Mark Rothko, Abstract Expressionism, and the Decline of Western Art, Part 3 of 3

Convergence by Jackson Pollock (1952)

Abstract Expressionism and the Culture of Critique

Abstract Expressionism was disproportionately a Jewish cultural phenomenon. It was a movement populated by legions of Jewish artists, intellectuals, critics, and patrons. Prominent gentile artists within the movement like Jackson Pollock and Robert Motherwell married Jewish women (Lee Krasner and Helen Frankenthaler). Willem de Kooning defied the trend — though had to ingratiate himself with the Jewish intellectual and cultural elite focused around the journal Partisan Review which was “dominated by editors and contributors with a Jewish ethnic identity and a deep alienation from American cultural and political institutions.”[i]

For Jewish writer Alain Rogier, it seems “hardly a coincidence that Jews made up a large percentage of the leading Abstract Expressionists.” It was an art movement where the culture of critique of Jewish artists, frustrated that the post-war American prosperity prevented the coming of international socialism, turned inward and instead “proposed individualistic modes of liberation.” This mirrored the ideological shift that occurred among the New York Intellectuals generally who had “gradually evolved away from advocacy of socialist revolution toward a shared commitment to anti-nationalism and cosmopolitanism (i.e. the multicultural project), ‘a broad and inclusive culture’ in which cultural differences were esteemed.”[ii] Doss notes how this ideological shift manifested itself among the artists who became the Abstract Expressionists:

As full employment returned, New Deal programs were terminated — including federal support for the arts — the reformist spirit that had flourished in the 1930s dissipated. Corporate liberalism triumphed: together, big government and big business forged a planned economy and engineered a new social contract based on free market expansion. … With New Deal dreams of reform in ruins, and the better “tomorrow” prophesied at the 1939–1940 New York World’s Fair having seemingly led only to the carnage of World War II, it is not surprising that post-war artists largely abandoned the art styles and political cultures associated with the Great Depression.[iii]

The avant-garde artists of the New York School instead embraced an “inherently ambiguous and unresolved, an open-ended modern art… which encouraged liberation through personal, autonomous acts of expression.” The works of the Abstract Expressionists were “revolutionary attempts” to liberate the larger American culture “from the alienating conformity and pathological fears [especially of communism] that permeated the post-war era.”[iv] Rothko claimed that “after the Holocaust and the Atom Bomb you couldn’t paint figures without mutilating them.” His friend and fellow artist Adolph Gottlieb, declared that: “Today when our aspirations have been reduced to a desperate attempt to escape from evil, and times are out of joint, our obsessive, subterranean and pictographic images are the expression of the neurosis which is our reality. To my mind… abstraction is not abstraction at all… it is the realism of our time.”[v]

At the heart of Abstract Expressionism lay a vision of the artist as alienated from mainstream society, a figure morally compelled to create a new type of art which might confront an irrational, absurd world—a mentality completely in accord with that of the alienated Jewish artists and intellectuals at the heart of the movement who viewed the White Christian society around them with hostility. MacDonald notes that the New York Intellectuals “conceived themselves as alienated, marginalised figures — a modern version of traditional Jewish separateness and alienation from gentile culture. … Indeed [Norman] Podhoretz was asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s “whether there was a special typewriter at Partisan Review with the word ‘alienation’ on a single key.”[vi]

During the 1950s Jewish artists and intellectuals chafed against the social controls enforced by political conservatives and religious and cultural traditionalists who limited Jewish influence on the culture, “much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that very culture.” This all ended, together with Abstract Expressionism as an art movement embodying the alienation of the New York Intellectuals, with the triumph of the culture of critique in the 1960s, when radical Jews and their gentile allies usurped the old WASP establishment, and thus “had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed.”[vii]

Jews and Modernism

In his exposition of the political significance of the widespread Jewish involvement in cultural modernism the Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that: “Something more profound and structural was involved in the Jewish role in the modernist revolution than this sociological phenomenon of the supersession of marginality. There was an ideological drive at work.”[viii] This ideological drive was the urge to subject Western civilization (deemed a “soft authoritarianism” fundamentally hostile to Jews) to intensive and unrelenting criticism — in the process of which they spawned a massive literature of cultural subversion throughout the post-war period.

Kevin MacDonald notes how there was a great deal of influence and cross-fertilisation between the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Both promoted modernism in art at least partly because of its apparent compatibility with expressive individualism, but also because it was seen as being capable of alienating people from Western capitalistic societies. For Frankfurt School intellectual Walter Benjamin the purpose of modern art was to spread the kind of cultural pessimism that would bring on the revolution, insisting that “To organise pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics.” His colleague, Willi Munzenberg, saw the central role of the Frankfurt School as being “to organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western Civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Clement Greenberg and the New “American” Art

Clement Greenberg was the most influential theorizer and promoter of modernism in America during the middle years of the twentieth century. His advocacy helped to bring about the institutionalisation of Abstract Expressionism and to secure the dominance of American modernist art in the immediate post-war period. MacDonald notes that Greenberg “made his reputation entirely within what one might term a Jewish intellectual milieu” including as “a writer for PR, managing editor of Contemporary Jewish Record (the forerunner of Commentary), long-time editor of Commentary under Elliot Cohen, as well as art critic for The Nation.”[ix] Greenberg’s Jewish identity was strong, and he once avowed that “that the quality of Jewishness is present in every word I write, as it is in almost every word of every other contemporary Jewish writer.”[x] He also claimed that it likely “that by world historical standards the European Jew represents a higher type than any yet achieved in history.”[xi]

Clement Greenberg

Greenberg’s later rejection of Pop and Conceptual Art led to a period when his writings and preferences were dismissed by those who aligned themselves with the views of rival Jewish art guru Harold Rosenberg. This arose from Greenberg’s dogmatic advocacy of abstraction, and his distaste for commercial popular culture — what he called “kitsch” in his most famous essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” (1939) — his response to the destruction and repression of modernist art in National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” one of the most influential essays of the twentieth century, made Greenberg’s name as a critic and led to his participation in the world of cultural journalism as an editor of Partisan Review.

It is not hard to detect an underlying concern with anti-Semitism in Greenberg’s famous essay. There was a general understanding among both the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals that mass culture — whether in the Soviet Union (both groups were anti-Stalinist), National Socialist Germany, or bourgeois United States — promoted conformism and escape from harsh political realities. It “offered false pleasure, reaffirmed the status quo, and promoted a pervasive conformity that stripped the masses of their individuality and subjectivity.”[xii] By contrast, avant-garde art had the potential to foster the kind of subjective individualism that could disconnect the masses from their traditional familial, religious and ethnic bonds — thereby reducing the salience of Jews as an outgroup and weakening the anti-Semitic status quo within these societies.

In his essay, Greenberg downplays the culturally critical potential of avant-garde art, and instead seeks to account for the ubiquity of “kitsch” in totalitarian societies by stressing its usefulness in ingratiating a regime with the masses — a practice that, he informs us, will only cease when these regimes “surrender to international socialism.” He writes:

Where today a political regime establishes an official cultural policy, it is for the sake of demagogy. If kitsch is the official tendency of culture in Germany, Italy and Russia, it is not because their respective governments are controlled by philistines, but because kitsch is the culture of the masses in these countries, as it is everywhere else. The encouragement of kitsch is merely another of the inexpensive ways in which totalitarian regimes seek to ingratiate themselves with their subjects. Since these regimes cannot raise the cultural level of the masses — even if they wanted to — by anything short of a surrender to international socialism, they will flatter the masses by bringing all culture down to their level. It is for this reason that the avant-garde is outlawed. … Kitsch keeps a dictator in closer contact with the “soul” of the people. Should the official culture be one superior to the general mass-level, there would be a danger of isolation.[xiii]

Greenberg’s thesis is not without validity. Indeed one of the striking features of modern Western life under Jewish cultural hegemony has been an all-pervasive popular culture of Hollywood that is supersaturated with the rankest multi-cultural and multi-racial kitsch. Despite the real-world failure of the utopian vision being relentlessly endorsed, this form of easily assimilated kitsch (seasoned with liberal doses of sex, violence and schmaltz) works very well to brainwash the great bulk of White people and avert even the mildest forms of rebellion.

Greenberg’s famous essay in Partisan Review

“Kitsch” works for the Jews of Hollywood for the same reason it worked for Hitler and Stalin. This is because kitsch is defined by efficiency of communication, while the avant-garde alienates some viewers “simply because this was an inescapable by-product of their formal experiments and of their rejection of kitsch.”[xiv]  Barlow notes that, for Greenberg:

Kitsch worked to maximize effect, while the avant-garde sought to address cause. Both commerce and totalitarian regimes sought maximum penetration of controllable information. They required the culture of kitsch. Mass culture will almost inevitably be kitsch, as passive consumers will comprehend accessible effects more readily than the self-conscious explorations of cause. Only in a truly socialist society will mass culture transcend the psychology of passive consumption. Despite important differences between the two men, Greenberg’s attitude to popular culture is close to that of Theodor W. Adorno.[xv]

Like Greenberg, Adorno initially directed his attack not against the high culture of Western civilization, but against the “mass culture” which warred with it — a “secondary emanation of authority” which was an inescapable product of capitalism. For Adorno, nothing was more abhorrent in the mass culture of America than its music. For him, popular music, riddled with cliché and kitsch, was not art but ideology that promotes a false consciousness that numbs the revolutionary senses of the working class. It is the owners of the means of communication (the capitalist class) that is sovereign in this debased musical culture. Under socialism, Adorno implied, this false consciousness would be swept away and the emancipated proletariat would be whistling the ideology-free music of Schoenberg and Webern in the streets.[xvi] However, as Roger Scruton noted, this aspect of Frankfurt School’s critical theory was later to change fundamentally:

Since the Frankfurters came as exiles to America, there to pour scorn on their hosts, the culture of repudiation has taken another and more home grown form. Instead of focusing on the “mass culture” of the people, it now targets the elite culture of the universities. It is indifferent, or even vaguely laudatory, towards popular art and music, seeing them as legitimate expression of frustration and a challenge to the old forms of highbrow knowledge. Its target is the culture in the sense that I have been defending it: all those artefacts that have stood the test of time, and which are treasured by those who love them for the emotional and moral knowledge that they contain.[xvii] 

Unlike his rival Harold Rosenberg, Greenberg never embraced this new critical paradigm. In his essay “Towards a Newer Laocoon” (1940) he articulated his famous claim that resistance to kitsch requires that art “emphasize the medium and its difficulties,” adding that the history of the avant-garde is one of “progressive surrender to the resistance of the medium.”[xviii] Greenberg argued that the vision of the Abstract Expressionists was characterized by a “fresher, opener, more immediate surface,” offensive to standard taste. He related this quality to a “more intimate and habitual acquaintance with isolation,” which was, in his ethnically, morally and culturally particularistic view, “the condition under which the true quality of the age is experienced.”[xix]

Greenberg’s dismissal of Harold Rosenberg’s account of Abstract Expressionism as “action painting” was based on his view that Rosenberg’s claim implied that the active process of painting mattered more than the result — that one chaotic combination of drips and splodges was as good as another. For Greenberg, Rosenberg’s theory gave the green light to charlatans whose work was no more than “stunts.” Such stunts certainly came into prominence with the rise of Pop and Conceptual art during the 1960s as many artists embraced Rosenberg’s claim that the moment of “performance” could itself be art. This aspect of the art scene in the 1960s earned Greenberg’s contempt, but as Barlow points out, “could all too easily be interpreted as the conservative critic whose time had passed — the modern equivalent of Ruskin’s attack on Whistler.”[xx]

Harold Rosenberg

It is somewhat ironic that Greenberg, an ethnocentric Jewish Trotskyite, in his staunch defence of Abstract Expressionism and Post-Painterly Abstraction, and rejection of the “pre-emptive kitsch” of Pop Art, Neo-Dada and Conceptual Art, was pushed into the role of cultural reactionary. The Abstract Expressionists Greenberg championed had been eager to break with the figurative art of the Regionalist painters, but their work (owing to its highly abstract nature) lacked the more overtly ideological form of much of the conceptual art that replaced it. This shouldn’t, however, obscure from us the fact that the rise of Abstract Expressionism coincided with the Jewish takeover of American high culture, and the deposing of the old WASP art establishment. Nor should it obscure the profound influence Greenberg’s ideas continue to have on Western culture.

Since “Avant-garde and Kitsch,” artistic and cultural production in the West has been underpinned by an aggressive “kitschophobia.” Since Greenberg’s essay was published, figurative painting, tonal music, and classical architecture have been regarded with suspicion (if not outright hostility) by cultural elites. It was fear of kitsch that gave rise to the pre-emptive kitsch of postmodern art:

Artists began not to not to shun kitsch but to actively embrace it, in the manner of Andy Warhol, Alan Jones, and Jeff Koons. The worst thing is to be unwittingly guilty of producing kitsch; far better to produce kitsch deliberately, for then it is not kitsch at all but a kind of sophisticated parody. … Pre-emptive kitsch sets quotation marks around actual kitsch, and hopes thereby to save its artistic credentials. … Public galleries and big collections fill with the pre-digested clutter of modern life, brash items of salesmanship which pass their sell-by date the moment they go on permanent display. Art as we knew it required knowledge, competence, discipline and study, all of which were effective reminders of the adult world. Pre-emptive kitsch, by contrast, delights in the tacky, the ready-made, and the cut-out, using forms, colours and images which both legitimize ignorance and also laugh at it, effectively silencing the adult voice. Such art eschews subtlety, allusion and implication, and in the place of imagined ideals in gilded frames it offers real junk in quotation marks.[xxi]

This “kitschophobic” art belligerently shuns the traditional Western preoccupation with beauty—substituting for it a cult of sarcasm, nihilism and ugliness (yet always within a politically correct framework). To be an “authentic” creation, postmodern art must “challenge,” and preferably be offensive, to standard taste. If this requires producing a dead shark in formaldehyde or a crucifix in urine, then so be it. These deliberately ugly and offensive productions, wittingly or unwittingly, provoke among their audiences a disconnection from the traditional reinforcers of ethnocentrism and group cohesion, and engender what Frankfurt School intellectual Georg Lukacs called “a culture of pessimism” reflecting a world “abandoned by God.”

Israel Shamir aptly summarized the process of degeneration that has occurred within Western art over the last 70 years when he noted that: “In the beginning, these were works of some dubious value like the ‘abstract paintings’ of Jackson Pollock. Eventually we came to rotten swine, corrugated iron, and Armani suitsArt was destroyed.” An art that emerged in response to the alienation of Jewish artists and intellectuals in mid-twentieth century America ushered in an art of cultural alienation for everyone. This debasement of the West’s glorious cultural inheritance has sapped the cultural confidence of White people, and contributed to making Western societies, in the eyes of their increasingly atomized populations, increasingly “unlovable” and not worth defending.

[i] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 211.

[ii] Ibid., 212.

[iii] Erika Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 124.

[iv] Ibid., 130-1.

[v] Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art, 128.

[vi] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 212.

[vii] Kevin MacDonald, ‘Review of Thomas Wheatland’s ‘The Frankfurt School in Exile’ Part II’, Occidental Observer, 2009:

[viii] Cantor, The Sacred Chain, 303.

[ix] Ibid., 211.

[x] Ibid., 213.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] MacDonald, Review of Thomas Wheatland’s “The Frankfurt School in Exile.”

[xiii] Clement Greenberg,

[xiv] Paul Barlow, In: Key Writers on Art: The Twentieth Century, Ed. By Chris Murray (London: Routledge, 2003), 152.

[xv] Ibid., 150.

[xvi] Roger Scruton, Culture Counts — Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged (New York: Encounter Books, 2007), 70.

[xvii] Ibid., 73.

[xviii] Barlow, Key Writers on Art, 150-1.

[xix] A. Everitt, “Abstract Expressionism” In: Modern Art — Impressionism to Post-Modernism, Ed. By David Britt (London: Thames and Hudson, 1974), 256.

[xx] Barlow, Key Writers on Art, 151.

[xxi][xxi] Roger Scruton, Modern Culture (London: Continuum, 2000), 93.

36 replies
    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      This site’s contributors, in particular Brenton Sanderson, have already been there and done that. Search the archives. Think of it as the White thing to do.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Starting with Schoenberg who professed to believe that every note on the keyboard possessed equal value.

  1. 9593
    9593 says:

    What about Pablo Picasso? Dementia? Or the discovery that one can paint more quickly and make more money if the mob can be convinced that trash is art? Whatever the fawning critics say, I declare that “Guernica” is a left-over painting from his bull fight period.

    There is nothing in that hideous mess to suggest bombs, airplanes, or a ruined cityscape. But businessmen, the Babbitts, will hang such trash in their homes, not recognizing that they are being fooled by people who really don’t like them.

    Later, we can discuss celebrity architects.

  2. Pierre Simon
    Pierre Simon says:

    I’m thoroughly disgusted with jews. Is there anything they do right besides destroying our culture. This evil is so much part of their nature, they just can’t help themselves. And then they wonder why people don’t like them in general.

  3. ia
    ia says:

    Please, for the love of God, avoid writing about images and gestures, modern or otherwise. You are out of your element. Your talents lie elsewhere, people. Your sensibilities are not geared towards the subliminal, irrational and subjective aspects involved with vision, or the arts in general. Merciful heaven, for your own good, cut it out already. It’s like watching movie stars spouting politics or physics.

    I mean you might as well demand Eskimos, Mongolians or Martians watch the Super Bowl. These people – artsy-fartsy types and their critics, dealers and patrons – think differently than you do. So what? Make your own images and gestures. Develop your own critics, galleries and multi-billionaire patrons.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      01 For the love of exactly whose God are you commanding us to stop: ” already ” ?

      02 What gives specifically you the primitively arrogated right to pontificate, that all of us are out of our element: especially since we are mercifully not acquainted ?

      03 ” Merciful heaven [again], for your own good, cut it out ‘already’ ! “: or what ? Are we delaying the erection of the Third Temple ?

      04 Your problem indeed seems to lie with our too great ” subliminal ” perceptions – since they are incessantly and overtly force-fed to us by their very protagonists: employing their, not our, demonstrable
      ” irrationality ” in their full-spectrum pursuit of their eternal anti-goy/Christian/Western program. If nothing else, we know what your
      ” subjective ” ” visions ” are.

      05 Pat your ” artsy-fartsy ” harmless people on the head as they childishly skip by, with never a vengeful intention in their coiffured, silly little heads.

      06 Censor your own opinion [ and ours ] of the Communist Diego Rivera, the chauvinistic Jew and of one of his five wives, the card-carrying Communist Frida Kahlo, who, though married, had a not so secret sexual liaison with Trotsky; double her age, while he stayed with them in their Blue House in Mexico City, before moving to his fortified compound where he had an icepick driven into the back of his skull by a Stalin agent: making him a better person.
      That staunchly Communist couple which owned several houses, like any self-respecting left-winger: even of late and not so far away.

      07 Diego, who created the frescoes at the Rockefeller Center, in breach of the design contract he signed with R’s authorized general contractor who consequently cancelled the contract, which did not prevent Diego from provocatively adding Lenin’s head. Diego then mounted a demonstration of 200 commiserating art-expert participants in support of the victimized Jew, who lost most of his commission.

      08 Rather than quitting here, enlighten us why Ford, of all informed people, commissioned this typically overweight, pear-shaped Diego
      to create similar frescos on his premises, in addition to a great many more in Detroit.

      09 Frida’s father, according to her own account, was Carl Wilhelm Kahlo, of Pforzheim [ Zundel’s home ], son of a Hungarian-Jewish immigrant. The epitome of the Hungarian dragoon defending Vienna against the Ottomans. Her mother, a Calderon, of mixed Spanish converso and Mexican Indian blood. Hence her exceptional complexion and features.

      It’s late and I am beginning to stray: but I hope you got my point. I and hopefully all others here certainly got yours ” already “.

      PS My admiration for Diego is immeasurably increased by the fact that, while at the Montmartre, he chummed with every wartime German’s special swine: Ilya Ehrenburg; this ” talented ‘poet’ and
      ‘author’ “, incrementally whitewashed by the media.

      • ia
        ia says:

        I think you are in denial mode. Conservative types who dabble in the arts really are producing kitsch, defined by Roger Scruton:

        “Faith exalts the human heart, by removing it from the market-place, making it sacred and unexchangeable. Under the jurisdiction of religion our deeper feelings are sacralized, so as to become raw material for the ethical life: the life lived in judgment. When faith declines, however, the sacred is unprotected from marauders; the heart can be captured and put on sale. When this happens the human heart become kitsch.”

        How many conservatives believe this?

        How many “conservatives” destroyed beautiful buildings that exemplified traditional values and craft in order to make a quick buck putting up tract homes?

        How many “conservatives” past the age of, say 21, routinely listen to rock and roll, music that was originally supposed to be for kids?

        Speaking of music vs. visual art. How many “conservatives” who want visual artists to produce classical images only, never listen to classical music?

        How many “conservatives” think Harry Potter is great art?

        I could go on but I’ll leave it at that.

        It’s been my experience that “conservatives”, when it comes to musical or visual art, are not capable or are unwilling to think in a complex way. They prefer simple and childish art, or kitsch. Art, to them, is mere decoration or entertainment rather than the organization of spiritual, material, and intellectual values into an image, sound or gesture.

        And because of this deficiency they are unable to attack modern art forcefully.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          I readily concede, that Hitler’s Entartete Kunst should have been succeeded by something better than the first mounted Gay Pride Parade of soldierly types with garlands on their heads and flowing nightgowns; unsuccessfully negated by Roman banners.

          I don’t comprehend your quoting the conservative Scruton, since you denigrate all know-nothing conservatives.

          In any case, these articles were about the weaponization of art, merely picking on this or that particular ” useful idiot “.

          To answer your question about how many conservatives believe this [ Scruton’s sentiments ]: I think the vast majority. Especially the segment on ” the sacred [ culture, not religion alone ] is unprotected from MARAUDERS “.

          [ I assume, that when Scruton speaks of ” captured hearts that are sold “, he is not referring to the 14 IDF members, headed by a General, who did exactly that with Palestinian POW’s hearts: quite without Mengele’s input ].

          We are not going to see eye to eye on much: so let’s leave it at that.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          “Conservative types who dabble in the arts really are producing kitsch.”

          Since you mention “the arts,” let’s consider some notably conservative writers:

          Honore de Balzac, Gustave Flaubert, Evelyn Waugh, H.H. Munro (“Saki”), Ezra Pound, and Fyodor M. Dostoevsky.

          Since they have not produced anything that could even remotely be described as “kitsch,” you have done nothing except reveal your own ignorance.

          Incidentally, the writer you chose to back up your condemnation of conservatives — Roger Scruton — is himself a conservative! LOL

          You also need to understand that TOO is not a “conservative” website.

          It is concerned with Jewish subversion of western European (White) culture and society.

          Jews dominate both the Left and the Right in the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and (via American influence) western Europe.

          So there is no reason for people here to support the Right or the Left as they exist today.

          • ia
            ia says:

            “So there is no reason for people here to support the Right or the Left as they exist today.”

            Certainly agree with that. My point was conserving European culture or at least a memory of it. Scruton, to my mind, wanted to do this.

            According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission “how to feel” passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and “moving with them” which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual’s path to membership in the “original experience of the community”.

          • D. Rocket
            D. Rocket says:

            Fyodor M. Dostoevsky was a christian socialist. In those days it was very radical and he spent 10 years in the gulag because of reading a socialist poem or the like to friends whom were mostly socialist. In gulag he became more christian. But calling him a conservative would be simply wrong. And frankly doing so has very little to do with reality but moreso has political motives in defending and pushing a certain ideology, in this case conservatism, than the actual ideas of artists in practise.

            Is there references (consciously or unconsciously) to the bible, first and second testament yes of course, is there an epic feel that is also there in Snorres Tales of the Kings shure. Is there a similar feel in shakespears work and some parts of the Edda, shure.

            But it is not in it’s essence political art. It is art that is above politics of the day. But shurely some of it’s edge may have been affected by the troubling times in which it was made and the conflicts and threats that existed (from ideology and the like).

            It also is weird that ethno centrics tend to push conservatism. Maybe because the right has taken on harder controll of borders in many countries and the like. And the feminism, hbqt, marxism and identity politics of the left has in many ways overtaken the left leaning parties, probably partly as a way for these parties to find new woters when traditional workers have gotten better lives and possibilities and other factors such.

            I certainly think kapitalism or market-ism can be combined with some anarchistic ideas and socialist ideas. The problem with socialism is the stealing nature of many people in the state (often due to etchnical and cultural aspects suchthat many higher state employees and politicians being largely or part gypsies or tatas, who consider whites in general to be the enemy and are often inbred through incest and sexually abused and the like). So a smaller state run effectively with lotsa controll working with soime socialist means to encourage anarchistic possibilities i.e. community innovation and art centers built by the state to allow people to organize by free will in order to be able to produce NEW EXITING things. Hence a more ethnocentric politics does not have to be “conservative” it can be radical. But it must work for low taxes and deregulation and make it easy to run and start companies. Socialism has a tendency to lead to high taxes and regulation that is anti business hence leads to stagnation and only a few people who can make it mainly due to old money larger scales and a way of planning their businesses that is in effect tax planning.

            The pioneering spirit of the people founding the USA is certainly an inspiration.

            Also both Dostojevskiy and Shakespeare were most liekly part Nordic. Shakespeare used many nordic in origin words and he wrote alot about the nordic region. Many britts have nordic geritage due to invasions and trade and the like. The same with Russia. There first russian tsar was nordic and there is a document from the 1200’s that states that Russia was founded by wikings and I have heard that many of the geniouses were from the families that moved to then Ukraine from the nordic region and then there was some Norwegian influence on region for varios reasons and so on.

            Now, finns are apparently 30 mongolian on averege and I heard 7 % of norwegians are part mongolian. American indians are part mongol I heard also and they did a thing now in the USA and saw that 4 % of people that thought they were 100 % white were part african, of people that did gene tests for a particular country. So we certainly live in a multiracial multietchnical world despite these presence of obviously different etchnical groups such as africans and the like…

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Fyodor M. Dostoevsky was not a socialist of any kind. He railed against socialism in his “Notes from the Underground.”

            Are you using an English translator?

            What is your nationality?

        • internet tough guy
          internet tough guy says:

          This sounds a lot like “you’re a dumb goy and you’re too stupid to understand Jewish brilliance”.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            And as I said, Jews control the modern art scene and have done so for at least fifty years.

            Some feminist smearing herself with her own menstrual fluid is now considered “art.”

  4. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Excellent work as a parasite, to corrupt art in the West. It would be nice to write about the great Jewish influence in current anti-white recalcitrant feminism.

  5. Eric
    Eric says:

    I had a roommate who majored in art history in college. He was the proud owner of an original piece by Rauschenberg, which was a flattened card board box. He hung it on the wall in our living room.

    A neighbor, who was from Ecuador, came over and looked at it. When he was told that it was considered a valuable piece of art, he said, “No wonder there are so many psychiatrists in America!”

  6. Cat
    Cat says:

    Excellent deconstruction. Thank you!

    The influences on our culture by an unempathetic, mendacious, avaricious lot have subtly yet inexorably insinuated into the fabric of our lives as if this were a natural progression.

    The ultimate parasitic disease is mirroring the parasite. Across dimensions, the negative imprint of judaicization degenerates us as a society. 
    * In art and intellectual life, we too become alienated.
    * In capitalism, we too become vulture capitalists.
    * In media, we too become censorious.
    * In identity politics, we too seek victimhood. 
    * In foreign affairs, we too become predatory. 
    (The neocon strategy of “pre-emptive strike” is simply an expression of the Jewish paranoia and fear Gilad Atzmon calls Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder — PreTSD.)

    I appreciate greatly all the edifying articles by TOO writers in enumerating across many dimensions the totalizing ruination wrought by the virus of judaicization.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “. . .as if this were a natural progression. . .”

      Finest words I’ve seen on this site.

      Stuff happens, only tinfoil hat folks think that it’s deliberate.

  7. Anthony Kimball
    Anthony Kimball says:

    These ((artists)) have been a cancer on American culture since the end of WW2. They and the worthless products of their imaginations need to be consigned to the refuse pile of history.

  8. Tom Sunic, PhD
    Tom Sunic, PhD says:

    Informative piece. Other than being good as musicians and high quality linguists the Jews never hide that they have no big figures in plastic and figurative arts. No such Jewish figure of the Praxiteles or Michelangelo caliber. There are only few intriguing Jewish painters — like Modigliani for instance. There is literary a ton of books and essays in German on “figurative Germanic mind vs. Jewish abstract and calculable mind,” published well before 1933 in Germany. Check also TOO,

  9. Tom
    Tom says:

    Splendid article(s)! But what it lays bare to me is just how puerile and childishly paranoid the thinking of those supposedly artistic and cultural supermen was in trying, and in eventually succeeding however, to destroy western civilization. They were basically akin to untalented, nerdy, and insecure adolescents who try to disparage typical wholesome student associations and behaviors simply because they don’t “fit in”. One has to look at them all as a bunch of crybaby misfits. Their whole movement was simply about this and nothing else despite their awful and grandiloquent bullshit.

  10. mark green
    mark green says:

    Thank you, Brenton Sanderson, for your deeply penetrating examination of the subversive, ethnic-based coterie that invented and elevated abstract art in the 20th century.

    Three decades ago,Tom Wolf wrote a short and funny book (‘The Painted Word’) on this same subject and Wolf made a (brief) reference to the overriding Jewish element which fabricated and sustained this unlikely trend in visual arts. Wolf even tossed in the word ‘goyish’ in describing the alienation (and loathing) felt by this movement’s key artists and architects.

    Wolf however never dissected in any detail the explosive role played by Jewish networks, Jewish identity and Jewish alienation within this revolutionary schism–one that cloaked itself in radical, inscrutable and unlovely imagery.

    Wolf did however note more than once that ‘modern art’ was designed to “shock the middle class”. It was an expression of class (and ethnic) warfare. The battle continues.

    Sanderson has given us an illuminating and well-researched article. If not for Jewish censors and gatekeepers, this three-part essay could and should be required reading at colleges everywhere. No student of art or contemporary history can fathom the trajectory of Western culture without understanding the insidious role played by ‘alienated’ (and unified) Jews.

    The story behind it is arresting, astounding and shocking.

  11. JRM
    JRM says:

    I’ve already responded to this series back in Part 2. But I feel I must mention a couple more factors. By the way, I do think this final installment brought some additional nuance to the discussion that was much needed.

    The book “The Cultural Cold War” reveals that Abstract Expressionism was funded and promoted by the CIA to help win a battle of cultural prestige with the Soviet Union. This aspect seems pretty crucial to an in-depth look at the social implications of abstract art. So I’ll just point this out and move on.

    Also, though I’ve touched on this before, I must reiterate that dealing with the topic of art entails dealing with commodification. Commodification alone is also not a simple topic. A single painting breaking a certain price ceiling will tend to prompt a re-evaluation (literally and figuratively) of the larger body of work from an artist or movement.

    In the other direction, multiplication of an image can tend to devalue it; hence the standard art market procedure of “limited editions”.

    Finally, the relationship between art movements and elite (aka “educated and rich”) culture has to be considered. Let me give an example: In the late-19th century, the very wealthy began acquiring art collections. Some collected living artists of the European Salons and Academies. Artists like Gerome, Bouguereau, and other neo-classicists. When these artists sometimes fell out of favor, the wealthy patrons were subject to embarrassment.

    Many thus went into collecting “Old Masters”; and Jews were prominent in advising these incredibly rich folks about what was authentic, what was “important”, and what would likely be even more valuable in the future. The Jew Bernard Berenson grew rich preying on the relative ignorance and insecurity of wealthy and prominent goys.

    Not all Jews could play on his level, and reasonably believable Old Masters were a finite lot, so many began to promote new artists and movements, almost like minting new money when it worked, but not too profitable when it didn’t.

    Now, a painting does not really rise or fall in true worth no matter what price tag is on it; and I believe the artwork itself can be discussed completely without reference to its monetary value. But we can’t talk about art in society without taking such things into consideration. Not if we wish to be thorough.

    When the perfectly fine works of artists like John Everett Millais, a master of realism, start showing up in advertisements, calendars and postcards, the art, which, being realist is easily comprehended by the masses, started to lose snob value. This is one of the crises that realist art experienced in the early 20th c.

    The rich didn’t want to be seen buying the originals of works that were displayed in humble dwellings- eventually that kind of thing could tend to make the elite seem like mere regular citizens.

    So non-representational art was perfect to fill the opening vacuum. Not only were the buyers assured of their tremendous foresight in acquiring such “misunderstood” work, but they didn’t have to worry about sharing their tastes with the peasants.

    Again, all this can be put aside if we just want to focus on the art, but any attempt to educate about social acceptance or resistance to art movements must take cognizance of such ideas. Class, context, and commodification. Sounds pretty Jewish, but there are real dynamics at work behind the nomenclature.

  12. D. Rocket
    D. Rocket says:

    The argument here seems to be dual, firstly it seems to attempt to establish modern art as something done mainly by jews and secondly desbribes the sucess of some of these artists as the effect of jewish ethno centrism.

    This is similar to Hitlers views I suppose. But apparently Hitler was part jewish or part Berb.

    This may come from the sucess of jewish artists lika Kandinsky who was in fact good, great really.

    But modern art was not founded or invented by jews but mostly spaniards and it was somewhat inspired by more modern art done by french. It was also heavily influenced by african art, which was more abstract. I’m thinking here of Picasso, Matisse and the like.

    Many jews did art that was not as modern abstract or expressionistic, it just wasn’t picked up by the large institutions and the journalists/critics or whatever. And many of the people there seem to either jews who are more semitic (i.e. at larger scale mixed with arabs) or part gypsy/tatas. Jews are a somewhat multietchnical groups due to conversions trade and the like. I assume there are whiter in skin colour jews, white jews who ae a bit more yellow toned (lika whiter japanese folks) and more brown jews.

    Regardless I see them as part of the western world.

    That being said, the holocaust have made many of them very anti against the rest of the whites and the like and so on.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Hitler was not “part Jewish.”

      That’s a lie that has been put out there by Jews like Christopher Jon Bjerknes, who want to discredit Hitler in the eyes of his admirers.

      I don’t know what you mean by “part Berb,” but I’m confident that Hitler wasn’t that either.

      The Holocaust is a myth.

      Jews were put in work camps, and some of them died from typhus at the end of the war because of heavy allied bombing — 100,000 at most.

      The Jewish Holocaust narrative is a preposterous lie.

      • D. Rocket
        D. Rocket says:

        They did a DNA test on Hitlers relative (child of his sister or brother). The scientists who did the test were not jewish and they did it from a napkin the person used when meeting him. They also then found many of Hitlers relatives in Austria, most whom were mediocre or not successful.

        The DNA test showed Hitler had genetics that are present in 20 to 50 % of jews or the like and berbs.

        I don’t think jews want Hitler do have been partly jewish do you? In what way would thet serve their interests?

        Hitlers usage of exotic symbols and words such as the word Aryan and sun symbols mainly used in India may also indicate that he was multiracial.

        Regarding the Holocaust. I read up on both holocaust denial and books such as Gitta Serenys thorough interview book with Franz Stangl (who looks part tata/gypsy), who was a leader of a holocaust prison murder institution. I recommend this book it is very on point and certainly makes it clear to me that the holocaust did take place. But can one really be sure about anything in history…

        Hitler was at war with the jews he thought. Killing alot of people is not hard. The nazis killed 20 million russians. 8 million germans died. He needed money for the war….

        I think slavery was planned to move african genetics to a largely white country. And to make a buck. I think some people who wanted a world war 2 knew Hitler would kill jews in something like the holocaust.

        These folks were probably racially mixed part african (part white levians egypt who were part african), part gypsy and part arab, iranian, assain and the like and were terrified by the race science done in scandinavian countries, that it would find out about their kind and the amount of racially mixed people in the west.

        Hence by all attention towards jews they firstly got attention away from their kind secondly got rid of competition and thirdly created extreme white guilt by the holocaust creating this.

        This could then be used to move arab and african and mongol and so on genetics to whiter countries en masse. Which was to their liking suppose them being racially mixed.

        Nacis collaborated with arabs arab oil money to create an alliance between EU and arab institutions who wanted of course an arab invasion of europe to steal superior genetics have racemixing and get our knowledge and so on. It was allways thier goal. Partly because arabs tend to be anti jewish nazis linked up with them I heard…

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          Anyone else want to deal with this mess?

          Mm, didn’t think so. No DNA test was done on any Hitler relative.

          I’ve already explained why Jews would want Hitler to be perceived as Jewish or partly Jewish by his admirers.

          The EU did not exist when the Nazis were in power.

          I could go on, but I see no point in doing so.

          • D Rocket
            D Rocket says:

            Just because my thinking is may I say more advanced, more abstraction and I know more about the world there is no use in calling what I write a mess. I find that impolite. Let’s keep a nice tone here.

            Regarding Hitler and DNA tests, here are some sources found very quickly using a search engine:




            He screamed about the uncoscious of germans wanted a despote/ dictator leader in his speaches. The unconscious was discovered by Freud who was pretty jewish.

            Berbs are a northafrican tribe pretty white for the region they say they are white but often mixed with arabs and blacks I suppose. Reside mainly in Marocko Algeria and the like and they invaded Spain:


            The nazis escaped ww2 with tons of money from murders, banks, looting and so on (properties of jews and so on, jews also had to pay ransom to leave germany and austria before the war they were held hostage). It was moved and heavily invested in many different things. Many nazis just like Nietsche disliked the judeo christian tradition and joined forces with arabs AFTER the war when the EU existed:



            Many nazis escaped through syria also. The alawite syrian religious leader mufti or whatever went to berlin to meet Hitler. Maybe they are whiteish berbs or whites who moved down there and mixed with arabs….

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Your links:

            1) to an article written by Jennie Cohen (Jewish) for The History Channel (Jewish-owned).

            2) to an article in The Telegraph, owned by Barclay’s Bank, which purchased what was left of Lehman Brothers (Jewish)

            3) to The Daily Mail (no link to any article).

            4) to Wikipedia — which is constantly monitored and edited by Jews.

            Jews have run Britain and the United States for well over 100 years. Both countries fought Hitler. No surprise, then, that the British and American mainstream media — Jewish or not — would make up preposterous nonsense about Hitler. Such as “finding 34 relatives” of his in 2010 and getting saliva samples from them to test their DNA. Hitler had zero close relatives in 2010. Most of his siblings died during their childhood. He had no children that we know of. A fifth cousin’s great grandchild can hardly be called a close enough relative to tell us anything about Hitler’s ancestry.

            “He screamed about the unconscious of germans wanted a despote/ dictator leader in his speeches. The unconscious was discovered by Freud who was pretty Jewish.”

            Hitler didn’t scream about the unconscious of Germans. And so what if the so-called unconscious was “discovered” by “Freud who was partly Jewish”?

            What is your point?

            Nietzsche was not a Nazi. There was no Nazism when Nietzsche was alive.

            The Grand Mufti who was on friendly terms with Hitler was not an Alawite Syrian. He was a Palestinian.

            You come up with one factually incorrect statement after another: Dostoevsky being a “socialist.” Nietzsche being a “Nazi.” The Grand Mufti being an “Alawite.”

            You have a right to say whatever you want.

            And I have the right to say your comments are a big waste of everyone’s time.

  13. D. Rocket
    D. Rocket says:

    I just checked the daily mail link it certainly leads to an article a very good one indeed.

    A lot of people who think they are all white are racially mixed, it would not be strange if this was the case with pedophile Hitler (just watch how he cuddles and hugs and the like with small boys all the time) whos sisters and brothers probably died due to inbreeding.

    You may check the references in the wikipedia article yourself including the literature, if you think jews made up part of the content or whatever.

    I did not state that Nietsche was a nazi, but that both Nietsche and the nazis dissliked the judeo christian tradition. But my wording could have been more clearer supposedly anyways.

    Well I happened to watch a ww2 documentary and Hitler did give a speech where he certainly screamed and the subject and his wording was exactly that what I wrote regarding the subconscious.

    I heard from arabs themselves that a syrian leader visited Hitler. Certainly many nazis escaped to Syria and through there. Many nazi related capitalists bribed the media to produce propaganda pieces with lies about how highly educated all the syrian refugees were and how great they were in Europe. This was NOT in jewish owned media but other news papers and the like. There were no such articles regarding other immigrant/invader groups such as iranians who tend to kinda ambitious for sandniggers / brown folks.

    I’m shure Dostoyevsky changed his views in politics during his life. He became more christian after spending 10 years in the gulags for reading a socialist poem at a secret socialist meeting.

    But I appreciate him for his art and did not bother to read up about his changing views during his lifetime. After all he wasn’t a politician.

    Regarding the aforementioned DNA tests, I think one can trace and see where the DNA comes from, so that one can see if it came from Hitlers mother and so on, but I’m no expert on the subject.

    Hitler is the worst thing ever that happened to ethnocentric people and the white race. Just a fact. He was short. Look at him. What a freak. He is the main reason that the west accepted a total invasion of very different DNA types, races or whatever.

    The immense guilt caused by his actions are what’s driving the decline of the west alongside the racemixed nature of political leaders journalists and the like. Jews are in many ways a tool for racemixed peoples agenda and their high IQ on the averege makes them very useful as such.

    I certainly think you are wasting peoples time, due to a lack of understanding of more complex issues such as the effect of historic facts on history that people create event to push history in certain directions and the effect of the immense racemixing and racemixed people everywhere, from like hundreds and thousands of years.

    Finns are like 30 % mongolian. Northern sweden is mixed with finns and sapmi alot hence mongolian. About 4 % of white looking americans who think they are white are part african. 10 % of spaniards are part arab. The negro genetics are spreading in Europe from southern Europe, southern Italy and Portugal mainly. There are people in the UK who are part african who had no idea. there are villages in the UK founded by northafrican soldiers in the roman army and so on.

    Tons of people know they are racially mixed. They know most whites in their right mind don’t want to mix with people who are part arab, african, mongolian or whatever so they push for the soread of their genetics in the hiding using such sceams as has been mentioned. If the effect of this is beyond what you can comprehend, well don’t let me stop you from clinging to your simplified ideas.

    A large hidden group in the west are socalled tatas or tattare a group from India, known for lying deceiving and knifing and stealing for the most. Strindberg wrote the book Tschandala regarding his struggle with a member of this racially mixed group. The gypsies are of the lowest cast, tatas, tattare were from several casts and originate in India and Pakistan. People think they lost a war and hence moved to Europe. I read a statement by a member of this group ststaing they were atleast 150 million people in the western world making the a substantial part of the western population as a whole.

    In the Documents of The Elders of Zion it is statated that these socalled elders want’s everyone to obey the hindu god Vishnu or whatever. Hence they were part east indian part gypsy probably also heavily arab, hence not real jews.

    Also look at the first testament of the illuminati, it is written by “traveller of light”. As you may know traveller is what gypsies call their group, hence he is most likely heavily gypsy. Illuminati was founded by a person who stated he was related to persian kings. He said later he had no proof of it and orientalism was partially trendy then. Anyways the pyramid symbol. Most white looking folks in Egypt were white levian populations who evetually became mixed with blacks (8% black genetests). The Pharaohs were mostly white europeans.

    Then we have the focus on assasins and gypsies in the illuminati timeline, which you can find easily. And we then have the statement in the first testament of the illuminati that sais something like: “If there was only one person on planet earth would he be a beggar or a king, his choice”. Hence written by someone with beggars in their family a common occupation by gypsies, hence most likely gypsy. Here we also can see something of a longing to killing of everyone who isn’t part gypsy so that only part gypsies survive. The racism and dissliking of the mentioned group and the effect of the amount of incest within the group may be factors here.

    Oh and let’s not forget the focus on travellers in the snake sect a.k.a. the freemasons. They greet each other with: “are you also a travelling man”. Could mean gypsy.

    So, you see, it’s more complex than jews or whatever you focus on…

Comments are closed.