of Blacks, even murder of slaves, unless properly motivated, was condemned and very uncommon. In a year in US, Blacks murder more Whites than Whites have murdered Blacks in their whole history. Jews have tried hard to find some examples of brutality and murder and the very fact such examples are few proves my point. Cultural annihilation was indeed a consequence of slavery, but it was never an intended purpose: masters were totally indifferent to their slaves' ethnic background and only required them to speak English to make themselves understood. It must be remembered that slavery is a natural condition of mankind, a consequence of the very unequal distribution of power and luck. Some are quite literally lured into slavery, such as the Whites of today who offer themselves to the Jew, who craves for their destruction. Others were sold by their racial kin rather than being killed for being useless, which is what happened to African slaves, whose society mirrored the Indian by the practice of killing male captives and turning women into concubines. Sold to Sephardic Jewish merchants, who mastered the slave trade (!), many died in the long perilous journey across the Atlantic, but once on American soil they enjoyed quite a decent rate of survival. Only only has to imagine what would have happened if races were reversed: would Whites have got ANY leniency from Blacks, or would they have been subjected to what Blacks routinely do in their homelands (torture, wanton killings, serial rape)? In the end, Whites' good spirit has backfired into a tolerance of Jewry, a fateful action which signaled the death of America long before Blacks were allowed to "express themselves" or doing what they're naturally inclined towards, product of their innate stupidity.
4. White fear, seen as "racist" (the very word coined by a Jew, Magnus Hirshfeld), which is a divine evil that transcends "mere" issues of consistency and reality. To be a racist means to be an anti-human, a White male that dares not smile before his humiliation and ultimate destruction. Since "racism" is as alien to reality as green penguins and since "truth is no defence", one cannot answer to this accusation except by accepting its false reality. That white fear is motivated can easily be justified the concluding statement: "the embattled white man is angry, and he's not going to go down without a fight". Here the Jew inserts a statement of intent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)