A Response to Francis M. Naumann
My attention was recently drawn to a critical review of two of the essays that appear in my book Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (which, probably not coincidentally, was recently banned by Amazon). This review was penned by art writer and dealer Francis M. Naumann in the online and print journal The Brooklyn Rail. This website and publication claim to “provide an independent forum for arts, culture, and politics throughout New York City and far beyond.” The ideological tenor of The Brooklyn Rail is captured in the banner across the top of the website’s homepage which declares “Black Lives Matter. We stand in solidarity with those affected by generations of structural violence.” Readers will be shocked to learn that individuals with common Jewish names feature very prominently among the contributors to this journal.
Naumann, who is not Jewish, offers a review replete with ad hominem and straw man arguments, and nit-picking, inconsequential argumentation. Unable to debunk the central thesis of either essay, he resorts to ascribing malign motives and psychological imbalances to myself and Professor MacDonald. In his review, Naumann deploys the standard rhetorical devices arrayed against those critical of Jewish influence, or who just stand up for White interests: the tendentious terms “white supremacist” and “conspiracy” featuring prominently. He claims Kevin MacDonald is “accurately described” in his Wikipedia entry as “an American anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist” and “white supremacist.” Naumann, who doubtless has never actually read any of MacDonald’s academic work, claims this description is validated by MacDonald’s simple statement of fact in his foreword to Battle Lines that: “We simply can’t avoid discussing the Jews. Honest discussions of Jewish influence are absolutely necessary if White people are going to have a future.”
Naumann’s apparent a priori assumption is that Jewish influence on Western societies and culture is necessarily benevolent, and that, consequently, any criticism of this influence is inherently invalid and reflects negatively on the psychological health of the critic (hence the title of his review, “Pure Meshuggah: Anti-Semitism Invades Art History” with “Meshuggah” being the Yiddish word for crazy). This kind of illogic and intellectual dishonesty spills over into his discussion of my work.
Francis M. Naumann
In my essay entitled “Tristan Tzara and the Jewish Roots of Dada,” I argue that the Jewish origins and identities of prominent figures in the Dada movement (c. 1916–1924), and particularly of its founder, Tristan Tzara (born Samuel Rosenstock), were critical in shaping its intellectual tenor as a movement arrayed against every cultural tradition of the European past, including rationality itself. I describe Dada’s destructive influence in feeding into the conceptual art that has blighted Western art since the 1960s. I also note the conceptual parallels between Dada and the deconstruction of the Jewish poststructuralist intellectual Jacques Derrida. Both attempted to foster subjective individualism to disconnect Europeans from their familial, religious and ethnic bonds—reducing the salience of Jews as an outgroup and, consequently, the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Western societies.
Offering no real counter-arguments (or critical analysis of my sources), Naumann summarily dismisses this as a “conspiracy theory,” claiming that “Sanderson casts aside logic and reasoning in order to convince us that what he is saying is true.” While a prominent Israeli art historian admitted my essay “is well written and excellently researched” and from an “academic research viewpoint it is without reproach,” Naumann eschews any pretensions to objective analysis and resorts to amateur psychoanalysis. He proposes that my thesis reflects “Sanderson’s fear of the intellectual achievement of these Jewish writers; for like Hitler before him, the exceptional intelligence and success of so many Jews in all professions clearly terrifies him and threatens to undermine his painfully flawed illusion of white supremacy.” Naumann here unintentionally confesses to an ideologically-problematic (for him) strain of race realism: accepting that certain ethnic groups possess “exceptional intelligence” and thus achieve more than others. He is, however, unable to cite a single sentence from Battle Lines that demonstrates my alleged belief in “white supremacy.”
Appalled that anyone would draw negative conclusions about the influence of Dada, which he calls “a playful movement,” or of the Jews who dominated the movement, Naumann insists that “The revolutionary spirit that fueled Dada and abstract art has continued to affect the course of contemporary art, to the good fortune of all reasonable and sentient people.” In addition to being neither reasonable nor sentient, this author is also, according to Naumann, a contaminant. He sanctimoniously claims to never have “imagined that racist politics and white supremacist viewpoints could contaminate my profession.” His self-righteous indignation at the very existence of my work is compounded, moreover, by the fact that Battle Lines had “been awarded five stars from Amazon’s customer reviews.” Naumann sees my work as a “threat to civility and justice” that, left unchallenged, will “grow and fester like an unattended wound. And if we have learned anything from history, that is too dangerous a course of action to follow.”
While leaving the actual thesis of my Dada essay unchallenged, Naumann constructs a straw man from a passing reference I make to Lenin. I note that “living across the street from the Cabaret Voltaire [a Dadaist venue] in Zurich [in 1916] were Lenin, Karl Radek and Gregory Zinoviev who were preparing for the Bolshevik Revolution.” Naumann cavils at the supposed geographical imprecision of this statement (despite its ubiquity in the literature), and falsely claims my objective here is “to implicate Dadaists as Communists whose influence was felt in Russia, and later in Western Europe and America.” I never claim Dadaists were important political actors in the interwar period, but I do stress their destructive artistic and intellectual legacy. That Tzara and the other leading Dadaists were communists or radical leftists is, however, incontrovertible, and is illustrated by their own actions and statements (which are cited at length in my essay). Even the Wikipedia entry for “Dada” states plainly that the Dadaists “maintained political affinities with radical left-wing and far-left politics.”
Tzara joined the French Communist Party and interpreted both Dada and Surrealism as revolutionary currents, and presented them as such to the public.[1] The leading Dadaists in Germany were self-declared communists: Richard Huelsenbeck and Raoul Hausmann affirmed that Dada “is German Bolshevism”[2] and that “Dadaism demands: the international revolutionary union of all creative and intellectual men and women on the basis of radical Communism.”[3] Robert Short notes that, among the German Dadaists, were those for whom: “Dada was a political weapon and those for whom communism was a Dadaistical weapon.”[4]
Dada leader Tristan Tzara
Naumann insists it is “now well known” in the literature on Dada that “Lenin was a frequent visitor to the Cabaret Voltaire, where he went to see if what was going on there could contribute to his political aspirations.” Actually, this notion is widely disputed in the literature. Huelsenbeck stated that Lenin once visited the Café Voltaire, and Marcel Janko later made a similar claim. The veracity of these accounts is, however, strongly doubted. Jones, for example, questions “the wistful reminiscing on Richard Huelsenbeck’s part to suggest that Lenin actually visited the Cabaret Voltaire; similarly, Marcel Janko’s distant and apocryphal retrospection of the cabaret room, thick with smoke, ‘where some sudden apparition would loom up every now and then, like the impressive Mongol features of Lenin.’”[5] Rappaport is similarly unconvinced, wondering if “the subversive nature of Dada as performance” was enough to arouse “Lenin’s curiosity enough to prompt him to cross the road and take a look.”[6] The official website of the city of Zurich is similarly skeptical, noting: “Whether Lenin visited the Cabaret Voltaire, the birthplace of Dadaism, is still unknown but has fueled speculation as to whether Lenin was a secret Dadaist.”
Naumann falsely alleges that I claim that Lenin influenced Dada and abstract art, and, correcting a point I don’t make, declares: “But in reality, Lenin had no effect whatsoever on Dada or abstract art. In fact, he and the other Bolsheviks were against abstract art, since its emphasis on individualism was diametrically opposed to Communist ideals.” The first statement is correct, but things are more complicated than Naumann’s second point would suggest. The new Soviet state led by Lenin that emerged after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 initially adopted a policy in favor of radical experimentation. As Christine Lindey notes:
Initially, most avant-garde artists welcomed the revolution because Lenin’s idea of a political avant-garde as an agent for social change legitimised their own calls for radical action to combat conservative attitudes to art and society. For Marxists like [the Russian painter Vladimir] Tatlin, here was an opportunity to make real and meaningful change. … Others, like Kandinsky, were not sympathetic to Bolshevik politics, but welcomed the artistic freedom which it brought, while aesthetically or/and politically conservative artists feared a loss of private patronage and critical status. Contrary to western propaganda, no artist was sent to the salt mines: Lenin and Lunacharsky, (Commissar of Enlightenment 1917–1929) pursued a pluralist arts policy.
With Stalin’s rise in power the avant-garde artists who flourished under Lenin were silenced. All avant-garde movements were forced out of the Soviet Union (or forced underground) until Stalin’s death in 1953. Locke observes that “Stalin squashed the entire evolution of avant-garde ingenuity in Russia and replaced it with his own brand of art, Soviet Realism.”
Naumann quibbles at the supposed chronological imprecision of my assertion that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf as Dada peaked in Paris. Hitler’s comments on Dada were written (or at least dictated to Rudolf Hess) in 1923 and Paris Dada was officially ended in 1924. Naumann insists that “Hitler knew virtually nothing about Dada, which he lumped together with Cubism and called an ‘artistic aberration.’” I make no assessment of Hitler’s knowledge of the movement in the essay besides quoting his brief statements about it in Mein Kampf. Naumann does make a single valid (though inconsequential) criticism: the American art collector Walter Arensberg is incorrectly identified as Jewish. This is something I will amend in future editions of Battle Lines.
In my essay I draw parallels between the ideas underpinning Dada and those of poststructuralist Jewish intellectual and founder of deconstruction, Jacques Derrida. Naumann takes issue with my description of Derrida as a “crypto-Jew intensely preoccupied with his own Jewish identity and the evils of European anti-Semitism.” He claims “By crypto-Jew, he implies that Derrida hid his Jewish identity.” Some basic research by Naumann would have revealed that my epithet is correct, and while Derrida posed as a leftist Parisian intellectual, a secularist and an atheist, he descended from a long line of crypto-Jews, and explicitly identified himself as such: “I am one of those marranes who no longer say they are Jews even in the secret of their own hearts.”[7]
Derrida was born into a Sephardic Jewish family that immigrated to Algeria from Spain in the nineteenth century. His family were crypto-Jews who retained their Jewish identity for 400 years in Spain during the period of the Inquisition. Derrida changed his first name to the French Christian sounding ‘Jacques’ in order better blend into the French scene. Furthermore, he took his crypto-Judaism to the grave:
When Derrida was buried, his elder brother, René, wore a tallit at the suburban French cemetery and recited the Kaddish to himself inwardly, since Jacques had asked for no public prayers. This discreet, highly personal, yet emotionally and spiritually meaningful approach to recognizing Derrida’s Judaism seems emblematic of this complex, imperfect, yet valuably nuanced thinker.
Derrida was a crypto-Jew until the end, even instructing his family to participate in the charade. Kevin MacDonald notes the obvious reason: “Intellectually one wonders how one could be a postmodernist and a committed Jew at the same time. Intellectual consistency would seem to require that all personal identifications be subjected to the same deconstructing logic, unless, of course, personal identity itself involves deep ambiguities, deception, and self-deception.”[8]
In his notebooks, Derrida underscores the centrality of Jewish issues in his writing: “Circumcision, that’s all I’ve ever talked about.” His experience of anti-Semitism during World War II in Algeria was traumatic and resulted in a deep consciousness of his own Jewishness. He was expelled from school at age 13 under the Vichy government because of official caps on the number of Jewish students, describing himself as a “little black and very Arab Jew who understood nothing about it, to whom no one ever gave the slightest reason, neither his parents nor his friends.”[9] Later, in France, his “suffering subsided. I naively thought that anti-Semitism had disappeared. … But during adolescence, it was the tragedy, it was present in everything else.” These experiences led Derrida to develop “an exhausting aptitude to detect signs of racism, in its most discreet configurations or its noisiest disavowals.”[10] Caputo notes how Jewish ethnic activism underpins Derrida’s deconstruction:
The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue. … The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants, … all of whom… are wholly other. Contrary to the claims of Derrida’s more careless critics, the passion of deconstruction is deeply political, for deconstruction is a relentless, if sometimes indirect, discourse on democracy, on a democracy to come. Derrida’s democracy is a radically pluralistic polity that resists the terror of an organic, ethnic, spiritual unity, of the natural, native bonds of the nation (natus, natio), which grind to dust everything that is not a kin of the ruling kind and genus (Geschlecht). He dreams of a nation without nationalist or nativist closure, of a community without identity, of a non-identical community that cannot say I or we, for, after all, the very idea of a community is to fortify (munis, muneris) ourselves in common against the other. His work is driven by a sense of the consummate danger of an identitarian community, of the spirit of the “we” of “Christian Europe,” or of a “Christian politics,” lethal compounds that spell death of Arabs and Jews, for Africans and Asians, for anything other. The heaving and sighing of this Christian European spirit is a lethal air for Jews and Arabs, for all les juifs [i.e., Jews as prototypical others], even if they go back to father Abraham, a way of gassing them according to both the letter and the spirit.[11]
Derrida’s sociological preoccupations (and suggested solutions) replicated those of Tristan Tzara. Sandqvist links Tzara’s profound revolt against European social constraints directly to his Jewish identity, and his anger at the persistence of anti-Semitism. For Sandqvist, the treatment of Jews in Romania fueled the Dada leader’s revolt against Western civilization. Bodenheimer notes that:
As a Jew, Tzara had many reasons to call into question the so-called disastrous truths and rationalizations of European thinking, one result of which was the First World War — with the discrimination of Jews for centuries being another. … He came from a background in which jingoistic and anti-Semitic arguments had long reproached Jews for using impure, falsified language, from early examples in the sixteenth century … all the way to the arguments of the Romanian intellectuals in Tzara’s time, who attacked Jews as “foreigners” importing “diseased ideas” into Romanian literature and culture.
[Tzara consequently] seeks to unmask language itself as a construction that draws its value, and sometimes its claim to superiority, from an equally constructed concept of identities and values. In themselves, all languages are equal, but equal in their differences. This claim to the right of equality while upholding difference is the basic Jewish claim to a secular society. But the European peoples, be it first for religious or later for nationalist reasons, have never managed to actually understand this right, let alone grant it to minority societies.
Both the Dadaists and Derrida attacked the notion that the world really is as our concepts describe it (i.e., philosophical realism), and used nominalism (the view that concepts are nothing more than human artifacts that have no relation to the real world) to deconstruct and subvert Western realism. Both thought the idea of objective truth was dangerous because of the possibility that truth could be deployed against the “other.” For the Dadaists, the principles of Western rationality “were held to be highly problematic, because of its instrumental connections to social repressions and domination.”[12] The Jewish Dadaist Hans Richter declared that the abstract language of the Dadaists would be “beyond all national language frontiers,” and saw in Dadaist abstraction a new kind of communication “free from all kinds of nationalistic alliances.”[13] Like the Dadaists, Derrida decided, if you dislike the prevailing power, then strive to ruin its concepts. Dada used nonsense and absurdity to achieve this goal, while Derrida developed and deployed his methodology of deconstruction.
Jacques Derrida
When the Frankfurt School established itself in the United States, it made a conscious effort to give its Jewish intellectual activism a “scientific” veneer by gathering “empirical data” (such as that which formed the basis for The Authoritarian Personality) in order to challenge existing ideas seen as inimical to Jewish interests (such as Darwinian anthropology). Derrida and the poststructuralists instead sought (like the Jews within Dada) to discredit threatening ideas by undermining the notion of objective truth that underpinned all Western knowledge production.
Despite the difference of critical approach, a common Jewish ethno-political thread runs through Tzara’s Dada, Derrida’s deconstruction, and the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. Each attempted to foster subjective individualism to disconnect the masses from their familial, religious and ethnic bonds in order to lessen the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Western societies. Like the other movements chronicled by Kevin MacDonald in Culture of Critique, these movements were preoccupied with undermining the evolutionarily adaptive precepts and practices that had historically dominated Western societies (e.g., social homogeneity via immigration control, the nuclear family based on ties of love and affection, ethnocentrism, the drawing of clear ingroup and outgroup distinctions, sexual restraint), with the implicit goal being to render White Europeans less effective competitors to Jews for access to resources and reproductive success and less able to develop a cohesive, ethnically homogeneous movement in opposition to Judaism.
I am far from alone in noting the conceptual parallels between Dada and Derrida’s deconstruction. Wicks observes how strongly Dada resonates “with the definitively poststructuralist conception of deconstruction advanced by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s.”[14] Pegrum likewise notes the “strong link between Dada and postmodern artistic theory, the most obvious point of contact being with the work of Derrida.”[15] The literary critic Frank Kermode also traces deconstruction back to Dada influences, while Richard Sheppard regards the poststructuralists “as more introverted, less politicized, and less carnivalesque descendants of their Dada daddies.”[16]
Yet, for Naumann, my thesis is just a “conspiracy theory.” But why wouldn’t Jews (as a highly ethnocentric group) use their high levels of intellectual and cultural influence to advance their group interests at the expense of a group they perceive as an immemorial and existential threat?
Switching attention to my essay on Mark Rothko and Abstract Expressionism, a key theme of which is this artist’s political radicalism and Jewish ethnocentrism (and that of his entire social milieu), Naumann asks: “If Jews were such great supporters of Communism in the 1940s—as both Sanderson and MacDonald posit (and to a certain degree they are right)—then why did they not support the efforts of Regionalist painters (Thomas Hart Benton, Grant Wood and John Steuart Curry) and the Social Realists (Ben Shahn, Diego Rivera)?” I address this point at length in my essay — which makes me wonder if he actually bothered to read it to the end. Jewish artists like Rothko regarded Regionalism as exactly the kind of American painting they most despised: scenic, provincial, anecdotal, and conservative. They associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism.
Jewish gallery owners like Sam Kootz decried the “nationalist” art of the Regionalists and promoted the internationalist art of a rising generation of expressionist, surrealist and abstract artists. “America’s more important artists are consistently shying away from Regionalism and exploring the virtues of internationalism,” he commented in 1943. “This is the painting equivalent of our newly found political and social internationalism.”[17] Incensed by the awarding of an art prize to John Steuart Curry in 1942, Jewish abstract artist Barnett Newman denounced Regionialism as “isolationism” and as akin to National Socialism, declaring: “Isolationist painting, which they named the American Renaissance, is founded on politics and on an even worse aesthetic. Using the traditional chauvinism, isolationist brand of patriotism, and playing on the natural desire of American artists to have their own art, they succeeded in pushing across a false aesthetic that is inhibiting the production of any true art in this country. … Isolationism, we have learned by now, is Hitlerism.”[18]
The Homestead by John Steuart Curry
The hostility of Jewish artists and intellectuals to Regionalism is no great mystery. A subset of Jews did support the work of the Social Realists, but this changed with the failure of socialism to take hold in North America in the 1940s. As I explain in the essay:
For Jewish writer Alain Rogier, it seems “hardly a coincidence that Jews made up a large percentage of the leading Abstract Expressionists.”[19] 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 “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.”[20] 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.[21]
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.”[22] 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.”[23]
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 would 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, marginalized figures — a modern version of traditional Jewish separateness and alienation from gentile culture. …” Norman Podhoretz was asked in the 1950s “whether there was a special typewriter at Partisan Review with the word ‘alienation’ on a single key.”[24]
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 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.
Naumann has no actual response to any of this. However, in assessing the Jewish domination of Abstract Expressionism, he claims that I envision “the whole enterprise as nothing short of a Jewish conspiracy, whereby Jews placed themselves in a position to be viewed by the intellectual establishment of the time as ‘self-appointed gatekeepers of Western culture.’” A major theme of my essay on Rothko and Abstract Expressionism is the power of Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism — which is abundantly demonstrated in Mark Rothko’s rise to fame on the New York art scene. Rothko biographer Annie Cohen-Solal emphasizes the role of Jewish ethnic networking in Rothko’s rise from obscurity to artistic celebrity. More broadly, Jewish artists (Rothko, Adolph Gottlieb, Barnett Newman), critics (Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, Thomas B. Hess), curators (Katherine Kuh, Peter Selz, Henry Geldzahler) and art dealers (Sidney Janis, Peggy Guggenheim, Samuel Kootz), were instrumental in the rise of Abstract Expressionism. Such an overwhelming representation from a group that comprised less than two percent of the American population is utterly remarkable and testament to the power of Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism.
Naumann falsely claims I “invent” a Jewish connection to the non-Jewish artist Willem de Kooning when I note that he had to ingratiate himself with the Jewish critics and intellectuals clustered around the leftist journal Partisan Review. It was hardly necessary for me to “invent” a connection between de Kooning and Jews. His wife, Elaine de Kooning, was half-Jewish (born Elaine Fried), and de Kooning shamelessly pimped her out to leading Jewish art critics like Harold Rosenberg and Thomas B. Hess, who, in return, helped further his career.[25] Hess, the editor of Art News, the oldest and most widely-circulated fine arts journal in the world, was hugely influential in promoting Abstract Expressionism. Mentored and promoted by the magazine’s editor in chief, Alfred Frankfurter (also Jewish), Hess was part of the triumvirate of Jews (with Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg) who “were instrumental in championing Abstract Expressionism in the early stages of the movement.” Hess’s Abstract Painting: Background and American Phase (1951) was the first book on the movement to be published, and the critic and art historian Barbara E. Rose (also Jewish) described him as running a “propaganda vehicle for launching the New York School internationally.” While Hess’s Wikipedia entry doesn’t mention his ethnic background, a quick internet search reveals that his mother was buried at the Mount Zion Temple Cemetery in Minnesota.
Naumann claims that in pointing out the prominence of Jews in the art world I give “proof of how important and influential Jews were in shaping the culture of our times. If you were to remove the names of everyone who was Jewish from the roster of twentieth-century artists, writers, critics, collectors, and art dealers, you would find that very little of that history would exist.” Indeed.
He claims to be deeply offended by my custom of placing the word “Holocaust” in quotation marks – which I do to highlight the absurdity (not to say impossibility) of much of the official narrative, and also to protest its use as a tool of psychological warfare against White people. Naumann insists that, rather than Jews engaging in competitive victimhood (as I discuss in a recent article), it is “Sanderson and MacDonald [who] envision themselves as the ultimate victims … since they have found themselves ostracized from mainstream academia.” In all of the writing I have done for The Occidental Observer going back over a decade I have never described or presented myself as a victim.
Naumann concludes his review in the same vein in which he starts it — eschewing rational arguments in favor of baseless speculation about the mental health of yours truly and Professor MacDonald: “It does not take a trained psychiatrist to determine that the biased and racist rants of most white supremacists are the product of an innate psychiatric disorder, one that causes them to hate all people who are not like them.” Naumann’s total reliance on these kind of personal attacks reminds one of how little things have changed since the nineteenth century when Richard Wagner was declared to be suffering from a psychiatric disorder for daring to criticize Jewish influence. No doubt Naumann would lump Wagner in with his “many notable psychotics in history” whose criticisms of Jews he attributes to psychopathology. In the final analysis, none of this name-calling amounts to actual arguments, and only serves to highlight the weakness of his position.
Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.
[1] Irina Livezeanu, “From Dada to Gaga: The Peripatetic Romanian Avant-Garde Confronts Communism,” Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu & Lucia Dragomir (Eds.), Littératures et pouvoir symbolique (Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2005), 245-6.
[2] Bernard Blisténe, A History of Twentieth Century Art (Paris: Fammarion, 2001), 62.
[3] Dawn Ades, “Dada and Surrealism,” David Britt (Ed.) Modern Art – Impressionism to Post-Modernism, (London, Thames & Hudson, 1974), 222.
[4] Robert Short, Dada and Surrealism (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1994), 42.
[5] Daffyd Jones, Dada 1916 in Theory: Practices of Critical Resistance (Liverpool University Press, 2014), 176.
[6] Helen Rappaport, Conspirator: Lenin in Exile (Basic Books; 2012), 256.
[7] Jacques Derrida, “Circumfession,” In Jacques Derrida, Ed. G. Bennington & Jacques Derrida, Trans. G. Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 170.
[8] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library, 2001), 198.
[9] Derrida, “Circumfession,” op. cit., 58)
[10] Jacques Derrida, Points… Interviews, 1974-1994, Trans. P. Kamuf et al (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 120–21.
[11] J.D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1997), 231–2.
[12] Matthew Biro, The Dada Cyborg: Visions of the New Human in Weimar Berlin, (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), 154.
[13] Hockensmith, “Artists’ Biographies,” Leah Dickerman (Ed.) Dada (Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art, 2005), 482.
[14] Robert J. Wicks, Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 11.
[15] Mark A. Pegrum, Challenging Modernity: Dada between Modern and Postmodern (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000), 269.
[16] Richard Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism (Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1999), 365.
[17] Annie Cohen-Solal, Mark Rothko, Toward the Light in the Chapel (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2015), 90.
[18] Ibid., 88.
[19] Alain Rogier, “Jewish Artist Mark Rothko: An Outsider in Life and Death,” ReformJudaism.org, April 26, 2016. https://reformjudaism.org/blog/2016/04/26/jewish-artist-mark-rothko-outsider-life-and-death
[20] Ibid., 212.
[21] Erika Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 124.
[22] Ibid., 130-1.
[23] Doss, Twentieth-Century American Art, 128.
[24] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 212.
[25] See: Lee Hall, Elaine and Bill: Portrait of a Marriage (HarperCollins, 1993).
Excellent article. The jew will never cease until we separate him from our society. The jew invented pseudo-psychology to subvert our Race. Our Race created everything that is art, music, and classic literature.
Without our Race, the parasite is nothing.
Look into any home of a wealthy jew to discover ONLY our art on the walls.
The purpose of any Jewish response to noticing them is to create the illusion of there being an ‘other side’ to the story. When the Jews are trying to rise, they insist on ‘fairness’ in being allowed present ‘their side’. When in power, they do the same only they don’t have to ask anymore and ‘fairness’ is not longer the reason. The reason that Jews come up with stuff like Dada and Deconstruction is because their culture has no real content. It’s merely a series of stratagems for acquiring power. The dissolving of the host culture into which they insinuate themselves is largely a side-effect. Without a real culture to replace the one they’re destroying, the host culture is simply destroyed. The reason the Jew cannot replace the culture they destroy with Jewish culture is because Jewish ‘culture’ makes no sense if everyone is ‘Jewish’. The Jews have to have an enemy. Since projection is part of the Jewish strategy, they are constantly claiming that the host population – which most of the time is simply ignoring them – is ‘othering’ them. In fact, it’s the other way around. Without the Other, the Jew is nothing.
Excellent comment, Wimpy, right on all counts.
That is a bulls-eye analysis. When they finalize their deconstruction war, There will be “no there there”,
to quote one of their own.
Biden and the Jewish husband of VP Harris announced for Hanukkah : Jewish history and American history are one in the same! The takeover/displacement of formerly Christian European USA is nearly complete.
This link/info is old: from 2015. Mr Andrzej Duda however is still the president of Poland. The blond lady in the background is his Jewish wife, Agata Kornhauser-Duda.
https://www.president.pl/news/best-wishes-for-the-jewish-community-in-poland-on-the-occasion-of-hanukkah–the-festival-of-lights,36292
I bought Battle Lines on Amazon before it was shoah’d. I enjoyed every essay. The pieces on artists and art history complemented Lasha Darkmoon’s series on modern art quite nicely.
Francis M. Naumann has the physiognomy of a sad, weak little weenie. That is not an argument against his words, but it’s
something worth noting. Also, I am sure the feral negroes appreciate his support of black lives, and I’m sure he can expect many good goy points from the ADL for his bravery in fighting the “ebil natzis” of The Occidental Observer.
You are right. Francis Naumann is a typical philosemite. He’s always sucking up to the jews, trying to win favor from them.
So-called “modern art” is a jewish construct.
01 German has a term to describe the physiognomy of a person’s eyes: Augenpartie. Also for mouths: Mundpartie: as well as Nasenpartie, useful when assessing porn star George Floyd’s finely chiseled nose.
02 In the late seventies I competed for a middling job at NCR in Boston. To my surprise, I was obliged to hand-copy a prescribed paragraph, which was sent to a graphologist in Montreal.
03 My superior and I soon formed a friendship and I asked him what that was all about, especially with a technical outfit like NCR. He reluctantly disclosed, that said evaluation stated, that my most prominent characteristic was empathy.
04 This insight into personalities, aimed at Naumann’s Augenpartie, tells me, that he is prone to deceit.
05 A look at Netanyahu, and wife, should make my point. Mercifully, dozens of others demonstrate, that they are not all alike.
Excellent piece.
Jews always project. If they say you’re nuts it’s because
THEY are nuts.
Nuts to that idea!
Francis Naumann is almost certainly Jewish. The name Francis and its cognates (e.g., Frank, Francine, Francesca, François, Sisko, etc) are extremely common in the Jewish community. Sometimes they will substitute Karl (and its cognates, e.g., Carlos, Charles, Carla, Carole). These names reference the Frankish Empire and/or the title of “Freeman” (another substitute is Louis or Lewis, referencing Clovis I). Naumann is a variant of Newman (how many non-Jews do you know with that surname)? We frequently find these names in Hollywood films by Jews, and they almost always identify Jewish ciphers within these stories.
TOO has previously published a couple of essays by Mark Brahmin, of The Apollonian Transmission. It is his work that uncovered this naming convention, among many other examples. It is worthwhile for anyone interested in the JQ to study his writings and learn the naming convention used by Jewish artists. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/mark-brahmin/
Hugo, allow me to feel so free as to mention, that my name is Charles Frey and my sister’s name is Carola.
Three for one. In the Frankish sense since my father was an early Parteigenosse and my god-mother a frequent guest at the Goebbel home
Charles, I don’t mean to cast aspersions on everyone named Frank/Charles (especially with names as common as those are). A name alone proves nothing. I drew attention to it within the bigger picture including his appearance, his surname (https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=nauman), his invocation of Yiddish, and his philosemitic stance. Then again, maybe Naumann’s condemnation of Sanderson’s book is just a ploy to earn brownie points with his wealthy Jewish clientele or something.
However common they may be among Jews—though I have met precisely one Jew named Frank among the hundreds of Jews I have met throughout my life—these names are at least fifty times commoner in the Christian community on this side of the Atlantic and commoner still among Christians, especially Catholics, in Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy … and, yes, everywhere else in Europe.
This is so because of the immense popularity among all Christians of Saint Francis of Assisi—a man whose generosity and virtue were recognized far and wide in his lifetime—and of the equal, perhaps even greater, popularity among Catholics of Saint Francis Xavier. Among the Catholics of mostly Irish, Italian, and German ancestry with whom I attended grammar school, high school, and college, Francis was, I would say, the sixth commonest first or middle name, after John, Joseph, James, Michael, and William (i.e., ranking before even Patrick and Thomas).
When I was a little boy, my best friend’s father, an Irish lawyer, had the given names Francis Xavier. Some seventy years on, I have lost count of the number of Francis Xaviers I have met.
Incidentally, my (long-deceased) parents’ given names were Francis Patrick and Frances Regis, my mother’s name being a feminine form of the name of another saint, John Francis Regis.
Finally, as I mention in another comment that is yet to be posted, I can confidently repeat what Brenton Sanderson wrote about Francis Naumann: he is not a Jew.
Pierre, did you not read my response to Charles? If so, it seems your reading comprehension skills are lacking. As for your comment below, about the surname Naumann, you show a considerable lack of insight into how crypto-Jews use names. They will adopt variants of names in an attempt to hide their identity to prying eyes, while still allowing other Jews to recognize them. In this case, the name Naumann, as I said in my original comment, is a variant of Newman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman). Feel free to go through that list and tell us how many you believe to be Jewish.
Thank you for informing me of my inadequate reading skills. Since inadequate reading skills, along with lack of insight and such things as being named Francis or one of the dozen variant forms of Newman, are a sure and certain indicator of Jewishness, perhaps I’ve been a Jew all along without realizing it.* Surely it couldn’t be that your “analysis” is what’s inadequate!
Thanks, too, for explaining crypsis, a concept I’ve never encountered before. Did KM leave it out of his books, I wonder, or was I just too inattentive to notice it?
_____________________
*I wonder whether John Henry Newman cryptically changed his middle name from Francis. Hmmm. I sense that a Jew is lurking in there somewhere.
Hugo, no offence taken; just banter.
Indeed, ” a name alone means nothing “. My father, b. April 1876, in his youth, had gotten too many young ladies into difficulties. His parents gave him the choice of ” going on their lake “, i.e. drown himself, or go to America.
He chose America, as long as he could take his friend Rosenberg with him. Apparently my father always introduced him as Herr Rosenberg – Aryan. My grandparents sent them both packing, at their expense. I treasure a photo of my father, taken by a studio at Union Square, NYC, and found him in their Census of 1902.
While attending the University of West Berlin in ’68, I went to East Berlin’s Humboldt University, to rummage through their ancient collection of family trees: well back in their catacombs. Our emigration to Toronto, in ’51, had abruptly cut me off.
Of course these books were for research only: not to be checked out.
After several hours, I replaced the most salient book in its shelf. A week later I returned for additional information – but the book was missing.
My necessary inference: the STASI had shadowed me since entering through Checkpoint Charlie, then watched my enquiry of the desk clerk and then took out the book themselves in order to improve their profile on me. Apparently their identification card outclassed the library’s no check-out rules.
I share your interest in the often telling significance of names.
Oh yes – so as not to offend Joseph, here is a spare ” s ” to conclude my unforgivable misspelling of his name.
“A name alone proves nothing”
SCHLOMO LIPSHITS
With the possible exception of the Jewish Virtual Library, the most Jewish-oriented reference resource ever conceived is Wikipedia. On the “disambiguation” page for the name Naumann, Wikipedia lists twenty-six people with that surname. Two of them are Jews.
Naumann on Avotaynu [jewish surname list] with many references.
I don’t doubt it, TJ. I’m willing to bet, however, that Smith and Jones also make the list. I for one have certainly encountered Jews with those two names.
The question is whether there is any profit in the kind of empty speculation that Hugo Adrian offers as evidence. I have given my answer to that question.
Another brilliant essay by Brenton Sanderson. He refutes the shallow critique of Francis Nauman, who is a typical philosemite, from the same mold as Trump and Biden, always sucking up to the jews.
I notice that the book in question, Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, has now been banned from Amazon. Of course it has! The jews always gotta censor; otherwise, they lose. Jews always gotta lie, deceive and cheat also.
Ugly modern “art”, including Dada and Abstract Expressionism, is a jewish construct. It is degenerate “art”, to destroy the White race.
Quote from the article: “More broadly, Jewish artists (Rothko, Adolph Gottlieb, Barnett Newman), critics (Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, Thomas B. Hess), curators (Katherine Kuh, Peter Selz, Henry Geldzahler) and art dealers (Sidney Janis, Peggy Guggenheim, Samuel Kootz), were instrumental in the rise of Abstract Expressionism. Such an overwhelming representation from a group that comprised less than two percent of the American population is utterly remarkable and testament to the power of Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism.”
“Entartete Kunst” was the Germans’ term for it.
Have some noticed that the number of comments for such an august, venerable site such as TOO is low? Why the paucity of remarks, comments, etc.? I do not believe this is related to the quality of the essays and opinions. American Renaissance has on average-I estimate-5 times the number of comments. Unz Review on White or racial topics clocks within this range.
The respective Alexa rankings explain that:
Unz Review: 25,619
American Renaissance: 148,141
The Occidental Observer: 1,291,643
Alexa ratings are based on traffic ONLY on sites that subscribe to its service. That is, all other sites are unmonitored and will not be tabulated. That is my understanding of their explanation.
It is common for many to assume that Alexa ratings are for the entire universe of URL clicks.
I don’t understand your numbers, Franklin, in the above.
The lower the number, the higher the ranking. Thus google.com is 1.
Since fully 90 percent of comments are either attaboys or their negative form—”what rubbish!”—it is cause for rejoicing that commenting here is far, far more restrained than it is at, say, Unz. At the latter site, perhaps half of all commenters, by their own admission, read little or nothing of the article that they are ostensibly commenting upon. Indeed, when Unz republished Doctor Sanderson’s remarkable four-article analysis of the construction of Wagner as moral pariah, at least half of the Unz commenters noted that they couldn’t be bothered to read something so long, and the worthlessness of the comments of 80 percent of the other half made plain that, whatever they said, they in truth had no clue as to the burden of Doctor Sanderson’s argument and in fact cared not a whit about it. By no means coincidentally, most commenters knew effectively nothing whatsoever about Wagner to boot.
Is that the sort of comment thread that you long for here at TOO? Then heaven help us all!
Commenting in that form amounts to little more than a stand-in for aimless pub talk, where the participants shout to be heard while the program on the television—or in this simile, a TOO article—adds little to the chatter but an extra dimension of noise in the background. It is, in short, not a modus operandi designed for anyone who, like me, reads TOO articles to learn things he doesn’t already know!
I have found this to be at almost all websites. Extremely poor grammar, awful spelling. An almost complete lack of logic. Sometimes it just nice to see well reasoned logic and common sense.
Seems to me that the reason the Jews managed to seize control over the art scene in the fifties, is that abstract art is more open to theorizing. Some of the abstract, or “avantgarde” artists, like Duchamp, Mondrian, Hans Hofmann and de Kooning can be quite interesting, but they’re also much easier to plagiarize and turn into vehicles for ideologies and theories.
Jews couldn’t plagiarize Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh or Claude Monet, and there wasn’t much to theorize about. It was all about beauty, harmony and sensibility. The paintings of the likes of Mondrian, Hofmann and de Kooning is easier to imitate, like Rothko did. And someone like Duchamp, who’s work is intellectual and cerebral, is a dream for Jewish pseudo- intellectuals who can attach anything they like to his works.
(I think it’s unfair to reduce Duchamp into an intellectual cerebral artist though. His imaginative and poetic way of seeing puts him closer to the classical romantic art tradition. Everything he created was based on the golden section, and his poetic way of seeing has more in common with Rembrandt than the shallow “modern” imitators that followed. He turned away from painting in disgust of Picasso and created his own imaginative form of art.)
Unfortunately it was exploited by Jewish pseudo intellectuals, and usurer patrons, which led to the “art” we have today. Pseudo intellectual kitsch, or illustrated “Art Theory” as Tom Wolfe called it. Especially when the ideologues are Marx and Freud – it’s no wonder we’ve ended up with grotesque garbage.
Thank you Brenton for another great piece; it’s a keeper.
This essay was a bit different than your others in that it was more ‘choppy,’ and I felt your anger and frustration coming through which is a great thing. I’m happy that you could express it in an grown-up, scholarly manner unlike, the Shabbos Goy Naumann. Philo-Semite? Hmmm… I don’t think so. Shabbos Goy.
Brenton, I live Brooklyn. You see, these types of people, they know that they have the whole world, or I should say, the people that run the whole world, on their side. They know that, and they are taught, that all they have to do to anyone such as yourself/us, is to spit out a few lame, empty platitudes; ex., “You’re a racist, white supremacist, nazi…” and on they go… and they know that they will win. No. He’s not going to read Kevin’s books, or TOO, or any opposing opinion, or information because then he would have to ‘think’, a lot. I’m assuming that deep down inside, Mr. Naumann knows that you’re right. Is he going to give up his big job in the big city and his big friends and his big salary and his big apartment and his fancy suits and his big city prestige, all of which gives him his big ego to save his soul…? No. All he has to do to people like us is, smugly smile, call us the names he has been taught to call us, and all will be well in his life much of which, is a lie. That being said, I’m happy that you answered his critique and I do hope that somehow you can get it to him so that he can read it.
There’s a coffee shop in Clinton Hill which is one of the white, very expensive, left wing loon professional neighborhoods in Brooklyn. They have two signs, one on the door which is a poster showing a man holding a child wrapped in a blanket that says: ‘Refugees Welcome.’ The other is a banner, yes, a banner above the front window that reads: “We Support Handicapped, Black Transgender Women.” Oh yes, I kid you not.
It’s years of indoctrination with these people, with all of us since childhood. It’s also pathological altruism gone psychotic. And the young, left loony white women are the worst. One utterance of dissent to them, and you are toast. You, are cancelled. Taken to Red Square in the middle of the night, and shot dead. No one, mentions you again.
The men know what’s going on, not all of them but some. I once got into a conversation with a guy on this subject and he said to me; “look, the Jews run everything okay. You don’t play along you’re going to find yourself shoveling shit in Shinola.” I told him that at least shoveling shit in Shinola was an honest job.
I was doing some research the other day and I was going through PTSDA, and on page 82, Kevin theorizes that the Jewish diaspora from Palestine might have been a strategy to help ensure genetic and cultural segregation from other races in the region at the time. I had this thought that yes, genetic and cultural segregation were, and are still in many ways very important to many Jews but now we have Israel! Why aren’t all the Jews in Israel where they are free to practice cultural and genetic distance from all other races?! Isn’t this what the Japanese do? Why are the Jews here, and in other countries, destroying those countries and our country?! I don’t have a full answer yet.
Great article. I learned a lot. Regarding the Abstract Expressionist movement: In addition to promoting absolute garbage
that a child could do, it circumvented all that had defined traditional European realism, which is extremely demanding and requires real talent and a dedication to craft and discipline. Art, in my opinion, is nothing without mastery of craft. And B: It created a “false market”
A Rothko today goes for what? $160 million? Tom Wolfe covered it nicely in The Painted Word. As for the Dada paintings, I must say
that certain elements of the examples that I observed on Google, disregarding their political messages, had certain qualities of design
that no doubt helped in the development of contemporary graphic design, which in my opinion, is a major art. It amazes me that Rothko is famous while being an artistic fraud, while great graphic designers like Milton Glazer and Herb Lublin (both Jews) and both giants of 20th-century graphic design, remain unknown to the general public. The most unfortunate deconstructive symbol of American art culture is the hideous public venue “sculptures” Lastly, post-modern architecture is probably a Jewish creation. Ugliness is beauty when one cannot create beauty. A lie is a truth when one cannot conceive transcendent truth. Alien souls can never know truth and beauty.
Wasn’t abstract art invented by Pablo Picasso who also painted non abstract art?
And before that a step in the direction by Monet, who had an eye disease which made it harder and harder for him to see I read.
But I do think abstract art was heavily influenced by imperialism and african art brought back to europe and the more abstract and symbolic nature of that art.
But maybe the fact that there were a few jews who had sucess in abstract art made jews go crazy about it, given the amount of etno centrism that seem to be common in this cultural group which seems to be an ethnic mess of a white people where many of them mixed with arabs and subsaharian africans against GOD’s will it seems. So talking about the jews or jews seems weird when there are jews who are white and not moxed with middle easterners or africans (but they seem to not be many these days) and those who are more mixed.
But yes when a majority of them are mixed, their strategies will certainly be coloured (no pun) by this factor to a degree and hence we see the obsession of race mixing away whites an idea written about by jews after wwII when they had the idea of moving non white males to Germany to mix with white germans to make germans not be so racist or a threat against jews, I do think 2 or three books on the subject were written by jews and now we see this strategy applied to all white people not suprisingly. Agian, etno centrism, an obsession by everything ever produced by jews or just something that fits the attitude driven by fear and hatred of racially mixed people?
Abstraction in art is not truly what is at fault. The impulse behind abstraction is related to the human capacity for observing the geometric forms and patterns that are inherent in nature and lie just below its surface. As such, most of abstract art’s elements are already observable in the Hellenic-era art of ancient Greece, which is some of the greatest ever produced by mankind.
Put otherwise, what is bad about the bulk of the “art” under discussion is, not its abstraction per se, but its use of abstract elements, in conjunction with the frequently degenerate sensibilities of its perpetrators,* to produce “artworks” whose primary goal is to degrade the sensibilities of the viewer and, in so doing, to ultimately pervert culture and civilization in toto.
What is both saddest and scariest is that there exists an overwhelming mass of evidence that the desire to pervert culture and character is central to the Jewish project in every society that has ever granted Jews access to it.
___________
*I bridle at calling them artists. Far better to call them frauds.
Great analysis. I have understood that a kind of abstraction in realist painting is employed in the organizing of components into simple broad shapes so that the painting “reads” from a distance. Large paintings in particular, with scores of figures depicted, are grouped often in a triangle, where values do not vary so much.
In addition to creating meaningless distortion, ugliness, and formlessness, the ‘artists’ and managers of abstract expressionism created a billion-dollar false market. On the other hand, the goyim Ashcan School, which was loaded with great artists like Sloan, Bellows, Hopper, Glackens, is relegated to the ‘ashcan of history’
While a Rothko (he looked like a guy hanging around Times Square eating popcorn and looking for the right young boy) sells for 160 million. All that degenerative art, pushed by the Jews Greenburg and Rosenburg, and many others (Guggenheim, et al) obscures one salient fact: Talented Jewish designers and cartoonists like Milton Glazer, Herb Lubalin, Seymore Chwast, Mort Drucker remain anonymous.
Maybe it’s possible that not enough Jews could figure out how to paint, and resented it? If drawing the human figure from life is like juggling 6 balls, then painting it is juggling 100. A lot of things have to be resolved. Traditional realist European painting seeks to get an awful lot of things “right” – not in a photographic way, but through the process of crafting simplicity from complexity and knowing precisely when the maximum effect – the essence of a thing- has been achieved. All while leaving out 98% of ‘what ‘s in front of you’.
Lastly, “and not for nothing”, but programs like Photoshop has been one of art history’s game-changers.
If one asks oneself the question, what benefits and strengthens us, and what hinders, harms and destroys us (and why), one cannot help but realize that at the end of all this activity is the “final solution of the White Question”.
As implemented, or indeed continued by Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary in his MORGENTHAU PLAN.
Roosevelt, as in its original Lisbon form: Campo di Rossi; supplanted to Venice under the same name; then to Roosevelt in Amsterdam and of course New Amsterdam [ NYC ].
Whether drunk or sober, Churchill chimed in with his own recommendation: the random execution of 50,000 ex – Wehrmacht Officers.
http://www.revisionist.net/index.html
https://i.postimg.cc/Qh4SqcJ2/1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/7DqV8Ksv/2.jpg
Largely unknown in the English-speaking world: In the extremely cold winter of 1946/47, the German people suffered from supply shortages to which hundreds of thousands (if not Millions) fell victim.
Rations of 800 calories covered only half of the actual needs of adults. No other articles can be found in English than these both, which in a typical way try to justify the forced hardship with the “guilt of the Germans”.
https://www.grin.com/document/205235
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art178861.asp
PS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Popper
Have the Russians ever apologized for the Holodomor? The Brits for the extermination of the Tasmanians? Did the Jews ever commit themselves to the extermination of the Selknam (indigenous people of Tierra del Fuego)? Has the “American” Kissinger ever been court-martialed and tried?
I am not aware of the “Allies” ever admitting complicity in war crimes committed. From Hiroshima to Nagasaki to Napalm and Agent Orange to the utter destruction of the entire Middle East, leading to the release of the waves of “refugees”, these are acts of humanity.
Even the Turks are not constantly bothered with their genocide against the Armenians. Instead, they allow themselves to be blackmailed with the “weapon of mass migration” (Kelly Greenhill).
“French” pholosopher https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0328/How-a-philosopher-swayed-France-s-response-on-Libya
As you doubtless know, it is the official position of those Allies—a position they insist upon with the dogmatic authority peculiar to victors—that the only crime of which they were guilty was an excess of mercy and restraint in dealing with the Axis powers, whether during the war or afterwards.
I grant, however, that revisionist elements in the (((highest levels))) of the present-day Establishment are now hard at work trying to amend the dogma. The crime to which they propose the United States plead guilty in retrospect is, of course, systemic racism.
Bravo , Pierre.
Thomas Goodrich’s masterly tome , ‘Hellstorm’ , should be a farewell gift to all the dupes who tearfully exit the increasing number of Holocaust Museums.
The continuing sale of “Hellstorm” at Jeff Bezos’s enormous Judaically oriented storefront is an interesting phenomenon, wouldn’t you agree, Al? I have wondered on occasion why it hasn’t sunk without trace chez Amazon, along with so many other books that fail to reinforce and conform with the Narrative. Perhaps it’s the fact that Goodrich doesn’t lay all the blame on the Jews, at least not in so many words, that underlies the book’s ongoing visibility.
Of course, several of the negative reviewers don’t hesitate to play the anti-Semitism card, along with its wink-and-nudge variant, “The author’s assertions have all been thoroughly discredited.” (James Bacque’s “Other Losses” and “Crimes and Mercies” get that card played on them a lot, too.) This faux-reluctant pointing to a lack of academic and intellectual respectability has become the upmarket substitute for shouting and pounding the table. Its object, however, is the same.
“Instead, they (the stupid EU-SSR)
allow themselves to be blackmailed
with the ‘weapon of mass migration’
(by the Turks)” of course was meant.
“Happiness” is stated as the highest goal of human endeavor. Can something that is contrary to our nature, indeed in principle denies it altogether, contribute to our happiness? What does a species like us need to be happy? Who takes the trouble today to define this clearly? Does what we do with every breath and heartbeat of our existence bring us closer to happiness, or does it take us away from it by the hour? Is there an artificial veil on this simplicity? Is our thinking marred by self-defeating beliefs?
Happiness is a daily choice, they say. For every lock there is a key. For every bank safe there is a numerical code. Only the keepers of the safes know it. Everyone who has a problem, in truth, also knows the solution. Everybody knows what he should do, but a false morality, called “political correctness”, causes a scissors in the head, which makes us have an official and a private face. We are retreating like snails. If this is “not politically intended”, why is it so and who is behind it?
We are the fools of the world. We wear silly clown masks that grew on our faces and meanwhile became part of our fake identity. We are inwardly hollowed out, coreless, insubstantial, rootless ruins with pretty colorful “tolerant” facades under meter-thick make-up. The entire world now knows about our “immune deficiency” and is mercilessly plundering it. Whoever participates in this unique betrayal in our evolution is a despicable dishonorable wretch. Where is the rebellion that bangs its fist on the table and says, “Enough!”
We have had a corset put on us that is strangling us to death. It consists of an upturned hedgehog skin, all spines directed against ourselves. Our own weapons are pointed at ourselves, we have let it come so far. We look in the mirror and see Hitler. But Adolf is silent. The Adolf we see is a remorseful coward.
They placed an “alternative” shoe in front of our nose, we put it on. But the shoe is not a non-slip black soldier’s boot, but a pink pump, with which we stumble insecurely over cobblestones. With its heels we masochistically kick our own balls, because “those who have no balls do not need a fatherland!”.
I’m proud that the upright, truthful, courageous, forthright, Brenton Sanderson is a part of my Australian nation and Nationality. Peoples of the world, unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains! We have the World to win. They have destroyed the very fabric of our societies. All that is left is the terrible fight to the end.
While I do not in any way demur from the analysis offered by Brenton Sanderson of Naumann’s ill-founded critique of Dr. Sanderson’s essays, I can add a few details to what is known about Naumann, a man who is about three or four years younger than I am. Perhaps these details will render him slightly more three-dimensional to readers.
Precisely as Dr. Sanderson states and contrary to what Hugo Adrian suggests, Naumann is not Jewish. Nor is he homosexual, despite what his passion for horrid ties might otherwise imply. As far back as the seventies, Naumann had already been marked as somebody to watch in the tiny but très chic world where interest in and knowledge of “new” painting and sculpture were reckonable commodities. My source tells me that Naumann got to know Leo Steinberg, who helped further his career at a time when support from Steinberg and other Jewish critics and gallery owners might spell the difference between success and failure. Naumann’s friendship with and loyalty to Steinberg stayed constant until the latter’s death about ten years ago.
Early in the present century, Naumann opened his own gallery on East 57th Street in Manhattan—the ne plus ultra of the high-rent district—exclusively to promote the Modernist art he loved and had written a great deal about. Because of the acute waning of interest (especially among the very well off) in the area of art where Naumann has made his career and reputation, he had to close his gallery last year. Again according to my source, the gallery failure took a very big bite out of his resources.
Thus, in this scenario, the Francis Naumann of today is looking at difficult times as he approaches seventy-five, with a home in the upscale exurbs and a wife, a family, and a lifestyle to support. So what could be more timely for him than the opportunity to (1) make a few bucks by simply defending the work in which he has made, for better or worse, an incalculably large psychological investment and, in the process, (2) stick up for the Jewish guys who helped him get ahead when he was still a nobody by protecting what he sees as their legacy and his from the aspersions of some relative youngster who, evidently having escaped from Covidkonzentrationslager Oz, now works hand in glove with the rest of the World’s Leading Anti-Semitic and White Supremacist Scum® at the “Occidental Observer”?
If my source is correct about the train of events, the bottom line for Naumann may have been just to get his name back in the light again. If such is the case, perhaps we’ll next hear of Naumann when he acts as an expert intermediary in the sale of something painted by Man Ray. Stay tuned.
An addendum. My source insists that I must have met Naumann at one of several shindigs in the mid-seventies where the attendees—mostly male, mostly gay (sauf pour moi et une douzaine d’autres)—consisted largely of (1) poorly dressed young and youngish writers, musicians, and painters and (2) older Jewish promoters and hustlers in three-piece suits who were either (a) already making more money through “managing” the young wannabees than the latter were making themselves or (b) were aspiring to reach that exalted state.
So did I meet Naumann? Well, I did attend two or, at the most, three such shindigs back then—invariably as somebody’s plus-one—but what with the food (beautiful and plentiful) and the wine (red, French, and very old) serving as distractions, my recollection of names and faces is nonexistent. I do remember, however, one such occasion where I briefly met a man, roughly my age, who was wearing an incredibly loud tie. But that was then and this is now, and even if my life depended upon it, I would not be able to recall anything else about him.
The Jews have conquered Western Civilization!
Another brilliantly scholarly article in terms of factual documentation and valid logical inferences joins the many other such that appear on these pages.
All these articles prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Jewish Nation is the dominate and most powerful group in Western economy (i.e. finance – which per Michael. Hudson is the essence of the economy), government, media (news and entertainment) and per this article and many others culture.
Indeed, E. Michael Jones makes the case that the Catholic Pope’s theological and moral teachings are affected by Jewish consultation. This is historically significant because the origins Western Civilization (aka Christendom) was the Church.
There is no force within the West to even challenge let alone defeat the Jewish nation.
The only hope for the historic Christian West is Russian and China. They are forcing the Jewish oligarchs to make increasing irrational decision economically (destroy manufacturing, increasing debt, etc.). Since wealth is essence of power, the West is being bleed of its wealth and the Jews in turn are being bleed of power.
This is evident in the Jewish foreign policy towards Russian and China. The Jewish Western Civilization cannot compete with the ever growing power (economic and military) of the Russian Orthodox Civilization and the Chinese Oriental Civilization.
I remember it as described.
01 Schools reopened for us, throughout Germany, on October 1, 1945.
02 Until July 46, Berlin was entirely under Communist rule: subsequently Four Power Status, surrounded by East Germany.
03 45 was my grade 1.
04 All pre-War schools were destroyed in Berlin – Centre, as in most heavily bombed cities.
05 Teachers had died on the fronts or at home. Those with previous, even merely peripheral party affiliation were excluded. Half – ruins, still resembling buildings were hastily patched up. The snow kept out by cardboard, darkening the classrooms. We shivered, though fully dressed for winter. Retired teachers were called back. New ones got crash courses. All texts withdrawn for ideological cleansing – even on that level. School lunches consisted of macaroni and watered-down tomato sauce. Augmented, on Thursdays, by a beaker of hot chocolate, a white wheat roll, and rarely, a piece of cheese, even a piece of chocolate. Heavenly memories !
Classes would be given for three hours in the morning – to facilitate those given to others in the afternoon. Following the winter afternoon classes, we would slog home, in the dark, between spooky ruins, in wood-soled clogs held on by wartime surplus webbing straps: conducive to all kinds of ailments, against which, medication was entirely missing.
Returning to an even then grueling homework, done by candlelight: followed by bed-time in the smallest room available, huddled around a tile stove, heated by kindled bought furniture.
06 One classmate, a Peter Schultze, had his forehead crushed in by flying debris, while sheltering in a usually reinforced bunker below his apartment building. Others lacked one or more limbs or eyes. Also, understandably, from severe speech impediments.
07 None of us considered these circumstances as unbearable, since we had just come from under much worse.
08 For my part, I feel far more sorry for the young patients at St. Judes: and especially for that young, Afghani girl toddler, digging in her heels, while being delivered to a man for $ 500 for food. [ As depicted on Fox ].
I thank the good Lord that you survived all those early trials, Charles, trials that were, alas, too severe for many of your contemporaries in wartime and postwar Europe.
I have often been moved by your accounts of your experiences, but I prize even more the many insights that you have wrested from those experiences and generously shared with us, your weary comrades.