Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada, Part 1

Brenton Sanderson


Tristan Tzara


The twentieth century saw a proliferation of art inspired by the culture of critique. The exposure and promotion of this art grew alongside the ever-expanding Jewish control of the media, and Jewish penetration and eventual capture of the Western art establishment. Jewish writers, painters and composers sought to rewrite the rules of artistic expression — to allow accommodation for their own technical limitations, and to facilitate the creation (and elite acceptance) of works intended as a rebuke to the supposed evils of Western civilizational norms.

The Jewish intellectual substructure of many of these twentieth century art movements was manifest in their unfailing hostility toward the political, cultural and religious traditions of Europe and European-derived societies. I previously examined how the rise of Abstract Expressionism exemplified this tendency in the United States, and coincided with the usurping of the American art establishment by a group of radical Jewish intellectuals. In Europe, Jewish influence on Western art reached a peak during the interwar years. This era, when the work of many artists was suffused with radical politics, was the heyday of the Jewish avant-garde.

A prominent example of a cultural movement from this time with important Jewish involvement was Dada. The Dadaists challenged the very foundations of Western civilization which they regarded, in the context of the destruction of World War I, and continuing anti-Semitism throughout Europe, as pathological. The artists and intellectuals of Dada responded to this socio-political diagnosis with assorted acts of cultural subversion. Dada was a movement that was destructive and nihilistic, irrational and absurdist, and which preached the overturning of every cultural tradition of the European past, including of rationality itself. The Dadaists “aimed to wipe the philosophical slate clean” and lead “the way to a new world order.”[i] While there were many non-Jews involved in Dada, the Jewish contribution was fundamental in shaping its intellectual tenor as a movement, for Dada was as much an attitude and way of thinking as a mode of artistic output.

Advertisement

In a recent article for The Jewish Daily Forward, Bill Holdsworth observes that Dada “was one of the most radical of the art movements to attack bourgeois society” and that at “the epicenter of what would become a distinctive movement… were Romanian Jews — notably Marcel and Georges Janco and Tristan Tzara — who were essential to the development of the Dada spirit.” For Menachem Wecker, the works of the Jewish Dadaists represented “not only the aesthetic responses of individuals opposed to the absurdity of war and fascism” but, invoking the well-worn light unto the nations theme, insists that they brought a “particularly Jewish perspective to the insistence on justice and what is now called tikkun olam.” Accordingly, for Wecker, “it hardly seems a coincidence that so many of the Dada artists were Jewish.”

Indeed it does seem hardly coincidental when we learn that Dada was a genuinely international event, not just because it operated across political frontiers, but because it consciously attacked patriotic nationalism. Dada sought to transcend national boundaries and protest against European nationalist ideologies, and within this community of artists in exile (a “double Diaspora” in the case of the Jewish Dadaists) what mattered most was the collective effort to articulate an attitude of revolt against European cultural conventions and institutional frameworks.

First and foremost, Dada wanted to accomplish “a great negative work of destruction.” Presaging the poststructuralists and deconstructionists of the sixties and seventies, they believed that the only hope for society “was to destroy those systems based on reason and logic and replace them with ones based on anarchy, the primitive and the irrational.”[ii] Robert Short notes that Dada stood for “exacerbated individualism, universal doubt and [an] aggressive iconoclasm” which sought to debunk the traditional Western “canons of reason, taste and hierarchy, of order and discipline in society, of rationally controlled inspiration in imaginative expression.”[iii]

Tristan Tzara and Zurich Dada

The man who effectively founded Dada was the Romanian Jewish poet Tristan Tzara (born Samuel Rosenstock in 1896). “Tristan Tzara” was the pseudonym he adopted in 1915 meaning “sad in my country” in French, German and Romanian, and which, according to Gale, was “a disguised protest at the discrimination against Jews in Romania.”[iv] It was Tzara who, through his writings, most notably The First Heavenly Adventure of Mr. Antipyrine (1916) and the Sept Manifestes Dada (Seven Dada Manifestos, 1924), laid the intellectual foundations of the movement.[v] Dickerman notes that Tzara’s Dadaist Manifesto of 1918, was “the most widely distributed of all Dada texts,” and “played a key role in articulating a Dadaist ethos around which a movement could cohere.”[vi]

Tristan Tzara in the 1920s

In his book Dada East: The Romanians of Cabaret Voltaire, Tom Sandqvist points out that Tzara’s intellectual and spiritual background was infused with the Yiddish and Hassidic subcultures of his early twentieth century Moldavian homeland, and that these were of seminal importance in determining the artistic innovations he would institute as the leader of Dada. He links Tzara’s profound revolt against European social constraints directly to his Jewish identity, and to the fact that the Jewish population of Romania (and particularly in his native Moldavia) was subjected to pervasive anti-Semitism. Under Romanian law, the Rosenstocks, a family of prosperous timber merchants, were not fully emancipated. Many Russian Jews settled in Romanian Moldova following pogroms, where they lived as guests of the local Jews who only became Romanian citizens after the First World War (as a condition for peace set by Western powers). For Sandqvist, the treatment of Jews in Romania would inevitably have fuelled an attitude of revolt against the socio-political status quo in Tzara, and this was fully consistent with the anarchist impulses that he exhibited at the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich and later in Paris.

Agreeing with this thesis, the ethnocentric Jewish poet and Dada historian, Andrei Codrescu, claims that the ubiquitous anti-Semitism suffered by Romanian Jews like Tzara extends into the present day, noting that: “The Rosenstocks were Jews in an anti-Semitic town that to this day (2007) does not list on its website the founder of Dada among the notables born there.” This is regarded as all the more egregious given that, despite its marginality, Tzara’s hometown Moineşti is, in Codrescu’s opinion, “the center of the modern world, not only because of Tristan Tzara’s invention of Dada, but because its Jews were among the first Zionists, and Moineşti itself was the starting point of a famous exodus of its people on foot from here to the land of dreams, E’retz-Israel.” For Codrescu, Tzara’s Jewish heritage was of profound importance in shaping his contribution to Dada.

The daddy of dada was welcomed at his bar mitzvah in 1910 into the Hassidic community of Moineşti-Bacau by the renowned rabbi Bezalel Zeev Safran, the father of the great Chief Rabbi Alexandre Safran, who saw the Jews of Romania through their darkest hour during the fascist regime and the Second World War. Sammy Rosenstock’s grandfather was the rabbi of Chernowitz, the birthplace of many brilliant Jewish writers, including Paul Celan and Elie Weisel [both of whom wrote about the Holocaust]. … Sammy’s father owned a saw-mill, and his grandfather lived on a large wooded estate, but his family roots were sunk deeply into the mud of the shtetl, a Jewish world turned deeply inward.[vii]

For Codrescu, Tzara was one of the many “shtetl escapees” who was “quick to see the possibility of revolution,” and became a leader within “the revolutionary avant-garde of the 20th century which was in large measure the work of provincial East European Jews.” Crucially for shaping the intellectual tenor of Dada, Tzara and the other Jewish exiles from Budapest like the Janco brothers “brought along, wrapped in refugee bundles, an inheritance of centuries of ‘otherness.’”[viii] This deep sense of “otherness” was rendered all the more politically and culturally potent given the “messianic streak [that] drove many Jews from within.” Codrescu notes that “By the time of Samuel’s birth in 1896, powerful currents of unrest were felt within the traditional Jewish community of Moineşti. The questions of identity, place and belonging, which had been asked innumerable times in Jewish history, needed answers again, 20th century answers.”[ix] In this need for answers lay the seeds of Dada as a post-Enlightenment (proto-postmodern) expression of Jewish ethnic politics.

Andrei Codrescu

While there is some controversy over who exactly invented the name “Dada,” most sources accept that Tristan Tzara hit upon the word (which means hobbyhorse in French) by opening a French-German dictionary at random. “Da-da” also means “yes, yes” in Romanian and Russian, and the early Dadaists reveled in the primal quality of its infantile sound, and its appropriateness as a symbol for “beginning Western civilization again at zero.” Crepaldi notes how the choice of the group’s name was “emblematic of their disillusionment and their attitude, deliberately shorn of values and logical references.”[x] Tzara seems to have recognized its propaganda value early on with the German Dadaist poet Richard Huelsenbeck recalling that Tzara “had been one of the first to grasp the suggestive power of the word Dada,” and developed it as a kind of brand identity.[xi]

Tzara’s own “Dadaist” poetry was marked by “extreme semantic and syntactic incoherence.”[xii] When he composed a Dada poem he would cut up newspaper articles into tiny fragments, shake them up in a bag, and scatter them across the table. As they fell, they made the poem; little further work was called for. With regard to such practices, the Jewish Dadaist painter and film-maker Hans Richter commented that “Chance appeared to us as a magical procedure by which we could transcend the barriers of causality and conscious volition, and by which the inner ear and eye became more acute. … For us chance was the ‘unconscious mind,’ which Freud had discovered in 1900.”[xiii] Codrescu speculates that Tzara’s aleatoric poetry had its likely intellectual and aesthetic wellspring in the mystical knowledge of his Hassidic heritage, where he was inspired by

the commentaries of other famous Kabbalists, like Rabbi Eliahu Cohen Itamari of Smyrna, who believed that the Bible was composed of an “incoherent mix of letters” on which order was imposed gradually by divine will according to various material phenomena, without any direct influence by the scribe or the copier. Any terrestrial phenomenon was capable of rearranging the cosmic alphabet toward cosmic harmony. A disciple of the Smyrna rabbi wrote, “If the believer keeps repeating daily, even one verse, he may obtain salvation because each day the order of the letters changes according to the state and importance of each moment.…”

An old midrashic commentary holds that repeating everyday even the most seemingly insignificant verse of the Torah has the effect of spreading the light of divinity (consciousness) as much as any other verse, even the ones held as “most important,” because each word of the Law participates in the creation of a “sound world,” superior to the material one, which it directs and organizes. This “sound world” is higher on the Sephiroth (the tree of life that connects the worlds of humans with God), closer to the unnamable, being illuminated by the divine. One doesn’t need to reach far to see that the belief in an autonomous antiworld made out of words is pure Dada. In Tzara’s words, “the light of a magic hard to seize and to address.”[xiv]

The fact that Tzara returned to study of the Kabbalah towards the end of his life certainly lends weight to Codrescu’s thesis. Finkelstein notes how Tzara’s poetry “sounds eerily like a Kabbalistic ritual rewritten as a Dadaist café performance,” and links Tzara’s Dada spirit to the influence of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Jewish heresies that were centered on the notion of “redemption through sin” which involves “the violation of Jewish law (sometimes to the point of apostasy) in the name of messianic transformation.” The Jewish American poet Jerome Rothenberg calls these heresies “libertarian movements” within Judaism and connects them to Jewish receptivity to the forces of secularization and modernity, leading in turn to the “critical role of Jews and ex-Jews in revolutionary politics (Marx, Trotsky etc.) and avant-garde poetics (Tzara, Kafka, Stein etc.)” For Rothenberg, there are “definite historical linkages between the transgressions of messianism and the transgressions of the avant-garde.”[xv] Heyd endorses Rothenberg’s thesis, observing that “Tzara uses terminology that is part and parcel of Judaic thinking and yet subjects these very concepts to his nihilistic attack.”[xvi] Perhaps not surprisingly, the Kabbalist and Surrealist author Marcel Avramescu, who wrote during the 1930s, was directly inspired by Tzara.

Allen Ginsberg

Nicholas Zarbrugg has written detailed studies of the ways that Dada fed into the sound and visual poetry of the first phase of postmodernism.[xvii] Tzara’s poetry was, for instance, to strongly influence the Absurdist drama of Samuel Beckett, and the poetry of Andrei Codrescu, Jerome Rothenberg, Isidore Isue, and William S. Burroughs. Allen Ginsberg, who encountered Tzara in Paris in 1961, was strongly influenced by Tzara. Codrescu relates that “A young Allen Ginsberg, seated in a Parisian café in 1961, saw a sober-looking, suited Tzara hurrying by, carrying a briefcase. Ginsburg called to him “Hey Tzara!” but Tzara didn’t so much as look at him, unsympathetic to the unkempt young Americans invading Paris again for cultural nourishment.” For Codrescu it was a minor tragedy that “the daddy of Dada failed to connect with the daddy of the vast youth movement that would revive, refine and renew Dada in the New World.”[xviii]

The Cabaret Voltaire

The Cabaret Voltaire was created by the German anarchist poet and pianist Hugo Ball in Zurich in 1916. Rented from its Jewish owner, Jan Ephraim, and with start-up funds provided by the Jewish patroness Käthe Brodnitz, the Cabaret was established in a seedy part of the city and intended as a place for entertainment and avant-garde culture, where music was played, artwork was exhibited, and poetry was recited. Some of this poetry was later published in the Cabaret’s periodical entitled Dada, which soon became Tristan Tzara’s responsibility. In it he propagated the principles of Dadaist derision, declaring that “Dada is using all its strength to establish the idiotic everywhere. Doing it deliberately. And is constantly tending towards idiocy itself. … The new artist protests; he no longer paints (this is only a symbolic and illusory reproduction).”[xix]

Site of the Cabaret Voltaire at 1 Spiegelgasse in Zurich

Evenings at the Cabaret Voltaire were eclectic affairs and “new music by Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg took its turn with readings from Jules Laforgue and Guillaume Apollinaire, demonstrations of ‘Negro dancing’ and a new play by Expressionist painter and playwright Oskar Kokoschka.”[xx] The inclusion of dance and music extended Dada activities into areas that allowed a total expression approaching the pre-war (originally Wagnerian) ideal of the Gesamtkunstwerk (combined art work). In time the tone of the acts “became more aggressive and violent, and a polemic against bourgeois drabness began to be heard.”[xxi] Performances sought to shock bourgeois attitudes and openly undermine spectator’s conventional templates for understanding culture. Thus, a June 1917 lecture “on modern art” was delivered by a lecturer who stripped off his clothes in front of the audience before being arrested and jailed for performing obscene acts in public.[xxii] Godfrey notes that “This was carnival at its most grotesque and extreme: all the taste and decorum that maintains polite society was overturned.”[xxiii] Wicks points out that:

The Dada scenes conveyed a feeling of chaos, fragmentation, assault on the senses, absurdity, frustration of ordinary norms, pastiche, spontaneity, and posed robotic mechanism. They were scenes from a madhouse, performed by a group of sane and reflective people who were expressing their decided anger and disgust at the world surrounding them.[xxiv]

The outrages committed by Dadaists attacking the traditions and preconceptions of Western art and literature were deliberately extreme and designed to shock, and this tactic extended beyond the Cabaret Voltaire to everyday gestures. For instance, Tzara, “the most demonic activist” of Dada, regularly appalled the dowagers of Zurich by asking them the way to the brothel. For Godfrey such gestures are redolent of the “propaganda of the deed” of the violent anarchists who, through their random bombings and assassinations of authority figures, sought to “show the rottenness of the system and to shock that system into crisis.”[xxv] Arnason likewise underscores the serious ideological intent behind these gestures, noting that: “From the very beginning, the Dadaists showed a seriousness of purpose and a search for a new vision and content that went beyond any frivolous desire to outrage the bourgeoisie. … The Zurich Dadaists were making a critical re-examination of the traditions, premises, rules, logical bases, even the concepts of order, coherence, and beauty that had guided the creation of the arts throughout history.”[xxvi] The doyen of the Frankfurt School, Walter Benjamin, spoke admiringly of Dada’s moral shock effects as anticipating the technical effects of film in the way that they “assail the spectator.”[xxvii]

Hugo Ball

The leadership of Zurich Dada soon passed from Hugo Ball to Tzara, who, in the process, “impressed upon it his negativity, his anti-artistic spirit and his profound nihilism.” Soon Ball could no longer identify with the movement and left, remarking: “I examined my conscience scrupulously, I could never welcome chaos”[xxviii] Moving to a small Swiss village, from 1920 he became increasingly removed from social and political life, returning to a devout Catholicism and plunging into a study of fifth and sixth century saints. Ball later embraced a form of German nationalism and was to label the Jews as “a secret diabolical force in German history,” and when analyzing the potential influence of the Russian Revolution on Germany, concluded that, “Marxism has little prospect of popularity in Germany as it is a ‘Jewish movement.’”[xxix] He clearly perceived the ethno-political agenda that motivated the vastly disproportionate Jewish leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, and noting the make-up of the new Bolshevik Executive Committee, observed:

There are at least four Jews among the six men on the Executive Committee. There is certainly no objection to that; on the contrary, the Jews were oppressed in Russia too long and too cruelly. But apart from the honestly indifferent ideology they share and their programmatically material way of thinking, it would be strange if these men, who make decisions about expropriation and terror, did not feel old racial resentments against the Orthodox and pogrommatic Russia.[xxx]

Tzara, as Ball’s successor, quickly converted Ball’s persona as cabaret master of ceremonies into a role as a savvy media spokesman with grand ambitions. Tzara was “the romantic internationalist” wrote the Richard Huelsenbeck in his 1920 history of Dada, “whose propagandistic zeal we have to thank for the enormous growth of Dada.”[xxxi]

In addition to the Jewish mysticism of his Hassidic roots, Tzara was strongly influenced by the Italian Futurists, though, not surprisingly, he rejected the proto-Fascist stance of their leader Marinetti. By 1916, noted Hans Richter, Dada had replaced Futurism as the vanguard of modernism, and “we had swallowed Futurism—bones, feathers and all. It is true that in the process of digestion all sorts of bones and feathers had been regurgitated.”[xxxii] Nevertheless, the Dadaists’ intent was contrary to that of the Futurists, who extolled the machine world and saw in mechanization, revolution, and war the logical means, however brutal, to the solution of human problems. Dada was never widely popular in the birthplace of Futurism, although quite a few Italian poets did become Dadaists, including the poet, painter and future racial theorist Julius Evola, who became a personal friend of Tzara and initially took to Dada with unbridled enthusiasm. He eventually became disillusioned by Dada’s total rejection of European tradition, however, and began the search for an alternative, pursuing a path of philosophical speculation which later led him to esotericism and fascism.[xxxiii]

The entry of Romania into the war on the side of Britain, France, and Russia, on 28 August 1916 immediately transformed Tzara into a potential conscript. Gale relates that “In November Tzara was called for examination by a panel ascertaining fitness to fight. He successfully feigned mental instability and received a certificate to that effect.”[xxxiv] At this time, living across the street from the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich were Lenin, Karl Radek and Gregory Zinoviev who were busy planning the Bolshevik Revolution. At some point between 1916 and 1917, Tzara is believed to have played chess in a coffeehouse frequented by Lenin, possibly with the Bolshevik leader himself.[xxxv]

Sign outside 14 Spiegelgasse in Zurich where Lenin lived between 1916 and 1917 not far from the Cabaret Voltaire at 1 Spiegelgasse

After the November 1918 Armistice, Tzara and his colleagues began publishing a Dadaist journal called Der Zeltweg, aimed at popularizing Dada at time when Europe was reeling from the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, the communist insurrection in Bavaria, and, later, the proclaiming of the Hungarian Soviet Republic under Bela Kun. These events, observed Hans Richter, “had stirred men’s minds, divided men’s interests and diverted energies in the direction of political change.”[xxxvi] According to historian Robert Levy, Tzara around this time associated with a group of Romanian communist students, almost certainly including Ana Pauker, who later became the Romanian Communist Party’s Foreign Minister and one of its most prominent and ruthless Jewish functionaries.[xxxvii] Tzara’s poems from the period are stridently communist in orientation and, influenced by Freud and Wilhelm Reich, depict extreme revolutionary violence as a healthy means of human expression.[xxxviii]

Go to Part 2.

REFERENCES

Alexandrian, S. (1970) Surrealist, Thames & Hudson, London.

Armstrong, A. & Cardinal R. (2002) ‘Tzara, Tristan’, In: Justin Wintle (ed.), Makers of Modern Culture, Routledge, London.

Arnason, H.H. (1986) A History of Modern Art, Thames & Hudson, London.

Beitchman, P. (1988) I Am a Process with No Subject, University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Boime, A. (2010) ‘Dada’s Dark Secret,’ In: Washton-Long, Baigel & Heyd (Eds.) Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation, Brandeis University Press.

Codrescu, A. (2009) The Posthuman Dada Guide: tzara and lenin play chess, Princeton University Press.

Crepaldi, G. (2007) Modern Art 1900-1945 – The Age of the Avant-Gardes, HarperCollins, London.

Dempsey, A. (2002) Styles, Schools and Movements – An Encylopaedic Guide to Modern Art, Thames & Hudson, London.

Dickerman, L. (2005) ‘Introduction & Zurich,’ In Dada Ed. By Leah Dickerman, Dada, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

Finkelstein, N. (2001) Not One of Them in Place and Jewish American Identity (SUNY Series in Modern Jewish Literature and Culture), State University of New York Press, New York.

Gale, M. (2004) Dada & Surrealism, Phaidon, London.

Godfrey, T. (1998) Conceptual Art, Phaidon, London.

Heyd, M. (2010) ‘Tristan Tzara/Shmuel Rosenstock: The Hidden/Overt Jewish Agenda,’ In: Washton-Long, Baigel & Heyd (Eds.) Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture: Anti-Semitism, Assimilation, Affirmation, Brandeis University Press.

Holdsworth, B. (2011) ‘Forgotten Jewish Dada-ists Get Their Due,’ The Jewish Daily Forward, September 22, View at: http://forward.com/articles/143160/#ixzz1ZRAUpOoX

Levy, R. (2001) Ana Pauker: The Rise and Fall of a Jewish Communist, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Richter, H. (2004) Dada. Art and Anti-art, Thames & Hudson, London & New York.

Russell, J. (1981) The Meanings of Modern Art, Thames & Hudson, London.

Sandqvist, T. (2006) Dada East: The Romanians of Cabaret Voltaire, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Schnapp, J.T. (2006) ‘The Dada revolution’ In: Art of the Twentieth Century – 1900-1919 The Avant-garde Movements, Skira, Italy.

Short, R. (1994) Dada and Surrealism, Laurence King Publishing, London.

Wecker, M. (2006) ‘Eight Dada Jewish Artists,’ The Jewish Press, August 30. View at: http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=19293

Wicks, Robert .J. (2003) Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism, Oneworld.

Zurbrugg, N. & Burt, G. (2000) Critical Vices: The Myths of Postmodern Theory, OPA, Amsterdam.


ENDNOTES

[i] Wecker

[ii] Dempsey p. 115

[iii] Short p. 7

[iv] Gale p. 46

[v] Wecker

[vi] Dickerman p. 10

[vii] Codrescu p. 209

[viii] Ibid. p. 173

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Crepaldi p. 194

[xi] Dickerman p. 33

[xii] Armstrong & Cardinal p. 530

[xiii] Russell p. 179

[xiv] Codrescu p. 213

[xv] Finkelstein p. 100

[xvi] Heyd p. 213

[xvii] See, for example, Zurbrugg & Burt

[xviii] Codrescu p. 212

[xix] Alexandrian p. 30-31

[xx] Russell p. 182

[xxi] Schnapp p. 392

[xxii] Ibid. p. 389

[xxiii] Godfrey p. 41

[xxiv] Wicks p. 10

[xxv][xxv] Godfrey p. 40

[xxvi] Arnason, p. 224

[xxvii] Dickerman p. 9

[xxviii] Schnapp p. 396

[xxix] Boime p. 98 & 95-96

[xxx] Ibid. p. 96

[xxxi] Dickerman p. 35

[xxxii] Richter p. 33

[xxxiii] Gale p. 80

[xxxiv] Ibid. p. 56

[xxxv] Codrescu p. 11

[xxxvi] Richter p. 80

[xxxvii] Levy p. 37

[xxxviii] Beitchman p. 37-42

ENDNOTES

[1] Wecker

[1] Dempsey p. 115

[1] Short p. 7

[1] Gale p. 46

[1] Wecker

[1] Dickerman p. 10

[1] Codrescu p. 209

[1] Ibid. p. 173

[1] Ibid.

[1] Crepaldi p. 194

[1] Dickerman p. 33

[1] Armstrong & Cardinal p. 530

[1] Russell p. 179

[1] Codrescu p. 213

[1] Finkelstein p. 100

[1] Heyd p. 213

[1] See, for example, Zurbrugg & Burt

[1] Codrescu p. 212

[1] Alexandrian p. 30-31

[1] Russell p. 182

[1] Schnapp p. 392

[1] Ibid. p. 389

[1] Godfrey p. 41

[1] Wicks p. 10

[1][1] Godfrey p. 40

[1] Arnason, p. 224

[1] Dickerman p. 9

[1] Schnapp p. 396

[1] Boime p. 98 & 95-96

[1] Ibid. p. 96

[1] Dickerman p. 35

[1] Richter p. 33

[1] Gale p. 80

[1] Ibid. p. 56

[1] Codrescu p. 11

[1] Richter p. 80

[1] Levy p. 37

[1] Beitchman p. 37-42

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

66 Comments to "Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada, Part 1"

  1. m's Gravatar m
    November 15, 2011 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

    The soul of Dada is revealed in the “Approximate Man,” whose refrain sings “the bells ring for no reason, and we too…”

    When life has no value, and no purpose, what can be expected?

  2. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 15, 2011 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Art in the classical sense was dead before the Dadaists spewed forth their inane works. French Impressionism was the last legitimate artistic movement. Expressionism was the beginning of the end.

    One other thing: people on this site should stop attacking postmodernism. It is modernity that is rotten, not postmodernity; postmodernism is part of the solution. A large part of postmodernism involves a return to classical tradition.

  3. m's Gravatar m
    November 15, 2011 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Do you mean that French Impressionism was NOT the last legitimate artistic movement, as it was succeeded by a worthless modernism, but resolved by a legitimate postmodern ideal that hearkened back to classicism?

    Or is it your meaning not to include the post-modern within a legitimate category? I am not being a crank, just asking for clarification.

  4. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    November 15, 2011 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    I have a beat up print of “Church of the Minorities II” (1926) by German American artist Lyonel Feininger. The print is mounted on masonite type board and has a nice frame.

    I know nothing of the history of the print, but, I suspect it is from the 1930′s. It does have character marks/slight damage, and would make an interesting conversation piece in your office.

    Modern prints, unmounted, with no frame are selling for around $55 plus s&h.

    I might entertain bids, starting at $500 dollars, the money going to Dr. MacDonald & TOO. You send Dr. MacDonald the money—I send Dr. MacDonald the Lyonel Feininger. He sends it on to you.

    You can point out a real period piece of degenerate Weimar art to your office visitors—I don’t know if the signiture on the piece is actually Lyonel Feininger?
    http://www.midcenturia.com/2010/11/lyonel-feiningers-prismatic-art.html

  5. November 15, 2011 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    I enjoyed reading this well-written article very much, and had no idea of the background of Dada. It’s too bad this background information is not widely known, except in Jewish circles. It’s mind-boggling really how much the Jews have such an effect on the world in so many areas. I suppose it’s because they are a homogeneous race with a sense of ‘otherness’ and have nothing else to think about but their own race. And when one Jew meets another, there’s a instant sense of ‘other Jew’, and so both get along and find something to talk about.

    “Church of the Minorities II” (1926) by German American artist Lyonel Feininger.

    I suppose Feininger was not Jewish. But even if “Church of the Minorities II” is a Dada type work, I liked all the Feininger paintings shown at the link. If I had the money, I’d buy it. Not sure why it would be classed under ‘degenerate Weimar art’. His art seems a kind of modern art. Reminded me a bit of Vincent van Gogh:

    My appreciation to the writers at the Occidental Observer for their well-written, scholarly, and always insightful articles.

  6. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    November 15, 2011 - 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Post-Modernism is eminently worthy of attack by WN. It is largely Jewish, ex-leftist. nihilistic, hyper abstract, and ultimately without rtedeeming intellectual or any other kind of value.

    Surprized but not really that Evola got into it. These rootless intellectuals who look everywhere but at biological reality, and dream and scheme for narcissistic Recognition as the next Great Philosopher. Gawd. J

  7. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 15, 2011 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    @m:

    I think postmodernism is a transitional phase between modernism and whatever comes next. There’s no real definition of postmodernism, it’s a very vague term. The one thing that postmodernism revolves around is a rejection of the so-called Enlightenment, which is definitely favorable to race realists and traditionalists.

  8. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    November 15, 2011 - 9:54 pm | Permalink

    It would be useful to know how much this jewish filth was known to ordinary Germans and others.

  9. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    November 15, 2011 - 10:00 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Natural Law can be rehabilitated. Natural Law is genetics. Turns out the Enlightenment just needed a little more time for science to develop and Darwin to show up.

    The All Men are Created Equal stuff is coming from somewhere in the White psyche. It is our trait of Generosity. The Philosophes had no experience with darkies…only Ideas of Darkies. Of course, Haiti must have given them pause, but maybe not…maybe they were premature White self-haters.

  10. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    November 15, 2011 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

    @Joe Webb:

    My favorite German Dadaist is Kurt Schwitters. The Jews never took the creative Schwitters seriously as a Dadaist. Causing Schwitters to start his own movement he called “Merz”.
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davepalmer/cutandpaste/schwitters.html

  11. Jordan's Gravatar Jordan
    November 15, 2011 - 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Quite a lot of Jewish apologetics embedded in Sanderson’s article. I wonder if the author is aware of the extent to which he has absorbed the anti-White narrative. Here are a few examples–mainly instances where White misbehavior or perversity is presented as a fact, with Jews merely reacting against it (in self-defense?).

    The Dadaists challenged the very foundations of Western civilization which they regarded, in the context of the destruction of World War I, and continuing anti-Semitism throughout Europe, as pathological.

    Note: Implicitly places the blame for World War I on the white European peoples and accepts as facts both the concept of “anti-Semitism” and its supposed epidemic levels “throughout” Europe.

    Dada sought to transcend national boundaries and protest against European nationalist ideologies

    Note the soaring positive language: “transcend” boundaries. Note also the use of the pathologizing term “nationalist ideologies” rather than something more positive such as “national fellow feeling,” “national spirit,” “collective spirit,” “national solidarity,” “national sentiments,” or “patriotism.”

    He links Tzara’s profound revolt against European social constraints directly to his Jewish identity, and to the fact that the Jewish population of Romania (and particularly in his native Moldavia) was subjected to pervasive anti-Semitism..

    Note again the use of the concept “anti-Semitism” and the assumption that it was widespread, a pathology among white Europeans. It was “a fact” that this prosperous timber magnate and his family were oppressed by the evil white Europeans.

    Under Romanian law, the Rosenstocks, a family of prosperous timber merchants, were not fully emancipated.

    What privations did this “family of prosperous timber merchants” suffer, while Romanian peasants lived in luxury and emancipation?

    Many Russian Jews settled in Romanian Moldova following pogroms, where they lived as guests of the local Jews who only became Romanian citizens after the First World War

    Note the assumption that Russian pogroms were a historically salient fact behind Jewish migration patterns and the implication that pograms were many and widespread.

    Note also the implied dig at Romanian “discrimination” against Jews–they “only” became citizens after pressure by outside powers. But also note the internal inconsistency in this very history: Romanians are impliedly hostile toward Jews yet allowed Jews to use Romania as a refuge from murderous Russians.

    For Sandqvist, the treatment of Jews in Romania would inevitably have fuelled an attitude of revolt against the socio-political status quo in Tzara

    Note again that the author takes for granted significant mistreatment of Jews in Romania. It was so bad that revolt, defense, counterattack was “inevitable,” and Dada-ism or any other culture of critique need not have been motivated by anything else (say, by a morally neutral (at best) competition for resources, racial chauvinism, conquest, greed, animosity).

    I should think that writers on this site should be a little more careful when handling concepts and historical narratives that are inverwoven in the anti-White narrative. For starters, I would suggest that writers not use the concept “anti-Semitism” at all but rather try to use a phrase or description that is more precise to what they are trying to convey.

  12. pessimist's Gravatar pessimist
    November 15, 2011 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Post-modernism is a very intellectually and culturally corrosive philosophy. In short it posits that subjects such as science are mere cultural constructs that are no more valid than the mutterings of some 3rd world savage. Or say that the excremental works of Andres Serrano are on par with Da Vinci. Qualitative distinctions disappear under PM.

    It’s also the same sociological bu**s**t machine that gave us all sorts of fraudulent academic studies in college ranging from afrocentrism to feminism.

    As fortune would have it, scientists and others are fighting back against this toxic mind mush. Google Alan Sokal or Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.

  13. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    November 15, 2011 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

    The Jewish daily Forward has a history of making hero out of criminal Jews. The latest example was glorification of Erik Jan Hanussen, Hitler’s Jewish psychic – who was executed for posing as a non-Jew and treason.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/erik-jan-hanussen-hitlers-jewish-psychic/

  14. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    November 16, 2011 - 1:40 am | Permalink

    @Jordan:

    They are only “Jewish apologetics” if you read them through a PC lens. You are buying the line that “anti-Semitism” is some sort of intellectual crime. I don’t think we should shrink for the term “anti-Semitism” just because Jews have succeeded in making it the ultimate pejorative term. Anti-Semitism simply means hostility to, or prejudice against Jews. To describe Romanian policies toward Jews in the early twentieth century as “anti-Semitic” is factually correct. I would also hasten to add that they had very good, eminently rational reasons for these “anti-Semitic” policies. If only we had such policies today!

  15. Hooper's Gravatar Hooper
    November 16, 2011 - 5:05 am | Permalink

    @Jordan: JJordan, you bring up an important issue, one that I think is at the heart of the battle right now. The politicization of language which we have been witnessing for several generations serves to make precise communication very difficult. Discourse has changed from being based in inquiry to being based in power. And right now, traditional European culture has lost control over its discourse. Old words have taken on new meanings and vague, politically tinged buzz words have gained enormous muscle (racist, discrimination, social justice, etc.) These words are hard to define precisely but easy to sling around with great effect. Words also take on enormous emotional baggage — being called a racist in America is a big deal. The same word in Russian, however, (which hasn’t been nearly as infiltrated) doesn’t carry the same emotional weight.

    I hope that we are, despite being scattered around the world, trying to recreate community (another tainted word?) and a coherent culture. Part of that job is to regain the ability to communicate precisely with each other and to tell our point of view on our own linguistic turf, so to speak. Whether we choose to recapture tainted language or to avoid altogether hijacked words is a matter of great importance and worthy of consideration.

  16. Heinz Gunther's Gravatar Heinz Gunther
    November 16, 2011 - 5:58 am | Permalink

    Without the back of the European man to ride on, the Jews would still be as they were in Biblical times; basically in the stone age. With their inability to advance technologically or create a system of government that is beyond the most primitive level of theocratic absolutism, they need a race such as ours to give them the benefits of technological progress, while they themselves have a built in destructive mechanism that makes them destroy any society that gives them any freedom. This dichotomy is amazing but one can see many such analogs in the natural world. Especially in the world of germs. Take the Bacterium that causes Tuberculosis. It normally takes three antibiotics to stop it ravaging the body, but it is never completely destroyed, it is merely weakened and sealed off. Put into remission is the proper medical terminology. This is analogous to when the Jews were sealed off in the Ghettos of Europe. When the body of Europe was weakened by the liberal philosophies of the Enlightenment and then the Industrial Revolution, the Jews left the Ghettos and settled in the cities of the Gentiles and poisoned the European body like so many Tuberculosis organisms. We need our own New World order that gives European man a new strength like the three Antibiotics that put Tuberculosis into remission but what we need is a permanent cure! A stronger medicine than Antibiotics, something that gives us a permanent cure for the Jewish disease!

  17. tom fallon's Gravatar tom fallon
    November 16, 2011 - 9:12 am | Permalink

    Otto Rank’s Art and Artist provides a basis for critiquing Dada.
    The formula is this.
    Psychoanalysis took God out of the equation for the artist who was to find the creative impulse within the unconscious. Having to rely on himself as opposed to subjecting himself to an External godhead put the artist in a difficult position and unable to cope with the violent and destructive forces associated with the creative act.
    Rank’s observation and latter Ernest Becker after him in “The Denial of Death” showed that modern art movements like Dada were failed because they created neurosis and psychosis in the artist that is reflected in their artwork. It became individual vs. society . This can be distinguished from Classical (truth and beauty) and Primitive art ( where individual and society are in harmony) This idea of the necessity of the belief in God or higher being in producing a successful artist and art can all be verified through a scientific analysis which should soon be published in a project called Art and Brain.

  18. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 16, 2011 - 10:28 am | Permalink

    @Brenton Sanderson

    Sorry, sir, but I must respectfully agree with Jordan’s criticism of your essay. He that controls the language, frames the argument and controls the outcome. Like it or not, this is a skill that the Jews have developed very well to the point where even their opposition inevitably ends up framing their own arguments for them.

    Another area where I disagree with you, sir, is the ideology of Antisemitism which is represented as a pathological, irrational hatred of Jews. I even take exception to the idea that Antisemitism is a healthy response to Jews acting naughty.

    There is no “Antisemitism.” It’s a term that Jews have created to simultaneously advance their own interests and indemnify themselves from any criticism. Erego, if you don’t shower ME with all your wealth, support and mindless adoration or if you criticize ME and my criminal antics in anyway, it stands to reason that you must be anti-ME! Why Gentiles are still falling for this okie-dokie remains a mystery of the ages.

  19. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    November 16, 2011 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:
    The formula of Jewish success is:cunning+verbal intelligence+ shamelessness (chutzpah)+unscrupulousness+ethnic networking.
    We Gentiles cannot match them in these qualities,most don’t want even.What we can do is to try to fully understand their mentality and behaviour, then take counter-measures,in our own way.You can win from a consummate liar by sticking to the truth, but you will have to fully understand his tricks and lies.

    As for the term “anti-Semitism” used as a weapon,use the term Judeo-critique instead and define it as the critique of Jewish misbehaviour, adding that you don’t have a problem with well behaving Jews.Nobody can gainsay that.

  20. European's Gravatar European
    November 16, 2011 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @Heinz Gunther:
    Amen!

  21. Freki's Gravatar Freki
    November 16, 2011 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Interesting subject, boring article. There’s no progress in the text, just a never-ending summary of “facts”. Sorry, I’m trying my best not to be hyper-critical here, but I really hope part 2 will be the last one.

  22. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    November 16, 2011 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

    “Under Romanian law, the Rosenstocks, a family of prosperous timber merchants, were not fully emancipated. Many Russian Jews settled in Romanian Moldova following pogroms, where they lived as guests of the local Jews who only became Romanian citizens after the First World War (as a condition for peace set by Western powers). For Sandqvist, the treatment of Jews in Romania would inevitably have fuelled an attitude of revolt against the socio-political status quo in Tzara, and this was fully consistent with the anarchist impulses that he exhibited at the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich and later in Paris.”

    What an irrational phrase!
    The jews entered Moldavia by fraud during the reign of Mihail Sturdza between 1834 and 1849. They obtained Romanian citizenship after the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and the concluding peace of Berlin – 1878 when Otto von Bismark forced Romania to grant citizenship to its Jewish population in exchange for its independence (after some territorial loses toward Russian Empire, thousands of deaths on the front line and providing for the expensive Russian army of almost 800 000 soldiers). In exchange for its independence Romania got a bunch of aggressive Jews with all the rights of a citizen. Only they were not allowed to own land. A right they obtained once again by blackmailing Romania in 1918 (Romania lost one million people during the first war). The jews are carefully picking their timing indeed.

    Henry Ford explained perfectly what has happened further in its “International Jew”. And also did a great Romanian doctor Nicolae Pauleascu – the real inventor of insulin.

    Probably the author talks about of jewish refugees after 1881 and the assassination of the Tsar Alexander II. But these refugees were illegals in Romania. Why a country should grant automatically citizenship to someone is beyond my understanding.

  23. m's Gravatar m
    November 16, 2011 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

    @Joe Webb: “Natural Law can be rehabilitated. Natural Law is genetics. Turns out the Enlightenment just needed a little more time for science to develop and Darwin to show up.”

    One cannot take this too literally. First, biological reductionism has serious limitations philosophically, and no one has ever been able to adequately explain consciousness (or all it entails) in terms of biology. Physical reductionism attempts are rather self-defeating, since they posit metaphysical and epistemological statements that cannot be proven empirically.

    It is even worse when reductionism is further reduced to physics, as is the game of folks such as Alex Rosenberg, but you do not go there so I can let that pass.

    While it is true that one’s biology lays a groundwork, it cannot really explain much that can better be examined by way of learning, reason, etc.

  24. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    November 16, 2011 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Free will vs biology? Why equate genetics with reductionism? My formula (tentative) is- consciousness + raw materials = evolution.

    All here by now should have read Pinker’s The Blank Slate- The Modern Denial of Human Nature. One truly needs to study up on the studies of identical twins who were separated very early in life. As adults, the R value (correlation) for politics is a whopping 0.62! Most political views are inherited! No wonder it is so hard to get consensus here!

    See also Twins: and What They Tell Us About Who We Are by Lawrence Wright.

    I believe in free will and genetics!! Environmentalism has lost- Pinker’s book shows that the effects of parents on children to be from 0 to 10 percent, and he was being generous about the 10 percent. IQ is closer to 80% genetic, AFAIK.

    Study up on “Maxwell’s Demon” to see how entropy can be reversed without going against the second law of thermodynamics, as no work would be done.

  25. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    November 16, 2011 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    @Brenton Sanderson: Perhaps you are right in laying the blame for the plain-as-day misunderstanding of the passages quoted as prosecutorial exhibits against you on use of a “PC lens,” but I tend to think that simple inattention is just as likely to be the true culprit.

    You have written a well-researched and immensely instructive article—I confidently thought before I read it that this was a topic I knew something about, but you have given the apple cart of my complacency one heck of an overturning!—but it neither sings nor dances nor does it juggle even two chainsaws in the air whilst making its patient way to its temporary conclusion. Others hereabouts who, like me, prefer information to infotainment will, I think, tip their hat to you, too.

    I look forward to part 2.

  26. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    November 16, 2011 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Jews, room 101: they are destroyers, full stop. (period)
    They cannot help but promote ugliness and chaos in all things, for they are ugly and chaotic in themselves, due to their mixed blood. They are up against nature, though, for most people are naturally and instinctively repullsed by ugliness and chaos.

  27. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    November 16, 2011 - 7:43 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Your incisive comments are, as always, appreciated. The article was certainly not intended be read on the level of entertainment, but as an attempt to reveal an aspect of Jewish influence on Western culture that has hitherto escaped scrutiny. That you feel it to be instructive is praise enough. I realize this type of article is not to everyone’s taste – with some readers preferring a more polemical style.

  28. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    November 16, 2011 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    @TabuLa Raza: “biological reductionism” is an abstract claim that easily passes thru one’s lips after it slithers out of the cliche region of the prefrontal cortex.

    If one says, for example, that marxist economics is economic reductionism, one if compelled to (if one is fair) give a couple of examples of just how it is reductionist.

    With regard to culture and politics, If one states that X is biological reductionism, one is then logically compelled to discuss just HOW it is reductionist.

    The identical twin studies very stongly support the biological argument. This does not mean that there is no Freedom. There is freedom, within certain biological bounds. For example, homosexuality is not chosen, it chooses you, just as does heterosexuality. Now, it is theoretically possible that an individual can possess the unfortunate genetic combination of genes that point both ways. It is also possible that one can have a very insecure temperment, and thus be a good Dr. Placebo candidate, or open to all kinds of mischief from a very dominant person.

    With regard to “spiritual life”, nobody can define it, touch it, or analyze it. On top of that, in my personal experience, “spiritual types” are flaky, not that bright, and , again, good candidates for Dr. Placebo.

    Emotional Health is largely basic natural born temperment, plus good or bad luck, intelligence, etc.

    Emotionally healthy folks (my opinion of course) are strongly independent, and at the same time, in mutual relationships with others. This would take a fair amount of discussion. Strong folks do not worry about their “self esteem.” They just do it, as the cliche goes today.

    Looking Outward, as opposed to Looking INward, means one knows who one is and does not bother with naval gazing. A strong “spirit” is ‘outward bound” and interested in the world. Others in one’s racial community and family are embraced with subjectivity and interest and emotional connection. This does not mean control, or co-dependence. We are social animals. Loners by definition are deviant from the biological norm.

    Narcissists may have had real bad parenting …told that they are worthless, etc. They then go on self-absorption, etc. Or, maybe they are just natural born. However, since we are very social beings, I suspect that something has happened to harm a natural interest and sympathy in others. I dunno.

    But, Reductionism, is a serious charge. When one can go beyond identical twin studies and really demonstrate parental, “cultural” or other influences, then that is useful.

    Nobody would deny the role of “acculturation,” or propaganda, or tyranny induced Fear, or sex…the point is that the Base, to use the marxist lingo, is biological, and that base is what holds up the “superstructure” as the marxists liked to say as welll.

    All I argue is that emotional and intellectual life has a solid foundation in biology. We can be led astray by bad ideas ( as I have been) but those bad ideas are in the service of impulses from the genes.

    We have rationality and relative freedom to choose between alternatives. Nobody can account for Everything, but to account for fundamentals is not only possible, it is done with biological reasoning. The easy ones are sex, and affilation. Sex “roles” are obviously biological, with a certain latitude of determination.

    So, I refuse the ‘biological determinist’ tag. Until the “spiritualists” can identify the dynamics they assert or posit, we are left with nothing but “religious” claims of “I believe.”

    When one has Experience that one can report and describe, then that counts in some way. I do not deny religious experience. I do deny abstract claims about spiritual this and that. Joe

  29. m's Gravatar m
    November 16, 2011 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

    @TabuLa Raza:

    “Why equate genetics with reductionism?”

    I do not think it is viable. The original poster (probably loosely) wrote that natural law IS genetics. If I understand his point (which I may well have missed), it is that human nature, and all that flows from it, along with what has been taken historically as natural law is simply the result of DNA combinations; combinations that vary among groups.

    Certainly group traits are important, perhaps the most important in many respects, but to ascribe all behavior to genetics misses the mark.

    In any case, such a statement is essentially grounded in scientism, which is questionable from an epistemological standpoint.

    It has been debated here a lot, and really my comment was misplaced; I probably should not have even brought it up in the context of a critique of nihilist art, as it takes away from the topic at hand.

  30. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    November 16, 2011 - 8:03 pm | Permalink

    @m: one last thing. There is no final explanation for Everything. That is the problem with “Philosophers.” This way to the Absolute!!! I make no such claims and would only “claim” that there is no Answer to Mystery.

    I recall the story of some grand gal who , on her death-bed, is asked by one of her breathless accolytes, O..so and so, what is the Answer? The grand gal responds and says, And what dear is the question?

    What we have is our biology, our often high intelligence, our often good temperments, and the ability to figure out that we are biological animals bound by our genes. Yes bound. Is there Transcendence? Transcending what my dear?

  31. Frank Edwin Stone's Gravatar Frank Edwin Stone
    November 16, 2011 - 10:16 pm | Permalink

    @Jordan: I think that you are reading too much into what are essentially quotations from others.
    Just because he quotes others does not mean that he agrees with what they say.

    An entire generation was slaughtered senselessly in the madness of World War One. Many people were deeply disillusioned with the existing order of things due to the unimaginable destruction. The old civilization of Europe seemed to have committed suicide.
    Jews, being Jews, simply exploited this disillusionment and stirred it up even more, becoming leaders of Communist and other perverse, destructive movements, such as Dadaism.

    The ruthless exploitation of the Romanian landless peasantry by the Jews led to the peasant uprising of 1907, similar to the Bogdan Hmelnicky uprising 300 years earlier in the Ukraine. Both were caused by the merciless squeezing of every last drop out of the landless peasants by Jewish parasites.

  32. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 17, 2011 - 12:33 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    Why even call it Jewish critique? Why not call it “behavioral critique” instead. The big mistake is treating Jews any different from other White people. First of all those whiny little attention whores just love it when you do that. It makes them feel special and feeds any delusions of grandeur. Second of all, we’ve all met White (fill in the blank) Gentiles who engage in outrageous (fill in the blank) behavior. If I see any White Gentile being disingenuous or hypocritical or otherwise acting like a complete jerk, I can and will call him out on it and not assume it is a religious thing affecting his boorish behavior.

    We want to Name the Culprit and whose fault is it if more often than not the culprit happens to be Jewish? Not mine. Most people will take note of the oddly Germanic or Slavic names with precious metals or gems in their name and figure it out. If not, then the Rolling Stone article that named the culprits at Goldman and Sachs was like holy water on vampires, because of all the people with oddly Germanic or Slavic names with precious metals or gems in their names screeching about “Antisemitism.”

    White people should be stronger about asserting their culture. White people have made the mistake of simultaneously enforcing xenos in the name of tolerance on Whites who can’t afford to avoid non-Whites and being lax about enforcing xenos on Non-Whites who insist on being around Whites.

    A common mistake White Nationalists make is openly resisting and fighting with these people. There is a saying that you should never argue with an idiot, because they will only wear you down to their level and then beat you with experience. So when some Disingenuous “White” Liberal has some stupidly self-destructive suggestion to make, don’t fight with him.

    If they are pro-abortion, tell them that they should abort as many of their babies as they want as long as you don’t have to pay for their abortions. If they advocate racial integration, steer them towards more diverse areas, like Detroit, where the housing is cheap, to move to. If they advocate race-mixing, offer to fix them (or better yet, their kids) with some nice Negro you’ve met. You can have a lot of fun with this attitude; the expression on their faces is priceless.

  33. Jordan's Gravatar Jordan
    November 17, 2011 - 2:07 am | Permalink

    @ Brenton Sanderson:

    Could you give us the definition of “anti-Semitism”? I see the phrase defined in so many ways, it is difficult to know what it means. I am also interested in how you concluded that Jewish Romanians were subjected to “pervasive” anti-Semitism.

    Even if you are successful in articulating an intelligible conception of “anti-Semitism,” in using such an abstraction throughout your essay you pass over an opportunity to educate us as to what was actually going on in Romania that provoked Dada-ism. Rather than painting the faceless nameless goyim of Romania with the broad brush of “anti-Semitism,” why not simply specify for your readers the most salient policies or actions occuring in Romania that must be intended by this phrase “anti-Semitism”? That lets us really learn a little about the history and puts us in a better position to judge for ourselves the merits of the various claims of causality and grievance that are implicit in your essay. After all, when a plaintiff comes into court alleging a “wrong” and seeking $1 million in damages (or, say, a valuable beachfront territory on the Eastern Mediterranean), the community will surely demand to know the specifics of the harm. Alongside these vague assertions of “anti-Semitism,” your essay presents, somewhat paradoxically, a picture of a Romania in which Tzara’s family was afforded the opportunity to develop into a wealthy timber dynasty (who needs land ownership? Or maybe they had it, despite reports to the contrary about restrictions against Jews) and where Jews were given refuge from alleged pogroms in Russia. Those two facts provide grounds for skepticism as to the gravity and pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Romania.

    I have a follow-up comment about your statement that Jewish Romanians were not “fully emancipated.” Here in the United States, we generally take the word emancipation to mean freedom from bondage or servitude. By using that phrase to describe Jews in Romania, you associate their conditions with those of African slaves, an image at odds with the description you give of this family of wealthy timber merchants. This phrasing serves to reinforce the narrative that the bad goyim oppressed the jews in Romania.

  34. Jordan's Gravatar Jordan
    November 17, 2011 - 2:13 am | Permalink

    @Frank Edwin Stone:

    In my first analysis of the essay, I tried to be careful to avoid including statements attributable to people other than the author. If you go back and review the statements I excerpted, I think you will see that only one could even remotely be construed as attributable to someone else.

    If the author was in fact cobbling these together from other, possibly partisan, sources, he needs to be far more careful in how he presents information–and attribute accordingly. The responsibility for any misinterpretation here isn’t with the readers; it is with the writer.

  35. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    November 17, 2011 - 3:19 am | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:
    I understand what you mean: simply apply moral critique to everybody who deserves it.If they happen to be Jews,even if in the majority in a particular case,then so be it.

    The thing is,people who belong to official “victim groups” readily resort to false accusations of “discrimination” and in the present climate often can get away with it.(see how Dershowitz defended O.J.Simpson on grounds of “racism”).

    As if this is not bad enough,more often than not certain crimes are committed by members of a certain ethnic group with the explicit purpose to benefit that group (and not only their gang) and often such ethnic groups have a long history of such behaviour.In that case you cannot restrict yourself to moral criticism of individuals ,you must criticize them as a group and that is what I callethno-critique.It is simply not true that all ethnic groups are morally equal (neither are they intellectually).We hear all the time about the Sicilian Mafia but never about the Icelandic Mafia.To criticize ethnic groups as such is verboten according to the two rules of modern society, which say:1) All men are equal,2)”Thou shalt not discriminate” (the Highest Command).At most members of an ethnic group can criticize their own group.(It is the same with socalled “ethnic jokes”.A Jew can crack jokes about Jews,a Black can laugh about niggers but a White can’t).

    The ideal situation would be when everybody can criticize every individual and every group – as group.The latter I call ethno-critique and in the case of the Jews: Judeo-critique.

    Such group-critique refers of course only to statstical means of characteristics and doesn’t imply that every member of a group has them.Hence the phenomenon of the “honest Jew” or the “intelligent Negro”.

  36. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    November 17, 2011 - 3:42 am | Permalink

    @Jordan:

    I would have thought it was clear from the context that in using the words “pervasive anti-Semitism” I am paraphrasing Tom Sandqvist’s argument in his book Dada East. I write:

    “He [Sandqvist] links Tzara’s profound revolt against European social constraints directly to his Jewish identity, and to the fact that the Jewish population of Romania (and particularly in his native Moldavia) was subjected to pervasive anti-Semitism.”

    This is Sandqvist’s argument, not mine.

    That said, there were some anti-Jewish policies in place in the Romania of the time (whether “pervasive” or not). I’m sure these policies, while distasteful to Jews, were entirely necessary from a Romanian perspective.

    As for your request for an adequate definition of anti-Semitism – I would say that “anti-Semitism” is simply a reaction to “Semitism” – which is Jewish Supremacism. Anti-Semitism is opposition to Jewish Supremicism.

    Most historical manifestations of anti-Semitism (legal restrictions, expulsions etc) were absolutely justified in the name of the national, racial and cultural self-defence of the nation concerned. There would be no “anti-Semitism” if there were no “Semitism” in the first place.

    Given the nature of group conflict, anti-Semitism is an inevitable and healthy reaction to the never-ending Jewish push for increased power and influence.

  37. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    November 17, 2011 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @Jordan:

    The jews were not land owners but they could lease the land. In 1907 it was about 80% of Moldavia agricultural land. This issue started two anti-jewish (but also anti-Greek in the Southern Romania) peasant rebellions in 1888 and 1907. The peasants were literary starving due to the jews who were managing as I said 80% of the agricultural land – it was really a huge jewish cartel. That’s why no party and no politician, including the king Karl of Hohenzollern, dared to do anything on this issue.

    It was only after two great peasants rebellions and the WWI when the issue was addressed. The land owners lost their property to the peasants. The leasing of the land disappeared. The small peasant property needed no jew to be managed. A huge blow was delivered to the cosmopolitan boyars and their jewish henchmen.

    The problem was that after 1918 the jews were allowed to own land. As long as the huge agricultural property could not be amassed easily anymore the jews started to grab the woodland and export timber (among many other things). As it was the case with Tzara’s parents. It remained an important jewish business until 1948 – with a short interruption during the war. Between 1944 and 1948 such jews, with their ethnic connections within the communist party and the soviet occupation force (especially NKVD), they made huge fortunes from Romanian timber.

    The explanation given to Tzara’s stance is such a convoluted lie it makes me sick. It is about defending a draft-dodger, rich jewish boy, spending his life inside a cafe, dreaming how those anti-Semites (the same people that made him and his traitorous ilk so rich) could be enslaved and exterminated in a more efficient way. (Probably a reminiscence from someone like Friedrich Engels who wanted all the Romanians to be exterminated because they were too “reactionary”.)

    Why would anybody look at the world through some jewish eyes? Because the jewish splinter of the Romanian symbolist and modernist currents got such a great advertising from their western counterparts? Because their anti-Romanian and anti-traditionalist ideology had to export itself because in Romania was both sterile and disabled? Even inside the modernist current? Because what would had in common someone like Ion Barbu (brilliant Romanian poet and mathematician) with such a deranged individual like Tzara? Or Gelu Naum – a great writer, war hero on Eastern front banned by the jews after the WWII.
    The modernism? It’s a sad joke in a sad time to even talk about Tzara.

    Why the necessity to justify the hatred of a deranged and untalented jew boy blaming the Romanians for what – for the whims of a rich jew boy like Tzara? Why aren’t we commenting the great European literature (including eventually the Romanian literature because there are many incredible writers – beyond the westernized ones like Ionesco, Eliade, Cioran)?

  38. November 17, 2011 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    “Tzara’s hometown Moineşti is, in Codrescu’s opinion, “the center of the modern world, not only because of Tristan Tzara’s invention of Dada, but because its Jews were among the first Zionists, and Moineşti itself was the starting point of a famous exodus of its people on foot from here to the land of dreams, E’retz-Israel.””

    Replace ‘jew’ with ‘white’ and you’d be arrested for hate speech; replace it with ‘proud African brothers” and you’d be [quietly] laughed at, like Herman Cain.

    The utter self-centered narcissism of the Jew never ceases to amaze me. And people “wonder” how Germans could flock to join the NS!

  39. November 17, 2011 - 4:46 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Evola would agree; hence, his involvement with Dada. Of course, for him, the rot set in around 32 BC, not with the Impressionists!

  40. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 17, 2011 - 5:18 pm | Permalink

    @James O’Meara:

    I’ve never actually read Evola. Which of his writings are most recommended?

  41. m's Gravatar m
    November 17, 2011 - 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Evola, at least in those writings he is known for, is concerned with revealing and recovering order over everything else. I am not familiar with his Dada involvement other than a line here or there about it, however it was early, and cannot in any way be considered representative of his mature thought.

    Not that it should be said, but I will: the scribblings of Tzara can in no way be compared to Evola’s writing.

  42. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 17, 2011 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

    @m:

    What’s the deal with him embracing Islam?

    I place a lot of importance on how philosophers end up. As much as I like some of Nietzsche’s ideas, the fact that he went crazy speaks for itself. That tells me there was something fundamental missing from his ideology (to me what was missing was the notion of duty, but that’s just my opinion).

    Same with Evola; if reading his stuff leads me to becoming a Muslim I’d actually rather avoid him. As interesting as these types of thinkers are, and as much as they claim to love the Greeks and Romans, why is it that the Greeks and Romans never seemed to have the psychological problems they did?

  43. Jordan's Gravatar Jordan
    November 17, 2011 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

    @Razvan:

    Thank you for the historical detail. Just to be clear then:

    Prior to WWI, jews were not permitted to own land in Romania. Did this apply only to agricultural land? All land? Land in the towns? Also, who owned land in Romania at that time and were other, non-jewish people also prohibited from owning land?

    Prior to WWI, jews were permitted to “lease” (all?) land. From which perspective do you mean “lease”? I take it you mean they were permitted to own leaseholds, and ended up owning leasehold interests in 80% of agricultural land. What did they do with this land?

    After WWI, (a) ownership restrictions were lifted on all land in Romania and (b) agricultural land was given (?) to the peasants. For some resaon, jews were not able to acquire agricultural land (why?) but they bought in fee simple woodland acreage and developed timber businesses from those woodlands.

    Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

  44. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    November 18, 2011 - 12:46 am | Permalink

    @ Razvan: Fascinating comment.

    @ Brenton Sanderson: I got a lot from the article, thank you.

  45. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    November 18, 2011 - 5:05 am | Permalink

    @Jordan:
    Prior to WWI they owned land as the garden or orchard around their own house. They owned construction terrains in the towns.
    But they were not allowed to own land in the sense of a feudal domain– land consisted in farmland, woodland, grassland, villages, water, everything – in some cases even the local parish or school. Instead, the boyars, the great landowners, were not managing their own land but leased it to be managed to the jewish cartels. As an example only one jew Mochi Fischer controlled 75-80% from the land in three counties in Northern Moldavia.

    The land owner got a fixed amount of money every year and the jew was practically free to do anything on that piece of land – the jew had all the feudal rights of the boyar – taxes for passage, usage of the grassland, sell timber, establish the prices, keep the stores, taverns, bakery, butchery, even the pharmacy. Of course there was no concurrence – it was not allowed. Some land owners leased even the Church to the jew. So in order to go to the Church on Sunday the priest and the peasants had to pay a tax to the jew.

    The peasants were selling their work in exchange for food and of course for counterfeited booze (Henry Ford described perfectly the situation). If the peasant had a debt to the jew he payed an interest starting from 90%.
    The peasants situation was much harder than a Charles Dickens could ever, ever imagined. If the jews would have been able to own the land, probably the state would have crumbled in a civil war and crushed between Russia and Austro-Hungary. *, **

    If the decadent nobility*** would have been allowed to sell their land they would have probably did it and the jews would have bought everything. It is a very important issue here because at the beginning of the Zionist movement Moldavia was seen as a possible jewish homeland, later only as an asylum on their path to Israel. Practically they were doing in Moldavia what they were and are doing in Palestine. They were buying and extorting a country for themselves. It is said that the Rabbi Reichorn of Prague devised the strategy in 1896.****

    The traditionalists were fighting for a land reform in order to appropriate the peasants. The jews had no interest in this so they became anti-traditionalists. At first they were trying to subvert the modernism. But the modernism was Romanian in its essence and wanted a Romanian emancipation in the cities and towns against the same organized jews. Exactly what the traditionalists wanted to happen in the villages. So they had to leave and find more sympathetic ears in the west.

    In the trenches of the WWI the king Ferdinand von Hohenzollern had to promise a land reform. Thing that happened in 1921. Now the jews were able to own land but they lost the feudal privileges obtained through leasing of the land. The jewery moved into another phase.

    * – It was exactly the same situation that led to the crumble of the Polish state.
    The jewish extreme exploitation of the Polish and Kozak peasants generated numerous uprisings until the Polish Commonwealth was occupied by Russia, Prussia and Austro-Hungary.
    ** If someone can imagine, the Romanian peasant in Bessarabia (eastern Moldavia – under Russian occupation – had a even harder existence; like fighting at Port Arthur against the Japanese and loosing everything to the same jews back home. Confinement in the Pale of Settlement was beneficiary for the Russian peasant but an incredible blow for the peasants in the Russian occupied western parts.
    *** – it was not a national nobility but a very cosmopolitan one – Greek in its essence, established during the Phanariotic Period (1711-1821). They made their fortune with Turkish help and against the Romanian nobility.
    **** – The extortion went this way: the jew was at first proposing a bigger than usual amount of money in order to lease his land. In one year the jew managed to destroy the property value so that the boyar was no longer able to rebuild the inventory. The second year, the leasing price was much lower than before and dictated this time by the jew, and not by the boyar. Another strategy, a Romanian politician was buying land with jewish money and “leasing” for 99 years the land to those who gave the money.

  46. Razvan's Gravatar Razvan
    November 18, 2011 - 5:30 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:
    Thank you very much.

  47. m's Gravatar m
    November 18, 2011 - 6:26 am | Permalink

    @fender:

    I do not think Evola “embraced” Islam. Perhaps you are thinking of René Guénon? As far as Nietzsche? His madness was likely secondary to a brain lesion (but not syphilitic as goes the common myth).

    http://tinyurl.com/7h72ca9

    Also, while Evola held FN in some high esteem, he understood Nietzsche’s very real limitations.

  48. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 18, 2011 - 8:16 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    The same Dershowitz (or is that Horowitz) who is making a damned fool of himself by trying to depict mild-mannered libertarian, Ron Paul, as Satan Incarnate or the American Hitler depending on which day he forgot to take a chill pill? And really, what has Ron Paul done to incite such hatred and fear in this bunch but act like Israel is no different from any other foreign country sucking off American aid?

    See, “Antisemitism” or “ethno-criticism” is a trap that people fall into, because they inevitably head towards collective guilt territory which makes the innocent members of the targeted group invariably circle the wagons around the guilty. Do you have any problems with honest, hard-working Jews? Would you object to having such people as your neighbors? Would you prefer a gentile like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy as your neighbor? Of course not!

    Like most honest people, you despise crooks, con-men, and criminals and it really has nothing to do with their ethnicity, but their behavior. If more of an ethnicity engages in antisocial, psychopathic behavior, that isn’t something you can control, it is up to the community that raises these people to take action.

    If someone from that community is idiotic enough to accuse you of being a racist for naming the culprit and condemning the deed, then it is they who have outted that ethnicity for criticism through their hyperdefensiveness. That’s the beauty of behavioral critique in this oh so ultrasensitive, racial atmosphere we endure today.

    Either way, the point is made and the usual suspects can’t rely on their old hysterical accusations of racist or Antisemitic ideology on your part.

  49. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 18, 2011 - 10:06 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    I wanted but forgot to add that my problems with “Antisemitism” are simply based on the concepts of guilt and absolution. When people fall into the trap of engaging in applying collective guilt to a group of people based on their color, race, ethnicity or religion, inevitably there must come a time when collective absolution must be applied.

    My study of the history of the whole JQ is that you when there has been one country to apply collective guilt against this bunch and engages in a pogrom that burns the wheat with the chaff, inevitably another country will apply what amounts to collective absolution by becoming a place of refuge and then taking in the chaff with the wheat.

    I also categorically reject the notion that Non-Whites are incapable of behaving themselves. In any White country that is vigilant, asserts its culture and enforces its rules without apologies or reservations, Non-Whites have proved that they can behave themselves very well.

    They take ruthless advantage of Whites’ assumptions that their racial traits make them fundamentally incapable of following the rules … naturally, this absolves them of all blame for their antics, because it’s not their fault if they can’t help themselves. It is human nature to get away with what one can.

    I don’t have much use for the man, but G.W. Bush did have a point to make about the bigotry of low expectations. Whites have very low expectations for Non-White behavior and that’s how they literally get away with all kinds of nonsense.

  50. November 18, 2011 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra and everyone

    I found your idea about speaking in terms of a ‘behavioral critique’ to be very insightful. Since there are many Jews that I do like, I’ve always felt in a double bind how to post anything about the Jews and Zionism (looking into the bold faces of Zionists, one wants to smash it in) but so as not to offend every Jew, as the good ones seem to go on the defensive. I’ll just have to practice seeing things as a ‘behavioral critique’.

    But your use of the word ‘xenos’, a noun, which I had to look up, I find to be a very good word that encapsulates an idea, and does away with a whole lot of awkward backtracking in trying to explain certain things. It is so much easier using the word xenos to express ideas about having to live among the non-whites, etc., in a non-aggressive manner, and avoid being called a ‘racist’. I will have to try using that word in a sentence in other places as practice.

    ‘Xenos is a word used in ancient Greek from Homer onwards that means both foreigner (in the sense of a person from another Greek state) and such a person brought into a relationship of long distance friendship.’

    Everyone’s comments here are so superb and scholarly. All the background information on Romania land ownership, and the ‘boyars’, and the ‘behaviorial critique’ of how the Jews wormed their way into leasing the land, then charging others for use of it, etc., gave me an insight why Corneliu Zelea Codreanu had such a hate for the Jews. The lot of the Romanian peasants must have been galling indeed. And imagine having to pay the Jews a tax in order to attend a Catholic mass. It’s hard to believe such a thing could have been possible. I can only hope it doesn’t go on today in some fashion.

  51. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    November 18, 2011 - 12:52 pm | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:
    With “Etno-critique” I don’t mean you accuse all members of a certain group, but you realistically assess it’s collective risk profile (which often can be statistically demonstrated).If you let a hundred Jews run a bank you will run a greater risk of fraud than if you let a hundred Swiss do the same.A group’s history and reputation condemns it.This is simply common sense and not prejudice.Of course under such an approach the real innocent of a group are unjustly punished but their “punishment” only entails exclusion.
    I know that under the present conditions you cannot sell this idea,but it would be nice if the notion of statistically demonstrable risk groups would eventually be accepted.Untill that day we must muddle through with only accusing guilty individuals (boringly from again and again the same groups).

    As for innocent Jews circling the wagons around guilty Jews,they do this habitually – not as a reaction to “anti-Semitism” – but because it is part of their culture.We have had on this site a couple of articles on this subject already.It is called the “Law of Mesira” which says that no Jew should betray another Jew to the authorities no matter how guilty he is.Reason the more to treat Jews as a collective.

    For individualistic Westerners treating other groups,who all act collectively,only on an individualistic basis is a major handicap in the ethnic competition that is the reality of life.

  52. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 19, 2011 - 1:43 am | Permalink

    @Bluerose

    In ancient White pagan countries, the laws of “xenos” or hospitality had to prevail. That meant the host had certain obligations and responsibility of showing kindness and charity to strangers. There were many myths where someone showing kindness to a stranger did not know he was entertaining a god who was so grateful he blessed them beyond belief. Conversely, the stranger also had certain obligations towards his host. For example, Troy fell, because horny Prince Paris violated the laws of xenos by stealing Helen, the wife of his host, Menelaus.

    White communities have forgotten that the rules of xenos are a two-way street. Hosts are supposed to be gracious and charitable towards their guests and guests simultaneously are supposed to be grateful and respectful to their hosts.

    This collective guilt/dispensation or absolution assignment that White Christians have done with the Jews through the ages has spread like an infectious virus to all Non-Whites. We assign racial or ethnic characteristics to what amounts to simply what we would castigate as rude, boorish, uncouth behavior if a fellow White did it BEFORE we would slap him up side the head with Miss Manners’ steel hankie.

    Whites need to go back to making their expectations of what is acceptable behavior from any Non-White who wants to associate with them. If they cannot behave themselves, they are banned from polite White society. They can whine and screech about oppression until the cows come home, but an assertive White culture will remind the world that we don’t put up with that nonsense from our own people, so why would we be expected to make the exception for anybody and everybody else?

  53. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 19, 2011 - 10:52 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert

    I still respectfully disagree with doing a potential “risk profile” on any group. That is not to say that statistical data cannot or should not be collected and published after a crime has been committed. People who feel uncomfortable with treating certain groups as a collective can ignore it as they see fit. People who would tend to be discriminating anyway would use it inform their decisions before ever dealing with such people. But the information would be out there without applying any data collected on criminal activity as a racial or ethnic or religious trait.

    Jews are still a pretty distinct looking ethnicity and a picture along with a vaguely Eastern or pseudo Germanic name with a precious metal or gem in not only paints a thousand words, it is going to set off the “Jewdar” of anyone who isn’t brain dead. Why belabor the point?

    White Nationalists assume that all people tend to be stupid and are incapable of employing any critical thinking skills. I do not deny that there are Whites who are “stuck on stupid. But no amount of pointing out the obvious to someone like that is going to change his mind, which is already made up. The facts will not only confuse but irritate him. We simply have to let Social Darwinism run its course on his ilk.

    However, I would say that the racial consciousness of most Whites right now is where they secretly agree with everybody on this board about pretty much everything and try to live their lives as much as possible to avoid Non-Whites. They just feel that we are being rude, not to mention, foolhardy, to speak of such things openly. It’s been observed that the greater distance there is between a Disingenuous White Liberal and Diversity, the more he raves about how wonderful it is. Shhhyeah, right.

    The trouble with “risk profiling” an ethnic collective is that you invariably enable what amounts to criminal protection rackets masquerading as ethnic “defense” leagues and their Anti-White leadership, like ADL’s Abe Foxman and $PCL’s Morris Da Sleaze to amass enough wealth to acquire the power to function as quasi-legal or government entities to harass you.

    There are two groups who suffer from this; White people who are seeing their own civil rights rapidly erode from all kinds of alleged “anti-hate crimes” legislation AND traumatized Holocaust era survivors and their offspring who give these Anti-White shysters what amounts to their butter and egg money to fight “Antisemitism” and “racism.” Their donors don’t understand the danger inherent in the likes of Abe and Morris going too far and pushing Gentiles so into the wall that the only choice they have is to come out fighting which leads to violent backlashes like the pogroms the ADL and $PCL say they are trying to avert. Of course, while their donors are suffering from these backlashes, these two slimeballs will be long gone with all the cash they have conned through their protection rackets.

    Making criminal or deviant behavior an inherent trait rather than a lifestyle choice can backfire miserably on a society. Case in point, homosexuality. Why is it so much more accepted now than it was twenty or thirty years ago? Homosexuality used to be marketed as “an alternative LIFESTYLE CHOICE.” Liberals figured in the free-wheeling 70′s to 80′s, the hippies would be down with that. This assumption might have been true if not for AIDS and the fact that, all smokescreens aside, John K. and Jane Q. Public recognized that the highest risk group for AIDS infections were homosexuals, and had a Come to Jesus moment. Homosexual activists quickly realized that they would have to change their tune and rebrand sexual preference, not as a lifestyle choice, but biologically inherent, so studies were found to prove that a homosexual’s brain was different from that of a heterosexual, etc. Now it is commonly accepted that homosexuals are “born, not made and allegedly cannot recruit heteros into homos. So now they can openly serve in the military who got rid of DADT and Congressional liberals are pretty much wiping their asses with DOMA.

    Like it or not, the subtext of “Antisemitism” is that Jews are inherently incapable of being anything but crooks and shysters, so then why “persecute” them? The set-up for absolution or special dispensation is already there. They can’t “help” it, so they are not responsible for their own actions. So, we must therefore tolerate (grin and bear) it. By doggedly applying a narrow and highly concentrated focus on behavior critique, we demand that criminals be prosecuted because they are engaging in criminal behavior. We do not single them out for special treatment (good or bad) because we believe that their criminality is inherent rather than a lifestyle choice. Therefore, we avoid falling into the absolution or special dispensation trap.

  54. November 19, 2011 - 11:21 am | Permalink

    Tzara … regularly appalled the dowagers of Zurich by asking them the way to the brothel.

    You’ve got to admit, that’s kind of funny.

  55. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    November 19, 2011 - 11:49 am | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:
    Now I understand you and I agree that for all practical purposes consistent behaviour critique is indeed the best policy.

    Group risk profiling should however still be practised in private, deciding which people you want to associate with.Most people have been so much brainwashed by PC that they take unnecessary risks.A white girl who accepts a lift from Blacks and ends up raped,a white girl who marries a Black and ends up murdered,doing business with a Jew and ending up cheated etc.But that is the task of private education.

  56. November 19, 2011 - 12:32 pm | Permalink

    French Impressionism was the last legitimate artistic movement. Expressionism was the beginning of the end.

    What’s the problem with Expressionism? And what’s so great about French — (yawn) — Impressionism?

    You can point out a real period piece of degenerate Weimar art to your office visitors

    His stuff looks rather beautiful to me. God forbid that any artist should want to create something other than hulking marble statues of Teutonic Supermen that would fit right in to a Tom of Finland comic.

    If you want naturalism, take a photograph. I for one happen to like subjectivism in art.

  57. November 19, 2011 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Not sure why it would be classed under ‘degenerate Weimar art’.

    I got a chuckle just now when I read on Wikipedia that Alfred Rosenberg condemned some of Arno Breker’s work as ‘degenerate art.’

  58. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 19, 2011 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    @Igor Alexander:

    “What’s the problem with Expressionism?”

    Because it’s shallow. Expressionism was the first art movement that specifically catered to the initial shock moment, that brief instant when someone looks at a painting and goes “oh, wow.”

    “And what’s so great about French — (yawn) — Impressionism?”

    It was a new way of looking at scenery and people. Expressionism, Dadaism, etc. seemed to want to abolish the real world; impressionism wanted to affirm it, only in a dreamlike way.

  59. November 19, 2011 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    That’s the problem with “art criticism” — a person can say whatever the hell he wants and get away with it because in art there aren’t any objective standards of right and wrong like there are in, say, classical physics or mathematics. There is no “2+2=4″ in art, though if you were a high-ranking bureaucrat in a totalitarian system like the Soviet Union or the Third Reich, you could always use state coercion to shove your personal preferences and pet theories down the throats of your comrades.

    The Alfred Rosenberg anecdote above illustrates just how arbitrary and personal these things really are. Lucky thing for Breker that Hitler liked his work, or the consummate fascist artist might have found himself blacklisted in the Reich.

    So you find Expressionism shallow and shocking. I don’t. Where does that leave us?

    And aren’t you getting expressionism mixed up with abtract art, or maybe surrealism? I don’t see any attempt to deny or abolish “the real world” in expressionistic art, just to imbue it with one’s subjective impressions.

    Of course, it’s not surprising that fascists wanted to suppress any art that expressed individuality or the artist’s inner world, since that would compete with the ideology they were promoting. I suppose if fascism had come to America, the only state-approved art would have been Norman Rockwell (but not his political stuff).

    While on the subject of modern art: As much as I respect the man as an activist, does anyone else think Ezra Pound’s poetry sucks?

  60. November 19, 2011 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

    @fender: I did write a response, but for some reason it got stuck in the moderation cue. Hopefully it’ll show up within a day or two.

  61. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 19, 2011 - 6:36 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    Exactly. White Nationalists must focus on putting the data out there in such a way that the data speaks for itself loud and clear.

    We pride ourselves on being the most creative race. Therefore we must be creative about disseminating information in a non-judgmental, easy to understand format that will encourage our people to use the brains the good Lord gave them to engage in some critical thinking skills.

    I would favor less articles Naming the Jew and more articles teaching our young how Usury works and how to avoid that trap. Less articles Naming the Jew and more articles teaching people how our political system works and how to make it work for them. Less articles about Israel and more articles about the necessity of only getting involved in foreign matters if our own interests are involved. Less articles Naming the Jew an more articles demanding that the Fed be audited and/or eliminated.

    I could go on. In short, my biggest gripe with White Nationalism is all we seem to function as are reactionaries to the Jewish Narrative. Why are we using their words to frame our arguments? NO self-respecting White with any common sense should even dignify “Antisemitism” by using it in a sentence, because it is nothing more than a trope. Anyone with a lick of sense has got to realize there is something fundamentally unsound about that word when Helen Thomas, an American of Lebanese Arab descent is castigated for her “Antisemitism.” Say what?!

    I am relatively new to White Nationalism and there is a lot to their beliefs that I agree with, but as someone who has had good Jewish neighbors and no real negative experiences resulting from any personal interaction with Jews, the Jew-baiting in general makes me wince, so one can only imagine the reaction of of Whites who are neutral or even somewhat pro-Zionist because their pastor tells them the Jews are the Chosen People.

    I also have a problem with the aspect of WNism that is loathes Christianity, because it has been so Judaized, because it throws the baby out with the bath water. Christianity may not be perfect, but it is all we have to work with. Traditions are important to a culture and there are some Christian traditions I would like to stick around.

    To me, the best defense White Nationalists can mount against Jewish Supremacism is NOT Antisemitism but to retrain Whites in the concepts of Xenos which are not Anti-Christian. Xenos meshes pretty seamlessly with the Christian concept of the Golden Rule. If one thinks about it, the Christ’s whole three year mission in Judea seemed to be an attempt to train the Judeans in Xenos, a concept which seemed to be utterly contrary to their upbringing. Unfortunately, Christianity turned more into a way of Judea impacting the Gentiles than Xenos impacting the Judeans.

    Xenos sets up reciprocal duties where both the host and the guest are concerned and how a host must treat a guest with courtesy and respect, but a guest must reciprocate with gratitude and respect. If a guest violates his responsibilities to Xenos that the host has every right to expel that guest from his presence. How is it NO xenophobic for a country to expel illegal aliens who have violated the laws of Xenos by entering the country without permission or to deport criminal aliens who have violated the laws of Xenos by breaking that country’s laws.

    So IMO, Xenos is the foundation block of asserting a real White culture, because it changes the dog from all bark and no bite to a hound with teeth. Religion should just be window dressing and Xenos stemming from its old polytheistic roots of every family having its own gods or numina, treats no religion as any more important than the other. It’s the best counter to Christian Zionism there is.

  62. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 19, 2011 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:

    Good post. But:

    ” In short, my biggest gripe with White Nationalism is all we seem to function as are reactionaries to the Jewish Narrative. Why are we using their words to frame our arguments? NO self-respecting White with any common sense should even dignify “Antisemitism” by using it in a sentence, because it is nothing more than a trope.”

    Before we can construct our own narrative we need to understand what narrative we’re living in, why we’re living in it, and who’s creating it. Once we’ve got that down then we can start creating our own narrative.

    Otherwise you’re right. WN’s have a bad habit of using Jewish terms in their arguments. Also, like you said, most of what we say is a reaction to what they accuse people of.

    In reality, most everything that Jews push is reactionary. Psychoanalysis was a reaction to American solidarity. Bolshevism was a reaction to Russian Orthodox culture. Neoconservatism was a reaction to American isolationism. Jewish art is almost all reactionary. Practically all Jewish movements have this phrase in common: “WE DON’T LIKE THIS!”

    The only way any White intellectual movement will be successful is if Whites learn to shut out the critics and learn to think inwards. “You don’t like this? You’re not white? Then why should we listen to you?” That’s what’s needed.

    “Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.” – Nietzsche

    Whites need a collective egosim. The difference between ours and Jews’ is that ours will not be malicious or reactionary in nature.

  63. Clytemnestra's Gravatar Clytemnestra
    November 19, 2011 - 11:50 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Again, we have to ask ourselves what has happened to Whites that we are so willing to fall for the okie-dokie every time a Jew opens his mouth. Is it some kind of masochism where the Jews are concerned that we have to play the Eternal Patsy to the Eternal Jew? Why do we have to make it so damned easy for them?

    How is it possible that the only response in America to Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” was to allow Organized Jewry to take over the house, re-arrange the furniture, redecorate our walls to their own liking and take over the Master Bedroom? When the Culture of Critique was implemented, why did it never occur to White people to say in response to “WE DON’T LIKE THIS!” something like, “Sorry to hear that. Because we like things the way they are and have no plans to change anything for anyone. I guess you’ll be leaving, then. Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry? Good luck in the next country you move to!”

    The thing that gets me is that White Christians wouldn’t change for anybody else. I remember this Greek immigrant where I worked who constantly bitched about America all the time and finally, all his American coworkers, including me, pooled together enough money to finance his move back to Greece. The expression on his face when our manager invited him to our “Bon Voyage Party” and told him that we had all contributed the money in making arrangements to help him return home since he was so unhappy here was priceless. He declined our offer, but never criticized our country and our culture in our hearing again. Could he accuse us of being “Anti-Hellenic?” I guess he could, now that I think of it, but he knew better than to pull a stunt like that. Though none of us articulated the concept both he and we knew that he had violated the laws of Xenos and he knew we were in our rights to rub his nose in that violation.

    White Americans don’t think twice about copping that attitude with White Europeans or other Whites who show their behinds to us, but for some reason we give the Jews and Non-Whites a free pass when they engage in the same kind of boorish behavior. There is no one to blame for this but ourselves. It is human nature to get away with whatever one is allowed. Our house, our rules, our responsibility to enforce them.

  64. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 20, 2011 - 1:22 am | Permalink

    @Clytemnestra:

    People cannot function unless they believe they are “good.” This is what is required for all societies and all individuals, the belief that they are morally right.

    The tribe has injected a poison into our bloodstream; it’s called guilt. Any thought or action, no matter how rational, that benefits fellow Whites is “evil.”

    It’s a crippling effect that creates a sense of shame and guilt in Whites who have done no wrong. They try frantically to expel this poison from their bodies but the masters give them only one antidote: bowing to the non-Whites.

    Whites are defined, collectively, by 1.) how good they are to non-Whites or 2.) how bad they are to non-Whites. How good they are to each other is never brought into question.

    This is why Whites are so dysfunctional. Everything healthy has been pathologized, everything sickly has been promoted.

    Explain to me how a people can think rationally if they haev been led to believe that they are evil? They can’t. The feeling of evil drives them to suicide, and this is what is happening to Whites all over the world.

    Whites are killing themselves through mass immigration and miscegenation to expel the “evil” from themselves. This is the release that’s been planned for them.

  65. fender's Gravatar fender
    November 21, 2011 - 2:30 pm | Permalink

    @Igor Alexander:

    How do you know good art isn’t objective? What makes you think there isn’t an underlying mathematical framework for beauty? Just because we have not yet developed a language to describe good art doesn’t mean we won’t.

    On the other hand, maybe art is purely subjective…but I don’t think so. I don’t see how it’s possible to argue that putting excrement into a can is just as artistically valid as Botticelli’s Birth of Venus. Can you make an argument that it is?

    Maybe a better dichotomy for art critique is depth vs. shallowness. Much like how Spengler argued that history is not right or wrong but deep or shallow, perhaps we should apply the same principle to art.

  66. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    November 21, 2011 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

    @fender:
    I think ultimately there will be found objective “laws” that determine what is beautiful and what is not.At least two of such laws have already been found.A recent one is that human faces that are found to be beautiful are always symmetric. Symmetry of course can be objectively demonstrated.An old one is the socalled Golden Ratio,which is a ratio of two measurements always found in beautiful objects.The ancient Greek consciously practised it,especially in architecture,but you can find it already in the measurements of the Egyptian pyramids.A window for example that has a pleasing appearance has this golden ratio in the relation of the lengths of its standing and its lying sides.I nearly always note the absence of this golden ratio in the windows of modern buildings,while most older ones have it.The golden ratio can be expressed in a mathematical formula.For details,see Wikipedia.

2 Trackbacks to "Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada, Part 1"

  1. on November 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm
  2. on December 5, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Comments are closed.