Jewish Dominance of the Modern Art World
Jake Haines
a great taboo to speak about? How many of you don't even realize it?
Dragged as we are into Israel's wars and terrors, and with so much
Jewish American support for Israel, it's time to start wondering about
these things.
By 1973, some estimated that 75-80% of the 2500 core "art market'
personnel -- art dealers, art curators, art critics, and art
collectors -- were Jewish. [BURNHAM, p. 25] These people -- and their
progeny -- in New York largely control American artistic tastes and
values at the most important tier. (In 2001, according to ARTnews, at
least eight of the "Top Ten" art collectors were Jewish: Debbie and
Leon Black, Edythe and Eli Broad, Doris and Donald Fisher, Ronnie and
Samuel Heyman, Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravitz, Evelyn and Leonard
Lauder, Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder, and Stephen Wynn). [ESTEROW,
M., SUMMER 2001]
In 1996, Jewish art historian Eunice Lipton admitted that the main
reason she went into a career as an art historian was to be in a field
dominated by Jews:
"I wanted to be where Jews were -- that is, I wanted a
profession that
would allow me tacitly to acknowledge my Jewishness through the
company I kept." [RUBIN- DURSKY, p. 289]
Elsewhere, she notes that:
"On the face of it, art history seemed a gentile profession.
For one thing, the study of Christian art was its center. In addition,
there was an ancient Jewish injunction against making graven images.
But the fact is, the
field was filled with Jews. One might even say it was shaped by
them.
Art history is characterized in this century by studies in
connoisseurship, formalist analysis, the study of iconography and
iconology, and social analyses. Jews have been prominent in all
categories." [LIPTON, p. 285]
"Today," wrote Gerald Krefetz in 1982, "... Jews enjoy every
phase of the art world: as artists, dealers, collectors, critics,
curators, consultants, and patrons. In fact, the contemporary art
scene has a strong Jewish flavor. In some circles, the wheelers and
dealers are referred to as the Jewish mafia since they command power,
prestige, and most of all, money." A few important members of the
Jewish mafia in recent decades included dealers Leo Castelli, Ben
Heller, and Larry Rubins (as well as Rubins' brother, William, a
curator at the Museum of Modern Art), free lance art critic Clement
Greenberg and Hilton Kramer (long time art critic for the New York
Times, Henry Geldzahler (curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art),
among many others. "This group is a formidable power," noted Krafetz,
"in forming tastes and promoting some schools of art to the exclusion
of others." [KRAFETZ, p. 161]
When Alice Bellony-Rewald (an artist, critic, and art model)
first moved into the New York art world from France, she noted that :
"I was plunged into a world of highly sophisticated Jewish art
collectors, and it took me a long time to reconcile my mental picture
of speakeasies and the Wild West with people who spoke five languages
fluently and
lived surrounded by period furniture, Meissen china, and Old Masters."
[PEPPIATT, p. 16]
"A member of the Warburg banking family single-handedly started up
the field of art history ... [CANTOR, p. 271] ... All the art
history
departments in the world are direct descendants of Aby
Warburg's
Institute (moved from to London in 1932 to escape the Nazis)
and his
great Jewish disciple, Erwin Panofsky. Is it anomalous that a
Jew would have been so creative in the study of art that was so little
cultivated in
Jewish tradition? All the more that a liberated white Jew
should pursue
art history. But one can see a Judaizing tendency in Warburg's
method
of art historical criticism. The picture is studied for its
'iconology,' its pattern of ideas illustrating textual passages. Art
is thereby approached in hermeneutic fashion, again recalling Talmudic
exegesis, rather than for
its aesthetic content. Yet the most significant aspect of
Warburg's
development in art history is the demonstration that market
capitalism
could embrace and fund a purely cultural and academic
operation. The
distinct equality of capital was not its materialism, but its
liquidity, the fungible capacity of capital to transform into any
commodity, including art and humanities literature that represents a
dynamic power in society. Aby Warburg's historical and critical
mastery of art was structurally the same as his brother's mastery in
their international bank of money and
its investment potential. The transformative interaction
between art and
capital is central to the nature of the market economy."
[CANTOR, p.
271]
"In Baltimore, Miami, Atlanta, and a host of other cities," says
Charles Silberman, "cultural institutions are increasingly dependent
on Jewish support." [SILBERMAN, p. 214-215] In Miami, for example,
Jews were the "creators of the New World Symphony and the Miami City
Ballet." [HURIASH, L., 2-15-99, p. B3] Joseph Meyeroff donated $10
million to the Baltimore Symphony hall, half its cost. [CHRISTOPHER,
p. 214 ] Also in Baltimore, Robert Bergman became the director of the
prominent Walters Art Museum in 1981. In his first decade he oversaw a
$6 million museum renovation. Half a dozen wealthy Jews "have been
among the Walters' most generous donors." [GOODMAN, #2, p. 123] "Some
eyebrows," says Jewish author George Goodman,
"may have been raised at the awareness of Baltimore's Jewish
'Art
Mafia.' At the time, Arnold Lehman was director of the
Baltimore
Museum of Art, Sergio Commissiona was music director of the
Baltimore Symphony (in Meyerhoff Hall), and Frederick Lazarus
IV,
an arts administrator, was president of the Maryland Institute
College
of Art. Also, Herbert Kessler, a medievalist ... , chaired the
well-
regarded art history department at John Hopkins [University]."
[GOODMAN, #1, p. 123
Across town, at the Baltimore Museum of Art, Florence Levy was
the museum's first director; Gertrude Rosenthal was for decades the
chief curator. Goodman notes that :
"When he was appointed the [Baltimore Museum of Art] director in
1971, at thirty-five years of age, Tom L. Freudenheim became one
of the nation's most visible Jewish museum professionals. Though
secure in his identity as a Reform Jew and a Zionist, he did not
seek
recognition as a trailblazer. Indeed, he was somewhat puzzled as
to
why the Museum's Board sought a Jewish director, especially one
with such obvious Jewish credentials. [GOODMAN, #2, p.129
In nearby Washington DC, by 1998 Jews in the upper ranks of the
art world establishment included I. Michael Hegman (Secretary, "or
Chief Administrator") of the Smithsonian Museum, real estate mogul
Robert Smith (President of the National Gallery of Art), Allen
Shestack (Deputy Director of the National Gallery of Art), Neil
Benezra (Chief Curator of the Hirschorn Museum, where fellow Jew
Stephen Weil recently retired as Deputy Director), David Levy
(Director of the Corcoran Gallery -- his wife is a Vice President at
PBS broadcasting), and Stephen Ostrow (Curator of Prints and Drawings
at the Library of Congress). Years ago, collector Joseph Hirshhorn's
6,000 art works were donated towards the creation of the Hirshhorn
Museum. (Hirshhorn made most of his fortune in uranium mining).
Even the renowned Getty Museum, founded with funds from the non-Jewish
oil mogul, J. Paul Getty (and with $4 billion to play with, the
richest museum on earth) has consistently had Jews at the economic
helm. In 1998, after 17 years, Harold Williams left the presidency of
the J. Paul Getty Trust. Williams, notes George Goodman, was "raised
in a Labor Zionist home in East Los Angeles." [GOODMAN, #2, p. 142]
Williams had earlier retired as Norton Simon Inc.'s chairman of the
board at age 42. He later served as the Dean of UCLA's Graduate School
of Business and Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in
the President Carter administration.
The new president of the J. Paul Getty Trust is another Jewish
administrator, Barry Munitz, formerly the chancellor of both the
California State University system and the University of Houston.
Munitz's "current project," says Goodman, "is the renovation and
expansion of the [Getty branch] in Malibu, which will open in 2001 ...
The collections donated by Lawrence and Barbara Fleishman will be one
of the highlights." [GOODMAN, #2, p. 144] The new Getty Center opened
in 1998, designed by Jewish architect Richard Meier and built at a
cost of $1 billion. Earlier, George Goldner had "launched the Getty's
drawing collection." He later became the Getty curator of paintings
and the curator of prints and drawings at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art in New York. He was succeeded at the Getty by David Jaffe, a Jew
born in England, and formerly of the National Gallery of Australia.
(Even the president and CEO of the Getty Petroleum Corporation is
Jewish, Leo Liebowitz; in 1993 he was charged by journalist Robert
Friedman with being in cahoots in a tax cheating scam with a chief in
the "Russian Mafia." [NATIONAL PETROLEUM, p. 20] )
Chairman of the Museum of Modern Art? Ronald Lauder, activist in
Israel's right-wing Likud Party.
Chairman of the Whitney Museum? Ronald's brother, Leonard.
In addition to all this, as sampling, a scanning of merely a few
common, and easily recognized, Jewish names in an alphabetical list of
American art institution officials (1997-98) revealed the following
(selected here are only people at the pinnacle of their organizations
or fields):
Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts: Samuel Sachs II. (The
Treasurer of this museum is also Jewish: Gilbert Silverman).
Chairman of the Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati: Stanley
Kaplan.
Public Affairs Director of the National Museum of African-American
Art in Washington DC: Janice Kaplan.
President and CEO of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry:
James Kahn.
Executive Director of the Connecticut Historical Society: David
Kahn.
Executive Director of the National Assembly of State Art Agencies
in
Washington DC: Jonathan Katz.
President of the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts in New York
City: Nathan Leventhal.
President of the Society of American Graphic Artists: Martin
Levine.
Director of the American Foundation for the Arts in Miami: May
Levine.
President of the American Foundation for the Arts in Miami:
Richard
Levine.
Public Information Director for the International Center of
Photography in New York City: Phyllis Levine.
President of National Assembly of State Art Agencies, Washington
DC: Marvin Cohen.
President of the American Society for Aesthetics: Ted Cohen.
Executive Director of the of the Arizona Commission for the Arts:
Shelly Cohn.
President of the New York Artists Equity Association: Arnold
Gold.
Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection in Ontario: Joan Goldfarb.
Chairman of the Art Academy of Cincinnati: Stewart Goldman.
President of the Los Angeles Center for Photographic Studies:
Adrienne Goldstone.
Executive Director of the Farrington Valley Arts Center in Avon,
Connecticut: Betty Friedman.
Director and Chief Curator of the Nova Eccles Harrison Museum of
Art in Logan, Utah: Steve Rosen.
Executive Director of the American Institute for Conservation of
Historic and Artistic Works: Sarah Rosenberg.
President of the Albuquerque (New Mexico) United Artists: Allan
Rosenfield.
Director of the Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Museum of Art: Ellen
Rosenholtz.
Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Brooklyn Museum: Robert
Rubin.
Commissioner of Chicago's Department of Cultural Affairs: Lois
Weinberg. [BOWKER]
This is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg." See much more at:
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
art world - so what! - someone is going to dominate it you tit head.
keith
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
Edward
But, so what?
It has already happened and not only in art world.
Just look around.
Bob & Dale Ford
Wow what the hell am I doing........... next exhibit is at the Jewish
cultural centre. Woooh Hoooo now I've got it figured out...I'm going be
rich!!!!!
Hey do me a favour don't tell any one else I don't want them cutting in
on my action.
Dale
Jake Haines
There is a BIG "so what." ANY ethnic group that has such dominance is
not healthy for a truly democratic, multicultural society. Although
there is great diversity in the Jewish community, there ARE points of
strong agreement, and these "points of agreement" are expressed as
bias and prejudice throughout the art system (and elsewhere: mass
media, US foreign policy, etc.)
The most obvious expression of this Jewish bias is that community's
massive support for Israel. How many people do you know in positions
of power in the art world with a name like Mohammed?
There are also very strong currents of intra-Jewish bias in the art
world: getting jobs, getting shows, making connections, etc. How many
Holocaust-related art shows have you heard about lately? Then ask
yourself: How many shows are there around about Palestinian suffering?
This issue is much, much more complicated, and there are many more
angles to it, and we document as much as we can about it at our web
site:
The chapter on art is: jewishtribalreview.org/art.htm
The site is anti-racist, universalistic, and against all bias and
prejudice. Pre-emptively, we'll mention that criticizing Jewish
racism, Jewish power, Jewish networking, and Jewish chauvinism is not
"racist." We're the good guys.
Jake Haines
> Get a life - Jews dominate the art world or little green men dominate the
> art world - so what! - someone is going to dominate it you tit head.
>
Imagine that Christian fundamentalists dominated the art world in the
same manner. I expect that you'd be upset about it. Imagine that Saudi
Muslims dominated the art world. I expect you'd be troubled about
that. Imagine that WASPS dominated the art world the way Jews do. Rest
assured, there would be political activism to break down this
dominance in order to have a more balanced ethnic representation in
the art world. Even if African-Americans dominated the art world, this
would be unjust. Despite great diversity, there IS an African-American
world view that is distinct from all others -- as there is a Malaysian
world view, a Latino world view, a Jewish world view, and Arab world
view, etc.
We live in a multicultural world of increased balkanization. We have
to start looking at the way power is wielded in the art world: who
runs the show?
By the way, if "little green men" dominated the art world, I think
you'd be troubled about that.
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
[snip all the garbage]
Edward
Don't be so sore about the whole thing.
I understand you perfectly.
I do not like this situation either.
ANY domination is bad and leads to horrid disbalance.
But there is nothing I can do about it.
There is no need for you to list arguments:
some people either agree with you and they know it already,
but others don't give a shit - and your postings will pass unnoticed.
Some will be replying with jokes or accusing you of anti-Semitic
nonsense.
...All in vain...
That's status quo in United States to live with.
In other countries the picture is not that hopeless though.
(Even this Christmas I suddenly realized that I had no one to send a
card to.
Everyone I know is Jewish. I ended up by sending only 2 pathetic cards.
Voila!
Isn't it nice?)
------
Edward
Jake Haines
You know, the interesting thing about your posts is your honesty. Most
people are too fearful to even address this subject. It is also
terribly politically INcorrect. The usual kneejerk response to
addressing the question of Jewish dominance of the art world (and
elsewhere) is cries of "anti-Semite," "racist," "Nazi," etc. etc. etc.
I've heard it all.
Jewish influence in the art world effects every artist (and art world
professional) -- impacting them in every way from what is "quality"
art to the networking necessary to attain any kind of
acclaim/"success." The nakedly political side, of course, is anything
having to do with the state of Israel.
Your position though, of "There's nothing I can do about it," isn't
exactly correct. All we're trying to do by creating our web site, and
by visiting this art forum, is to elicit public discussion about this.
It is a major taboo to talk about this. And it's ENFORCED to be so.
Many people DO NOT realize that there is a very strong ethnic tinge in
art world politics.
Our "listing" of "arguments" is very, very long, and that's what our
web site is for.
Why such resignation on your part, when you realize the situation? If
people don't speak out about it, why will things get any better?
If we are supposed to be living in a multiethnic society, where is the
expression of this among the power elites of the art world?
Art is always created in a political context, and a social milieu.
Examination of the issue of stupendous Jewish influence in the shaping
of the art world is increasingly necessary, especially as we all get
dragged into World War, terrorism, etc. -- in Israel's shadow.
Thanks for the honest response.
Jake Haines
This, in its splendid entirety, is a typical response we get to the
tons of facts we post.
> William Barkin - Fine Artist
"Fine" artist? Do you paint the way you write?
RBrac53660
Jake Haines
This, in its entirety, from a "fine artist?"
Jake Haines
This, in its entirety, from a "fine" artist?
> William Barkin - Fine Artist
Jake Haines
> www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Your photography world is one in which Jews are pre-eminent.
Todd Strickland
> The usual kneejerk response to
> addressing the question of Jewish dominance of the art world (and
> elsewhere) is cries of "anti-Semite," "racist," "Nazi," etc. etc. etc.
There's a reason these are the usual responses; THEY'RE TRUE, you
anti-semite, racist, Nazi fuckhead!!! "Jewish dominance of the art
world (and elsewhere)," pleeeeease.... Go crawl back into your bunker
and follow the example of your fuhrer.
> I've heard it all.
I'll bet you have! I hope you hear it again, and again, and again...
> Your position though, of "There's nothing I can do about it," isn't
> exactly correct.
Yeah, just fire up those ovens...
> Our "listing" of "arguments" is very, very long, and that's what our
> web site is for.
No. Your web site is for; 1) diseminating propaganda; 2) attracting
new recruits; 3) giving your organization a "legitimate" and
"objective" front (when in fact everything about your homepage reeks
of of anti-semitism). Your listing of "arguments" is VERY, VERY LONG
to obfuscate the fact that your whole reason-to-be is BULLSHIT!
> Why such resignation on your part, when you realize the situation? If
> people don't speak out about it, why will things get any better?
> Examination of the issue of stupendous Jewish influence...
Fuck off and die, you Nazi dickhead!
RBrac53660
>
>> Would you just die like a may flie
>> www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
>
>
>Your photography world is one in which Jews are pre-eminent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jake Haines
> There's a reason these are the usual responses; THEY'RE TRUE, you
> anti-semite, racist, Nazi fuckhead!!! "Jewish dominance of the art
> world (and elsewhere)," pleeeeease.... Go crawl back into your bunker
> and follow the example of your fuhrer.
This kind of response is abusive, uninformed, and hysterically
defensive.
>
> > Your position though, of "There's nothing I can do about it," isn't
> > exactly correct.
>
> Yeah, just fire up those ovens...
That's a pretty big leap, from discussing a power elite in the art
world to Nazi mass murder. It's ridiculous. And it's your prop for
lack of any argument.
>
> No. Your web site is for; 1) diseminating propaganda;
You have not itemized a single fact we post that isn't true.
2) attracting
> new recruits;
We "recruit" for nothing. As we all get dragged tighter and tighter to
the racist state of Israel (closer -- judging by recent news reports
-- to your notion of "Nazis"), we think it's time to start discussing
who runs things.
3) giving your organization a "legitimate" and
> "objective" front
Our site has over 1,000 links to articles about Jewish/Zionist racism,
power, etc. and, in another section, over 10,000 citations from 4,000
bibliographic sources. It's as "legitimate" and "objective" as any
site can be.
(when in fact everything about your homepage reeks
> of of anti-semitism).
In your world view, merely criticizing the Jewish community and/or
Israel equals "anti-Semitism."
Your listing of "arguments" is VERY, VERY LONG
> to obfuscate the fact that your whole reason-to-be is BULLSHIT!
What kind of argument is this? You say nothing whatsoever in your
behalf -- throughout your response. Just abuse, vulgarity, and
defamation.
> > Why such resignation on your part, when you realize the situation? If
> > people don't speak out about it, why will things get any better?
>
> > Examination of the issue of stupendous Jewish influence...
>
> Fuck off and die, you Nazi dickhead!
Here you conclude with the quintessential racist Zionist
self-affirmation -- vulgar and violent.
Jake Haines
Being a "part" and dominating are two very different things.
silverpoint
more Nazis, Aryans, Klansmen, conspiracy theorists and other assorted freaks
would major in art history-- but that would require learning something.
Seig heil, and get a life--fast!!
(Fucking Nazis....)
"Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
Jake Haines
> more Nazis, Aryans, Klansmen, conspiracy theorists and other assorted freaks
> would major in art history-- but that would require learning something.
>
> Seig heil, and get a life--fast!!
>
> (Fucking Nazis....)
>
facts. You can't refute the original post, because it's true.
And posting true facts about Jewish influence has nothing to do with
"Nazis," etc. If you're a supporter of brutal, racist Israel these
days, you're a lot closer to being a "Nazi."
How about some hot art that condemns Israeli's many, many terrible
injustices?
I don't see it on the horizon. How come?
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
the world. Now that does not bother me because someone has to lead and it
may as well be the yanks.
Now by your logic we should be bothered by that.
Get a life:
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
everything then blame them for taking out Iraq's nuclear station. We would
have been in one hell of a mess if they had not done that.
keith
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
mdeli
You wonder why people who read what you say think Hitler etc. Like you
Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
etc.
Nazis complained about Jewish dominated physics and fortunately sent
lots of leading physicist here. One could complain as you do that
science is Jewish dominated by giving a long list to the exclusion of
others. And suppose there were more Jewish scientists would that mean
that this is what affects their research or scientific opinions.
Nazis connected medicine with Judaism much like you connect it with
art. Indeed in Germany at the time most doctors happened to be Jewish.
They were forbidden to practice not because they were doctors but
because Nazi's hated Jews. The result on public health is well
documented.
The art field is not judaism. Whether or not most in that or any other
field are Christians, Jews or whatever is irrelevant.
No religion dominates art. Art is a field of expertise not a
religion. Opinions, trade and scholarship, skill and ideas whether
right or wrong are what the art world is about, not one's religious
background.
>The art world is one of Judeo-centric dominance. How come this is such
>a great taboo to speak about? How many of you don't even realize it?
>Dragged as we are into Israel's wars and terrors, and with so much
>Jewish American support for Israel, it's time to start wondering about
>these things.
You don't just wonder about it. Your point is that there is something
WRONG with it.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Bob & Dale Ford
deal with some of those issues.
What's your point with this information any way, Jewish people have good
taste? They care more about the arts? WASPs are too cheap to support
the arts? Or that the collectors are forcing the artists to produce
works demented pro Israel works?????
News flash:
1. This is a free society. People can go and do what they please. That
means if Jewish people want to collect art GOOD ON THEM.
2. The production side of art is not dominated by Jewish people. Meaning
most artists are not Jewish.
3. The artists produce demented works of all sorts, sans I want to
please my Jewish overlord pressure.
4. A lot of what these people were collecting has nothing to do with
politics at all, let alone the middle east.
5. I have had major problems with some of Israel's policies and still
do, but you know what if a bunch of maniacs that liked to carry out
terrorist attacks (i.e. blow themselves up in malls surrounded by kids,
walk into parties and open fire with machine guns) lived next door to
me, I might be inclined to be a little more radical than Israel
currently is. Oh yeah, and some of these terrorist organizations follow
the doctrine that Israel must be terminated and all Jews out of the
middle east before they will stop these attacks. This is genocide,
ethnic cleansings what ever, you choose to call it. Are you supporting
that? I don't have a lot of sympathy for that point of view and if you
look at it from Israel's point of view that might just drag up some
unpleasant memories. Now if you look at some of the propaganda that has
been put out lately by certain groups such as at the UN conference on
racism, it is very anti-semtic. Disgustingly so, in fact a writer in
Canada dug up some old Nazi stuff for a comparison and it was almost a
modern day rip of of the old propaganda. People are digging up the old
the Jews run the world Nazi shit, and we must rid ourselves of them
because they are evil.
6. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. It is OK to be
Jewish. I know some Jewish people, do you? How do YOU know they are
Jewish any way?
7. Israel is not Judaism.
8. There is one race, the human race. We all bleed the same colour, love
our children, and strive to survive in this world. What's even more sad
here is that Jewish people, Christian people, and Muslims worship the
same God. All the arguing is about the lousy rules.
Dale
RBrac53660
>be a part of
>the photography world.
>what you say is true, it must mean that Jews have the moxieand the drive to
>get to the top. Must be in their genes.
>Montreal where I come from had a Jewish intelligentsia and we
>appreciated them very much.
>I thank my mother's Jewish lawyer for sticking with
>her as a young widow for 2 long years. I thank my Jewish art
>instructors for their competence and their commitment to art.
>If you racists want to improve your gene pool and bio-diversity
>try integration. Looks like you lost out with your
>stupid genes. Now get lost, you schmuck!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
wow that was very nice of you to say
Lauri Levanto
To the point Mani, thanks.
Tell that to JohnNG too. You are sure the only one here
he might listen.
He not only keeps lists, he wants to censor art.
mdeli wrote:
> You wonder why people who read what you say think Hitler etc. Like you
> Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
> etc.
>
> (the rest of a good posting snipped, look at the original)
-lauri
Todd Strickland
> > > Your position though, of "There's nothing I can do about it," isn't
> > > exactly correct.
> >
> > Yeah, just fire up those ovens...
>
> That's a pretty big leap, from discussing a power elite in the art
> world to Nazi mass murder. It's ridiculous. And it's your prop for
> lack of any argument.
It was a small step from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor to Nazi boycotts
of Jewish run businesses;
a small step from the boycotts to banning Jews from owning land;
a small step from taking away Jew's land to prohibiting them from holding
influential jobs;
a small step from denying Jews job access to denying them health insurance
and education;
a small step from taking away basic services to forcing Jews to register
their wealth and property;
a small step from making Jews register their wealth to taking away that
wealth;
a small step from taking away Jews wealth to forcing Jews into ghettoes;
a small step from forcing Jews into ghettos to murdering them in
concentration camps.
A big leap from your talk of Jewish world domination to Nazi mass murder?
It's not such a big leap; Hitler did it all within a decade. But I'm sure
you already know all about that...
If not, here's a link to a Holocaust timeline so you can study up.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html#sturm1
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
>
> You have not itemized a single fact we post that isn't true.
>
It isn't a question of your "facts" (Clement Greenberg was Jewish!? Oh, my
God!!!), but the conclusions you draw from such "facts."
Neil Postman once wrote that in a world of "information overload," where
there are far too many facts for the individual to verify on his own, ANY
statement begins to seem just as valid as any other statement. Your web
site exploits this to make it seem reasonable that Jews really do control
the world, which is patently absurd.
Postman's suggestion for dealing with this state of affairs was not to check
each and every piece of information to refute silly arguments (an impossible
task, as the new information piles up faster than anyone can take it in),
but simply to develop a "crap detector," and just dismiss the nut cases of
the world with common sense. My crap detector has been ringing off the hook
since you arrived.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
> power, etc. and, in another section, over 10,000 citations from 4,000
> bibliographic sources. It's as "legitimate" and "objective" as any
> site can be.
>
It isn't a question of your "facts" (Clement Greenberg was Jewish!? Oh, my
God!!!), but the conclusions you draw from such "facts."
Neil Postman once wrote that in a world of "information overload," where
there are far too many facts for the individual to verify on his own, ANY
statement begins to seem just as valid as any other statement. Your web
site exploits this to make it seem reasonable that Jews really do control
the world, which is patently absurd.
Postman's suggestion for dealing with this state of affairs was not to check
each and every piece of information to refute silly arguments (an impossible
task, as the new information piles up faster than anyone can take it in),
but simply to develop a "crap detector," and just dismiss the nut cases of
the world with common sense. My crap detector has been ringing off the hook
since you arrived.
When I was in high school my algebra teacher once "proved" to the class that
0=1. He wrote a lengthy proof on the board, with many apparently simple
steps, which lead to this very surprising conclusion. Our task was to find
the error; we couldn't. It was such a small point, buried deeply in this
overwhelming tangle of mathematical statements (each one of which looked
valid), that we couldn't catch it.
Trying to dispel your World Jewish Domination theory by looking for the
errors at your voluminous web site is a similar problem. It's pointless to
try. No doubt, that's why you and your colleagues cram so much POINTLESS
information into your web site.
Todd Strickland
silverpoint
Nazi than an actual Nazi.
Makes perfect sense. Now, can we actually discuss art, or am I late for the
cross burning?
"Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
> >
silverpoint
Jake Haines
dominance of the art world. You curse me out for posting facts and
start yelling about Nazis. This is apparently your own obsession and
it has nothing to do with Jewish domination of the modern art world.
> It was a small step from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor to Nazi boycotts
> of Jewish run businesses;
>
> a small step from the boycotts to banning Jews from owning land;
There are echos of this in today's Israel.
>
> a small step from taking away Jew's land to prohibiting them from holding
> influential jobs;
There are echoes of this in today's Israel.
>
> a small step from denying Jews job access to denying them health insurance
> and education;
There are echoes of this in today's Israel.
>
> a small step from taking away basic services to forcing Jews to register
> their wealth and property;
Not sure about this one, because your statement is vague (what is a
"basic service?")
>
> a small step from making Jews register their wealth to taking away that
> wealth;
Not sure about this one, except that few Palestinian Israel citizens
have any wealth to speak of.
>
> a small step from taking away Jews wealth to forcing Jews into ghettoes;
What do you call Gaza (where 800,000 people are fenced in against the
sea in a 10X30 mile area)? A resort?
>
> a small step from forcing Jews into ghettos to murdering them in
> concentration camps.
Have you read the news lately about the Israeli policy of "targeted
assassinations?"
>
> A big leap from your talk of Jewish world domination to Nazi mass murder?
> It's not such a big leap; Hitler did it all within a decade. But I'm sure
> you already know all about that...
The story of Hitler has nothing to do with the fact that Jews dominate
the American art world. That's merely your veil to screen it from
public view.
>
> If not, here's a link to a Holocaust timeline so you can study up.
>
> http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html#sturm1
>
> Todd Strickland
Again, here's where you can get educated: jewishtribalreview.org
We've got an entire chapter about the Holocaust:
Jake Haines
> It isn't a question of your "facts" (Clement Greenberg was Jewish!? Oh, my
> God!!!), but the conclusions you draw from such "facts."
The point, of course, is not just that Clement Greenberg was one of
the most influential art critics of his time but, more importantly,
art critics of Jewish heritage are pre-eminent in the field. Greenberg
also has some things to say about his Jewish identity, and we document
that at our web site.
>
> Neil Postman once wrote that in a world of "information overload," where
> there are far too many facts for the individual to verify on his own, ANY
> statement begins to seem just as valid as any other statement.
Do you think that people function that way: believing that ANY
statement they hear anywhere is as "valid" as the next? Seriously? If
you believe this, how do you function in your daily life? How do you
make choices? Decisions? Any thinking, rational, moral person should
evaluate information based upon their own life experience and
verifiable evidence. You don't like our web site? Fine. We have a
bibliography with thousands of sources, and you can go read that stuff
to find the truth of what we say.
Your web
> site exploits this to make it seem reasonable that Jews really do control
> the world, which is patently absurd.
You refute the massive amount of information at our web site by saying
that we "make it seem reasonable that Jews really do control the
world, which is patently absurd." We do not state that "Jews control
the world." What we do is to present evidence for people to examine
and decide for themselves their social and political implications. You
say our evidence (with complete bibliographic citations,
overwhelmingly from Jewish schoarship, the Jewish ethnic press, and
the mainstream mass media) is "absurd." Why is such a vast cataloguing
of evidence "absurd?" It's absurd because it troubles you? That's what
great art is, isn't it? Isn't art supposed to make you think? Isn't it
supposed to challenge you?
>
> Postman's suggestion for dealing with this state of affairs was not to check
> each and every piece of information to refute silly arguments (an impossible
> task, as the new information piles up faster than anyone can take it in),
> but simply to develop a "crap detector," and just dismiss the nut cases of
> the world with common sense. My crap detector has been ringing off the hook
> since you arrived.
What you are stating is that 1) there is too much information/evidence
(that Jews are influential in popular culture) to digest, 2) you don't
like what this evidence signifies, and 3) hence, your reject it all.
How does this system of yours refute -- in any way -- the evidence? It
is simply a system of negation based on your feelings. You insist upon
ignoring the facts.
Jake Haines
> Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
> etc.
So? Jewish scholars list Jewish scientists, actors, etc. too. There
are a variety of books about this (See The Phenomenon of the Jews, for
a recent one, also written by a Jewish author). As I recall, he lists
the top Jewish millionaires in the 1999 Forbes Rich List. As 2.5% of
the American population, some 40% of the top 100 (I believe that was
the cut-off number) richest Americans were Jewish.
>
> Nazis complained about Jewish dominated physics and fortunately sent
> lots of leading physicist here. One could complain as you do that
> science is Jewish dominated by giving a long list to the exclusion of
> others. And suppose there were more Jewish scientists would that mean
> that this is what affects their research or scientific opinions.
You are addressing a very sociological issue. I would say, yes, one's
heritage is relevant to whatever one does. Don't you think so? Your
Jewish or Catholic or Muslim background informs all that you do. The
fact that you are, say, an American artist is going to influence what
you do differently than, say, an Indonesian artist. It is not a
question of religion. It is a question of ethnicity. Background.
Transferred heritage. And social identity. It is a belief system.
>
> Nazis connected medicine with Judaism much like you connect it with
> art.
You are confusing "Judaism" with the Jewish people. The origin of
Jewish identity is that religion, but most American Jews today are not
very religious. This does not negate their very "Jewish" identity,
however.
Indeed in Germany at the time most doctors happened to be Jewish.
> They were forbidden to practice not because they were doctors but
> because Nazi's hated Jews. The result on public health is well
> documented.
Well, I'd like to see your citations about this. Jews were very, very
prominent in the Wiemar pre-Nazi republic, this is true. But for you
to infer that German public health collapsed when Jews were kicked out
is pretty chauvinist, to say the least. Germany wasn't a Third World
country.
>
> The art field is not judaism. Whether or not most in that or any other
> field are Christians, Jews or whatever is irrelevant.
You are missing my point completely. It is not "Judaism" that
dominates popular art. It is a group of people with a very, very
strong collective identity, and network -- not necessarily manifested
in any kind of religious expression.
>
> No religion dominates art. Art is a field of expertise not a
> religion. Opinions, trade and scholarship, skill and ideas whether
> right or wrong are what the art world is about, not one's religious
> background.
Again, the issue has nothing to do with religion. Except to the degree
that one's ethnic/religious/racial origin -- or whatever -- influences
perception. Jewish artists are distinct from non-Jewish artists. If
not, why are they identified -- even by themselves -- as Jews. What
EXACTLY is this identity? And how does this identity manifest itself
-- per the issues of this discussion group -- in the art world?
> You don't just wonder about it. Your point is that there is something
> WRONG with it.
When ANY ethnic/racial/social/political group dominates ANYTHING, this
should be cause for public discussion.
>
> ...no skill no art
There are thousands of "skilled" artists in this country. And most
artists at this discussion group know that this -- of itself -- is
merely one of the requisites to entre into the art world. Like
anywhere else, connections, clique associations, etc. is far, far more
important.
Unless you don't care and do your art in a cave and put it in the
drawer at night.
Jake Haines
> > Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
> > etc.
By your criteria, why isn't Jewish author Steve Silberger a "Nazi." Or
"anti-Semite." Or someone on the road of some implicit evil. In
Silberger's book, The Phenomenon of the Jews, he lists by name the
wealthiest Jews in America. Here's what Mr. Silberg says in overview
at amazon.com about his book:
"My book is an in-depth look at the most successful ethnic group in
America.
While comprising only 2% of the US population, Jewish-Americans [in
1999] account for 23% of the Forbes 400 Wealthiest Americans, 45%
of the top 40 people. It's a club that required a minimum net worth
of $625 million in 1999."
Too many people consider it a sin to do this kind of examination. Why?
This kind of astounding Jewish influence is also evidenced in the art
world. In fact, a lot, lot more influence. And we document it at our
web site.
Jake Haines
> everything then blame them for taking out Iraq's nuclear station. We would
> have been in one hell of a mess if they had not done that.
I thought artists prided themselves upon being worldly astute. What
you refer to is not so simplistic. Whether Iraq gets a nuclear bomb or
not, Iran is close to getting one, Pakistan has one, etc. And the
troubling ingredient in all this Middle East trouble is the arrogant
state of Israel.
If you think Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear power plant solves our
increasing dilemma in the Middle East, please think a little harder.
Jake Haines
> deal with some of those issues.
And?
>
> What's your point with this information any way, Jewish people have good
> taste? They care more about the arts? WASPs are too cheap to support
> the arts? Or that the collectors are forcing the artists to produce
> works demented pro Israel works?????
My point is that there are a variety of ideological currents that
inform the making of modern art, and Jewish influence is one of the
most important of them. You're being facitious with your questions,
but the political implications of Jewish influence in the art world
does have something to do with Israel. There are many politically
themed art works these days. When was the last time you saw one that
took on -- critically -- Israel?
>
> News flash:
> 1. This is a free society. People can go and do what they please. That
> means if Jewish people want to collect art GOOD ON THEM.
The point is to step back on wonder what is happening in our "free
society."
> 2. The production side of art is not dominated by Jewish people. Meaning
> most artists are not Jewish.
This is certainly true, and the reason for that, of course, is that
Jews only represent 2.5% of the American population.
Here's what art critic Peter Halley (self-identified as half-Jewish)
had to say about the rising prominence of Jewish artists:
"It is my contention that the art world of the 1980s represented
a kind of
renaissance for Jewish American artists who came of age in that
decade.
The list of young Jewish American artists who took center stage
in the
80's is long -- early in the decade we might think of Barbara
Kruger,
Laurie Simmons, Sherrie Levine, R.M. Fischer, Donald Sultan,
Julian
Schnabel, and David Salle. Later, the work of Ross Bleckner,
Terry
Winters, Haim Steinbach, and Meyer Vaisman come to the fore ...
What originally motivated me to explore this subject [of growing
Jewish artist prominence] was the strange fact that there has
been an
inexplicable silence surrounding it. Especially in this era of
multicultural
awareness, it is surprising, to say the least, that no one has
mentioned
this phenomena ... [HALLEY, p. 26-27] ...
One possible reason for this silence about a Jewish artist
renaissance in
the 80's is that at the same time a great fluorescence of Jewish
influence
in the areas of philanthropy, business, finance and the bastions
of high
society was taking place ... By the 1980s ... in cities with
large Jewish
populations, like New York, Jews had largely replaced the older
WASP
elite as standard bearers of social power and prestige in the
evolving
American postwar ethnic meritocracy."
Thus a new and yet unexamined social paradigm arose. Jews ...
[who]
had championed the marginal culture of Modernism had suddenly
become the pillar of the American establishment. At the same
time, a
new generation of Jewish artists was emerging whose work was
collected
as often as not by Jews in the cultural elite as part of a
continuing
tradition of Jewish support for contemporary art." [HALLEY, p.
28]
> 3. The artists produce demented works of all sorts, sans I want to
> please my Jewish overlord pressure.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
> 4. A lot of what these people were collecting has nothing to do with
> politics at all, let alone the middle east.
True. No one is putting paintings of Isaeli tanks in their bathrooms
(I doubt it, anyway). What's at stake is something much deeper. There
IS a Jewish world view, it IS distinct from, say, a Catholic, or
Muslim, worldview. And this world view influences the buying, the
selling, etc. of modern art. This world view is also influential in
elite art decision making: even, what is "quality" art? There are
those that decide this. It is not monolithic, there are of course
other variables, but it is extremely significant.
> 5. I have had major problems with some of Israel's policies and still
> do, but you know what if a bunch of maniacs that liked to carry out
> terrorist attacks (i.e. blow themselves up in malls surrounded by kids,
> walk into parties and open fire with machine guns) lived next door to
> me, I might be inclined to be a little more radical than Israel
> currently is.
The situation over there is horrific, for both sides. But you must
consider, that those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, feeling themselves
justifiably desperate, were probably capable of any atrocity towards
their Nazi persecutors. The point is: in order to understand the
vicious Palestinian attacks on Israelis, you must know well the
vicious, brutal, racist milieu in which they are oppressed (and
murdered) by Israelis. It doesn't seem like you know the whole story.
Oh yeah, and some of these terrorist organizations follow
> the doctrine that Israel must be terminated and all Jews out of the
> middle east before they will stop these attacks. This is genocide,
> ethnic cleansings what ever, you choose to call it. Are you supporting
> that?
You illustrate my point about Jewish dominance of the art world. With
all due respect, I imagine that you have gotten most of your
information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mass
media. The mass media is dominated also by Jewish influence (we
document that also at our web site). In other words, you -- as an
artist -- are a product of your milieu. And that ART milieu is Jewish
dominated.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for that point of view and if you
> look at it from Israel's point of view that might just drag up some
> unpleasant memories. Now if you look at some of the propaganda that has
> been put out lately by certain groups such as at the UN conference on
> racism, it is very anti-semtic. Disgustingly so, in fact a writer in
> Canada dug up some old Nazi stuff for a comparison and it was almost a
> modern day rip of of the old propaganda. People are digging up the old
> the Jews run the world Nazi shit, and we must rid ourselves of them
> because they are evil.
With all due respect, you're wrong here. Virtually every Third World
nation supported the notion that "Israel is a racist state." And
that's because Israel IS a racist state. There wasn't anything at the
Durban conference about "getting rid of Jews."
> 6. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. It is OK to be
> Jewish. I know some Jewish people, do you? How do YOU know they are
> Jewish any way?
Again, if Muslims ran the art world, it would be morally right to
complain about it. If French-Americans ran the art world, it would be
morally right to complain about it. It is not a question of religion
at all. Per Jewish people, anyone who functions at all in the currents
of popular culture today knows MANY Jewish people.
> 7. Israel is not Judaism.
That's true, but that has nothing to do with anything I've stated.
Israel is, however, founded upon some very core premises of Judaism.
The reason the Jews took over what's today called Israel is because
the lure was part of Jewish RELIGIOUS heritage. They weren't
interested in taking over part of Kenya (which was suggested by some).
> 8. There is one race, the human race. We all bleed the same colour, love
> our children, and strive to survive in this world. What's even more sad
> here is that Jewish people, Christian people, and Muslims worship the
> same God. All the arguing is about the lousy rules.
There is indeed only one human race. But you have not done your
homework. The origin of Jewish identity is "the Chosen People." We
document the implications of this concept at our web site. Based on
this old concept, there even is a vast difference between modern
Jewish collective identity (popularly known in Jewish circles as
"particularism" -- i.e., chauvinism and ethnocentrism) versus what
you're talking about -- pan-human universalism. Judaism was NOT
founded as a universalistic religion.
That's why we built our web site. To educate people about the issues
here which, again, with all do respect, you obviously have no inkling
about whatsoever.
Jake Haines
> Nazi than an actual Nazi.
What did the Nazis first do when they seized power? They instituted a
Thought Police, quite like your thinking, although they took it a bit
further and killed people and threw them in jail for speaking the
truth. All you do is scream "Nazi" to a huge catalogue of documented
facts. Your position is uninformed, ignorant, abusive, defamatory, and
you don't make the slightest effort to debate the facts or their
implications whatsoever. Because, of course, you can't. The
information posted is true. What's your only recourse? Screaming
"Nazi." Truly, people like you are the real "Nazis." Guys like you are
running loose in the art world? Do you tie gags on their mouths when
they enter your studio, or gallery, or museum, or whatever your genre
is?
> Makes perfect sense. Now, can we actually discuss art, or am I late for the
> cross burning?
Our posting IS about art. Yours is about "Nazis" and your own need for
censorship.
Our posting is about something that effects most people on this
discussion group.
Jake Haines
> the world. Now that does not bother me because someone has to lead and it
> may as well be the yanks.
>
> Now by your logic we should be bothered by that.
>
> Get a life:
I'm surprised that so much of the response from representatives of the
art world is so reactionary. I thought it was a much more open,
free-thinking field. Guess I was wrong.
Your response is just some empty jingoism. If a band of Catholic monks
or the Taliban ran the art world, you'd care about it.
Jake Haines
> >what you say is true, it must mean that Jews have the moxieand the drive to
> >get to the top. Must be in their genes.
> >Montreal where I come from had a Jewish intelligentsia and we
> >appreciated them very much.
> >I thank my mother's Jewish lawyer for sticking with
> >her as a young widow for 2 long years. I thank my Jewish art
> >instructors for their competence and their commitment to art.
> >If you racists want to improve your gene pool and bio-diversity
> >try integration. Looks like you lost out with your
> >stupid genes. Now get lost, you schmuck!
WHO is racist? Again, this kind of hateful response is an illustration
of my point. Even in the supposedly liberal art world, there is a
rigid, authoritarian response to any who dare to bring up the subject
of Jewish dominance in the art world.
What other subject would engender such censorship? Why is Jewish
dominance off limits to public discussion?
RBrac53660
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
you want to replace them with yourself and your own gang. Go and see Lord of
the Rings and watch your friends from the dark side .
We just don't want you ruling the art world.
keith (a colourful artzy fartzy)
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
interested in their desire to hate than to make peace. And that rests on
both sides not just one.
You are no different than the old hate mongering Irish Secret Society to
whom my great grandfather had to pay weekly protection in the 1880's.
keith ( a colourful artzy fartzy)
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
mdeli
>> You wonder why people who read what you say think Hitler etc. Like you
>> Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
>> etc.
>
>So? Jewish scholars list Jewish scientists, actors, etc. too.
No problem! Your problem starts with what you infer from it.
>I would say, yes, one's
>heritage is relevant to whatever one does. Don't you think so?
>I suspects it might informs all that you do.
The problem in the sentence is the word ALL and your problem is that
you believe that it infers something wrong.
>> Nazis connected medicine with Judaism much like you connect it with
>> art.
>
>You are confusing "Judaism" with the Jewish people. The origin of
>Jewish identity is that religion, but most American Jews today are not
>very religious. This does not negate their very "Jewish" identity,
>however.
That's exactly what Hitler had in mind. Sounds as innocent as you
pretend to be However he also felt that therefore you are evil.
It also does not negate that you evolved from monkeys, who where
around long before Jewish identity. Nor does it negate that we are all
about 23rd cousins and shows that whether you like it or not you are
also related to Jews.
> Indeed in Germany at the time most doctors happened to be Jewish.
>> They were forbidden to practice not because they were doctors but
>> because Nazi's hated Jews. The result on public health is well
>> documented.
>
>Well, I'd like to see your citations about this.
Look it up yourself.
>> No religion dominates art. Art is a field of expertise not a
>> religion. Opinions, trade and scholarship, skill and ideas whether
>> right or wrong are what the art world is about, not one's religious
>> background.
>
>Again, the issue has nothing to do with religion.
Then why the list of Jews in the arts and why do you mention religion?
> Except to the degree
>that one's ethnic/religious/racial origin -- or whatever -- influences
>perception.
So what are you worried about?
>Jewish artists are distinct from non-Jewish artists.
And women are distinct from men and Kosher pickles are distinct from
holy waffers, so what?
>The art world is one of Judeo-centric dominance. How come this is such
>a great taboo to speak about? How many of you don't even realize it?
>Dragged as we are into Israel's wars and terrors, and with so much
>Jewish American support for Israel, it's time to start wondering about
>these things.
You don't just wonder about it. Your point is that there is something
WRONG with it.
>When ANY ethnic/racial/social/political group dominates ANYTHING, this
>should be cause for public discussion.
>>
Don't obfuscate, your point is that there is that there is something
wrong with it. This why most here to feel that there is something
wrong with you.
Bob & Dale Ford
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> > There was just an exhibition at the National Gallery in Canada, that did
> > deal with some of those issues.
>
> And?
> >
> > What's your point with this information any way, Jewish people have good
> > taste? They care more about the arts? WASPs are too cheap to support
> > the arts? Or that the collectors are forcing the artists to produce
> > works demented pro Israel works?????
>
> My point is that there are a variety of ideological currents that
> inform the making of modern art, and Jewish influence is one of the
> most important of them. You're being facitious with your questions,
> but the political implications of Jewish influence in the art world
> does have something to do with Israel. There are many politically
> themed art works these days. When was the last time you saw one that
> took on -- critically -- Israel?
Again at the national gallery in Ottawa anti-Isreal works (Last
November..... might still be on).
Well I have a few in my studio but in fact the works take on the whole
stupidity of the entire situation, including parents sending their 10
year old children to shoot rocks and martyr themselves for a political
cause.
BTW There have always been politically themed art works. That was one of
the major used for art over the ages.
> >
> > News flash:
> > 1. This is a free society. People can go and do what they please. That
> > means if Jewish people want to collect art GOOD ON THEM.
>
> The point is to step back on wonder what is happening in our "free
> society."
Well I don't like the fact that people are being categorized by their
religious beliefs.
Again so Jewish people support the arts and place a high priority on
cultural development.
>
> > 3. The artists produce demented works of all sorts, sans I want to
> > please my Jewish overlord pressure.
>
> I don't understand what you're saying here.
If an artist wants to do an anti-Isreal work they will. Artists are
notoriously not easy people to control. The Jewish members of society
are not controlling the production of works of art.
>
> > 4. A lot of what these people were collecting has nothing to do with
> > politics at all, let alone the middle east.
>
> True. No one is putting paintings of Isaeli tanks in their bathrooms
> (I doubt it, anyway). What's at stake is something much deeper. There
> IS a Jewish world view, it IS distinct from, say, a Catholic, or
> Muslim, worldview. And this world view influences the buying, the
> selling, etc. of modern art. This world view is also influential in
> elite art decision making: even, what is "quality" art? There are
> those that decide this. It is not monolithic, there are of course
> other variables, but it is extremely significant.
What is that Jewish world view?
>
> > 5. I have had major problems with some of Israel's policies and still
> > do, but you know what if a bunch of maniacs that liked to carry out
> > terrorist attacks (i.e. blow themselves up in malls surrounded by kids,
> > walk into parties and open fire with machine guns) lived next door to
> > me, I might be inclined to be a little more radical than Israel
> > currently is.
>
> The situation over there is horrific, for both sides. But you must
> consider, that those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, feeling themselves
> justifiably desperate, were probably capable of any atrocity towards
> their Nazi persecutors.
They rioted but now they didn't murder little German/Polish kids. Also
soldiers are military targets and while could be considered Guerrilla
warfare is not terrorism. They are a legitimate target. Pizza parlour
and city buses full of commuters are not.
The point is: in order to understand the
> vicious Palestinian attacks on Israelis, you must know well the
> vicious, brutal, racist milieu in which they are oppressed (and
> murdered) by Israelis. It doesn't seem like you know the whole story.
Oh I know the story, Britain, France promises to both, containment
camps, Jewish Terrorism on British, land ownership/cultural issues,
Couple of wars, refugee camps, yada, yada, yada. BTW Palestinians are
also oppressed by their system of government (dictatorship). Palestinian
academics and anti-government protesters are severely dealt with.
Doesn't any one wonder why there isn't any one but Arafat to deal with.
The joke of this is that Palestinians living in Israel actually have
more freedom than those living under Arafat. Also the past president of
Iran, (think he is the foreign minister now or some thing to that effect
I could look it up) the prime sponsor of Hamas, had a little speech
last month upon which he said that he hoped that some one would get a
nuke soon so they could wipe Israel off the map. This of course was
meant with great cheers.
No hope for peace when you are actively trying to commit genocide at
whatever cost.
>
> Oh yeah, and some of these terrorist organizations follow
> > the doctrine that Israel must be terminated and all Jews out of the
> > middle east before they will stop these attacks. This is genocide,
> > ethnic cleansings what ever, you choose to call it. Are you supporting
> > that?
>
> You illustrate my point about Jewish dominance of the art world. With
> all due respect, I imagine that you have gotten most of your
> information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mass
> media. The mass media is dominated also by Jewish influence (we
> document that also at our web site). In other words, you -- as an
> artist -- are a product of your milieu. And that ART milieu is Jewish
> dominated.
No That is not where the information has come from. And I used to know
some Palestinian people quite well. They were under the belief the peace
was very important but that a bunch of radical nut cases were in power
and they weren't expecting success any time soon.
>
> I don't have a lot of sympathy for that point of view and if you
> > look at it from Israel's point of view that might just drag up some
> > unpleasant memories. Now if you look at some of the propaganda that has
> > been put out lately by certain groups such as at the UN conference on
> > racism, it is very anti-semtic. Disgustingly so, in fact a writer in
> > Canada dug up some old Nazi stuff for a comparison and it was almost a
> > modern day rip of of the old propaganda. People are digging up the old
> > the Jews run the world Nazi shit, and we must rid ourselves of them
> > because they are evil.
>
> With all due respect, you're wrong here. Virtually every Third World
> nation supported the notion that "Israel is a racist state." And
> that's because Israel IS a racist state. There wasn't anything at the
> Durban conference about "getting rid of Jews."
There was this great pamphlet handed out that listed the pros and cons
of Hitler winning the second world war con was the new beetle would of
never been built, pro was there wouldn't be any jews and Palestine would
be a state.
>
> > 6. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. It is OK to be
> > Jewish. I know some Jewish people, do you? How do YOU know they are
> > Jewish any way?
>
> Again, if Muslims ran the art world, it would be morally right to
> complain about it. If French-Americans ran the art world, it would be
> morally right to complain about it. It is not a question of religion
> at all. Per Jewish people, anyone who functions at all in the currents
> of popular culture today knows MANY Jewish people.
>
> > 7. Israel is not Judaism.
>
> That's true, but that has nothing to do with anything I've stated.
> Israel is, however, founded upon some very core premises of Judaism.
Judaism is not monolithic.
> The reason the Jews took over what's today called Israel is because
> the lure was part of Jewish RELIGIOUS heritage.
You mean that same heritage that got their land confiscated, and had
them sent to the ovens. And you wonder why they wanted to return to a
place where they had some history. Quite frankly Kenya is a better
country as far as climate, mineral resources, water, agriculture etc....
But you know I doubt Kenya was interested in becoming a Jewish home land
either.
> interested in taking over part of Kenya (which was suggested by some).
Mau Mau's ever here of them? Kenya's had it's own colonial induced
problems.
>
> > 8. There is one race, the human race. We all bleed the same colour, love
> > our children, and strive to survive in this world. What's even more sad
> > here is that Jewish people, Christian people, and Muslims worship the
> > same God. All the arguing is about the lousy rules.
>
> There is indeed only one human race. But you have not done your
> homework. The origin of Jewish identity is "the Chosen People."
From the old testament, some thing the big three religions have in
common, meaning they are all the chosen people.
> document the implications of this concept at our web site. Based on
> this old concept, there even is a vast difference between modern
> Jewish collective identity (popularly known in Jewish circles as
> "particularism" -- i.e., chauvinism and ethnocentrism) versus what
> you're talking about -- pan-human universalism. Judaism was NOT
> founded as a universalistic religion.
Pan human universals sans jews sound good to you. Hmmmm not exactly
universal rather biased I'd say.
>
> That's why we built our web site. To educate people about the issues
> here which, again, with all do respect, you obviously have no inkling
> about whatsoever.
They put up a poster saying we're worth more than you
Cause they're working for the clampdown.
Teach our twisted speech to the young believers.
Train our blue eyed men to be unbelievers.
The judge says five to ten and I say double that again
I'm not working for the clampdown.
No one born with a living soul could be working for the clampdown.
(The Clash)
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> What is that Jewish world view?
>
Maybe I can help here. My cousin is a Jewess, she converted to get
married. So, having Jewish relations, I must have something of a Jewish
world view - so, just look at my opinions and you should have a fairly
close match.
I had a girlfriend with a Jewish father once, nice bloke. So that should
seal it...
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
Jake Haines
> >> Hitler had lists of Jewish scientists actors artists bankers doctors
> >> etc.
> >
> >So? Jewish scholars list Jewish scientists, actors, etc. too.
>
> No problem! Your problem starts with what you infer from it.
How is it an "inference" to cite facts?
> >I would say, yes, one's
> >heritage is relevant to whatever one does. Don't you think so?
> >I suspects it might informs all that you do.
>
> The problem in the sentence is the word ALL and your problem is that
> you believe that it infers something wrong.
Anyone's world view is made up of many influences. But your
ethnic/religious identity -- especially at an early age -- informs
this world view. If you are born and raised as a Muslim, and you
reject that religious faith in later life, your world view will none
the less be skewed by those early life experiences. AND, the Jewish
community maintains a very strong familial identity. What I infer to
be "wrong" is that ANY ethnic/racial group that dominates ANYTHING is
injust. For decades Jews have been in the vanguard of agitation in the
deconstructing of the WASP power establishment in some sectors of
American society. Why is it OK for them to complain about THAT power
elite, yet -- when the tables are turned -- they are immune from
criticism for their profound socio-cultural-political influence?
>
> >> Nazis connected medicine with Judaism much like you connect it with
> >> art.
> >
> >You are confusing "Judaism" with the Jewish people. The origin of
> >Jewish identity is that religion, but most American Jews today are not
> >very religious. This does not negate their very "Jewish" identity,
> >however.
>
> That's exactly what Hitler had in mind.
Look. Hitler's political opposite, Karl Marx (who was born Jewish),
said some of the same things Hitler said. Most early European
socialists also said the same things. Voltaire, the "father" of
Enlightenment tolerance, said a lot of the same things. You are
confusing fascist-inspired genocide with legitimate criticism. They
are two very different things.
Sounds as innocent as you
> pretend to be
You condemn my criticism of a power elite in the art world as
tantamount to agitating for genocide. That is completely ridiculous.
As you well know.
However he also felt that therefore you are evil.
Don't understand this. Is it a typo? Who's "you?"
>
> It also does not negate that you evolved from monkeys, who where
> around long before Jewish identity. Nor does it negate that we are all
> about 23rd cousins and shows that whether you like it or not you are
> also related to Jews.
What's your point here? It is not I that separates the Jewish
community from others. The origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen
People." Check your Old Testament. You will see that the Jewish
community traditionally understands itself as a "nation apart" from
all others. That's their self-conception. I didn't invent it. Look.
Arabs and Jews are VERY closely related. Both claim the patriarch
Abraham as one of their own people. In traditional lore, Abraham's
child with Sarah was Isaac, which beget the "Jewish" lineage.
Abraham's child with his slave/servant, Hagar, produced the Arabic
line. This is the origin of the Jewish/Arabic divide. I didn't invent
it. Your pan-human universalism is wonderful, and I subscribe to it.
But Jewish identity is not rooted in that concept. Jewish identity is,
by Jewish dictate, distinct from all others.
> > Indeed in Germany at the time most doctors happened to be Jewish.
> >> They were forbidden to practice not because they were doctors but
> >> because Nazi's hated Jews. The result on public health is well
> >> documented.
> >
> >Well, I'd like to see your citations about this.
>
> Look it up yourself.
Look. YOU do some research about this for once in your life. Your
sweeping platitudes are based on air, and not on evidence. We
meticulously document all this at our web site.
>
> >> No religion dominates art.
Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Islamic art? Micheangelo and
all those guys functioned almost purely in a religious tradition. Do
you know that in Orthodox Jewish religious tradition it is forbidden
to do most kinds of human figure "art?" And those who these days are
nihilist/atheistic/hedonistic in their convictions are no less
"religious" in their expressions of their "faith," in art or
otherwise.
Art is a field of expertise not a
> >> religion. Opinions, trade and scholarship, skill and ideas whether
> >> right or wrong are what the art world is about, not one's religious
> >> background.
None of these expressions you cite exist in a socio/moral/political
vacuum. There is no pure transcendence from the social world in which
we live.
> >
> >Again, the issue has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Then why the list of Jews in the arts and why do you mention religion?
You clearly do not have any grasp of the issue here. People of Jewish
heritage dominate the art world. Period. The origin of Jewish identity
is religious, yes, but it is not the major foundation of Jewish
identity in 2002. Those ideas of collective identity that DO bind Jews
together is what's at stake here. And these are the things that
influence the art world (and so much else).
>
> > Except to the degree
> >that one's ethnic/religious/racial origin -- or whatever -- influences
> >perception.
>
> So what are you worried about?
Again, if the Taliban (to cite an extreme example) dominated the art
world, you'd be sufficiently "worried." The Jewish community is not of
course so monolithic (and I'm not speaking about religion). But if the
Jewish community is just like everyone else, and sees the same things
the same exact way as any other ethnic community, what then exactly
defines them as "Jewish?" And herein likes the key issue at hand.
Whatever this definition is, that is an important factor in the
ideological view that dominates the art world.
>
> >Jewish artists are distinct from non-Jewish artists.
>
> And women are distinct from men and Kosher pickles are distinct from
> holy waffers, so what?
You're getting ridiculous. Differences are differences. Turn left or
turn right: the consequence is not the same. Eat a pickle or a holy
wafer. The experience is not the same.
>
> >The art world is one of Judeo-centric dominance. How come this is such
> >a great taboo to speak about? How many of you don't even realize it?
> >Dragged as we are into Israel's wars and terrors, and with so much
> >Jewish American support for Israel, it's time to start wondering about
> >these things.
>
> You don't just wonder about it. Your point is that there is something
> WRONG with it.
Of course there is something wrong with it. Look. If you lived in a
little town and my family owned most of that place, sooner or later
you'd start noticing it. There IS something wrong with it. Whoever
runs the town can be expected to influence it unduly in their favor.
>
> >When ANY ethnic/racial/social/political group dominates ANYTHING, this
> >should be cause for public discussion.
> >>
> Don't obfuscate, your point is that there is that there is something
> wrong with it. This why most here to feel that there is something
> wrong with you.
How is it morally "wrong" to complain about social injustice? Look.
Put it this way. If a formalist art clique DOMINATED the art world,
this would be a problem for those who are not formalists. If people
who painted like Norman Rockwell dominated the art world, this would
be a problem for whoever didn't paint like Norman Rockwell. If
sculptors dominated the art world, and they were convinced that
sculpture was the best art, non-sculptors would have a problem with
this. This is really not too hard a concept to grasp. It the question
of any clique holding too much power. That's not right. Why do you
fight the obvious?
>
> ...no skill no art
No connections, no nothing.
Jake Haines
> Because you are absoultly wrong.
Anyone who can only muster only this in defense of his/her conviction
has no case whatsoever.
You can sit back and chant "The earth is flat" also. But saying it
won't make it so.
Jake Haines
> interested in their desire to hate than to make peace.
The quest for social justice is not motivated by "hate," either here
or in the Middle East.
And that rests on
> both sides not just one.
Are you Solomon? Go to Israel for a few months. Go to Gaza. Live there
in an Arab household. See how people exist, the despair and suffering
they face, and how they are treated by the Jewish state. You will come
back a changed individual. Even if you're Jewish.
>
> You are no different than the old hate mongering Irish Secret Society to
> whom my great grandfather had to pay weekly protection in the 1880's.
Well, at least you're creative. Good imagination. Although it has
nothing to do with the issue at hand.
silverpoint
of the other people you named here, and at your warped website, gasp! was
JEWISH?
Guess what-- everyone already knows that!! Duh. There are entire threads
on this newgroup, plus newspaper and magazine articles, even entire books
about Clement Greenberg, a lot of it derogatory, yet not a one takes the
peculiar slant that your take on him does. These mind blowing facts no one
is refuting or contradicting-- we already know this, but just don't care.
Few people, if any, in this discussion group or elsewhere are the least bit
astounded to learn that BERNARD BERENSON WAS A JEW!! I've read plenty of
Berenson, yet see no reason how his religious background gave him the
Svengali-like powers of evil mind control over the field of art history that
you attribute to him-- that was due to his expertise, insight, and
professionalism, not to mention in-depth knowledge of the Renaissance and
art in general. Or so I thought. How much of Berenson a Jew-hating
bastard can actually assimilate and understand is not on the radar here,
obviously, though I'm sure the further insight would be even more
overwhelming than the first wave of revelations.
Next, you'll be trying to tell us that Albert Einstein was Jewish, too.
What a revelation.
How many folks out there already knew this, show of hands, please? How many
actually care? Yet, for some reason, only Nazis like you go around crowing
about it.
How are most people on this newsgroup-- working artists and art buffs of
various backgrounds and interests-- affected by these truly cosmic
revelations? Or how are they affected by some Jewish conspiracy to control
the art world? You claim that this is some issue of the most vital concern
to all artists today. How? The mere fact that some important thinkers and
movers/shakers in the world of modern art happened to be Jewish means just
that, and there's nothing inherently bad, evil, nor even mysterious about
it. Everyone already knew this, honest. The only point here being is that
if there's Jews, they must be up to something, which must be inherently
evil, apparently. I do not call you a "Nazi" lightly, nor with the least
bit of humor or sarcasm.
How does pointing out that things you're supposedly bowling us over and
blowing our minds with are things we already know, but simply couldn't care
less about, means that I'm the one advocating a "Thought Police." Makes
perfect sense.
Art is a profession, an avocation, or an interest or hobby. People with no
real interest in it, only in bashing those of a particular background, have
no business showing any further concern in it.
"Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
silverpoint
> running loose in the art world? Do you tie gags on their mouths when
> they enter your studio, or gallery, or museum, or whatever your genre
> is?
>
Oh, and about "guys like you... running loose in the art world?" You know
nothing about me, other than that I am offended by your shallow, racist,
airhead take on the world of art. And, no, a "guy like me" is not Jewish,
at all, if that's what you're trying to imply.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must finish chapter 4 of the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion" before kissing my color glossy of Hitler goodnight.
Jake Haines
> November..... might still be on).
I will research this and see what I find.
>
> Well I have a few in my studio but in fact the works take on the whole
> stupidity of the entire situation, including parents sending their 10
> year old children to shoot rocks and martyr themselves for a political
> cause.
This is false and reflects your own misunderstanding of the situation.
The notion that parents send their children to die is total
propaganda. It's absurd and reflects your complete lack of knowledge
about the situation. Again, this illustrates part of my general point.
Throughout popular culture we are sensitized to the Israeli
perspective, not the Palestinian one.
>
> BTW There have always been politically themed art works. That was one of
> the major used for art over the ages.
Of course. I never stated otherwise.
Jake Haines
> > >
> > > News flash:
> > > 1. This is a free society. People can go and do what they please. That
> > > means if Jewish people want to collect art GOOD ON THEM.
> >
> > The point is to step back on wonder what is happening in our "free
> > society."
>
> Well I don't like the fact that people are being categorized by their
> religious beliefs.
You are missing the point. There is no "categorization by religious
belief."
You could say the same about "Christian" society. In earlier years
this society was overwhelmingly "Christian." Your argument that they
merited the power they had could be made also. The point is, that in a
truly "democratic" society, Christian influence would be merely part
of the mosaic and not dominant.
> >
> > > 3. The artists produce demented works of all sorts, sans I want to
> > > please my Jewish overlord pressure.
> >
> > I don't understand what you're saying here.
> If an artist wants to do an anti-Isreal work they will. Artists are
> notoriously not easy people to control. The Jewish members of society
> are not controlling the production of works of art.
> >
> > > 4. A lot of what these people were collecting has nothing to do with
> > > politics at all, let alone the middle east.
You don't grasp the issue at hand at all. If people of Christian
heritage, say, dominated the art world today, whether religious or
secular, that influence would manifest itself.
> >
> > True. No one is putting paintings of Isaeli tanks in their bathrooms
> > (I doubt it, anyway). What's at stake is something much deeper. There
> > IS a Jewish world view, it IS distinct from, say, a Catholic, or
> > Muslim, worldview. And this world view influences the buying, the
> > selling, etc. of modern art. This world view is also influential in
> > elite art decision making: even, what is "quality" art? There are
> > those that decide this. It is not monolithic, there are of course
> > other variables, but it is extremely significant.
> What is that Jewish world view?
> >
> > > 5. I have had major problems with some of Israel's policies and still
> > > do, but you know what if a bunch of maniacs that liked to carry out
> > > terrorist attacks (i.e. blow themselves up in malls surrounded by kids,
> > > walk into parties and open fire with machine guns) lived next door to
> > > me, I might be inclined to be a little more radical than Israel
> > > currently is.
> >
> > The situation over there is horrific, for both sides. But you must
> > consider, that those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, feeling themselves
> > justifiably desperate, were probably capable of any atrocity towards
> > their Nazi persecutors.
>
> They rioted but now they didn't murder little German/Polish kids. Also
> soldiers are military targets and while could be considered Guerrilla
> warfare is not terrorism. They are a legitimate target. Pizza parlour
> and city buses full of commuters are not.
People who are desperate do desperate things. Whoever they are. It is
a tragedy. But it is true. You do not grasp the Palestinian situation.
This is not to excuse suicide attacks, but to try to understand where
they come from. Imagine how beaten and hopeless one must feel by the
oppressive Israeli system to surrender your life in such a way.
>
> The point is: in order to understand the
> > vicious Palestinian attacks on Israelis, you must know well the
> > vicious, brutal, racist milieu in which they are oppressed (and
> > murdered) by Israelis. It doesn't seem like you know the whole story.
>
> Oh I know the story, Britain, France promises to both, containment
> camps, Jewish Terrorism on British, land ownership/cultural issues,
> Couple of wars, refugee camps, yada, yada, yada. BTW Palestinians are
> also oppressed by their system of government (dictatorship).
The Palestinian situation is a direct result of Israeli dominance and
oppression. All aspects of Palestinian existence are forcibly
controlled by the Jewish state.
>Palestinian
> academics and anti-government protesters are severely dealt with.
> Doesn't any one wonder why there isn't any one but Arafat to deal with.
> The joke of this is that Palestinians living in Israel actually have
> more freedom than those living under Arafat.
Your astounding bias and anti-Palestinian hostility is, again, part of
the problem I speak of. Its undecurrent excuses the excesses of
Israel. Your information is skewed. Where does your knowledge about
the situation in the Middle East come from?
Also the past president of
> Iran, (think he is the foreign minister now or some thing to that effect
> I could look it up) the prime sponsor of Hamas, had a little speech
> last month upon which he said that he hoped that some one would get a
> nuke soon so they could wipe Israel off the map. This of course was
> meant with great cheers.
Israel already has an arsenal of nuclear bombs. They exist with great
Israeli "cheers." The nuclear bombs were not built to decorate the
patio. The "arms race" is as old as humankind. Israel's nukes
guarantees that everyone else in the Middle East will be chasing after
them. The future looks grim for everybody.
> No hope for peace when you are actively trying to commit genocide at
> whatever cost.
Palestinians are committing genocide? Your prejudice is beyond belief.
Check the numbers of Palestinian murdered , versus Israeli: 5-8 times
greater.
If this is true, you make it sound as if this was institutionalized.
> >
> > > 6. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. It is OK to be
> > > Jewish. I know some Jewish people, do you? How do YOU know they are
> > > Jewish any way?
> >
> > Again, if Muslims ran the art world, it would be morally right to
> > complain about it. If French-Americans ran the art world, it would be
> > morally right to complain about it. It is not a question of religion
> > at all. Per Jewish people, anyone who functions at all in the currents
> > of popular culture today knows MANY Jewish people.
> >
> > > 7. Israel is not Judaism.
> >
> > That's true, but that has nothing to do with anything I've stated.
> > Israel is, however, founded upon some very core premises of Judaism.
> Judaism is not monolithic.
>
> > The reason the Jews took over what's today called Israel is because
> > the lure was part of Jewish RELIGIOUS heritage.
> You mean that same heritage that got their land confiscated, and had
> them sent to the ovens. And you wonder why they wanted to return to a
> place where they had some history. Quite frankly Kenya is a better
> country as far as climate, mineral resources, water, agriculture etc....
> But you know I doubt Kenya was interested in becoming a Jewish home land
> either.
> > interested in taking over part of Kenya (which was suggested by some).
> Mau Mau's ever here of them? Kenya's had it's own colonial induced
> problems.
All you need to know (which you don't) about Israel and Zionism is at:
jewishtribalreview.org/28israe/htm
>
> >
> > > 8. There is one race, the human race. We all bleed the same colour, love
> > > our children, and strive to survive in this world. What's even more sad
> > > here is that Jewish people, Christian people, and Muslims worship the
> > > same God. All the arguing is about the lousy rules.
> >
> > There is indeed only one human race. But you have not done your
> > homework. The origin of Jewish identity is "the Chosen People."
>
> From the old testament, some thing the big three religions have in
> common, meaning they are all the chosen people.
Sorry, I haven't got all the time in the world to here correct your
ignorance. We've documented the Chosen People tradition, and how it's
quite different from the other major religions, at our web site.
>
> > document the implications of this concept at our web site. Based on
> > this old concept, there even is a vast difference between modern
> > Jewish collective identity (popularly known in Jewish circles as
> > "particularism" -- i.e., chauvinism and ethnocentrism) versus what
> > you're talking about -- pan-human universalism. Judaism was NOT
> > founded as a universalistic religion.
> Pan human universals sans jews sound good to you. Hmmmm not exactly
> universal rather biased I'd say.
> >
> > That's why we built our web site. To educate people about the issues
> > here which, again, with all do respect, you obviously have no inkling
> > about whatsoever.
>
> They put up a poster saying we're worth more than you
> Cause they're working for the clampdown.
> Teach our twisted speech to the young believers.
> Train our blue eyed men to be unbelievers.
> The judge says five to ten and I say double that again
> I'm not working for the clampdown.
> No one born with a living soul could be working for the clampdown.
> (The Clash)
Do you live and breathe musical acts? Does your CD define the world
for you? Have you lost the capacity to express yourself except through
commercial lyrics? (And "punk" was indeed commercial).
Why not think for yourself for a change, and not mimic what popular
culture pours into your head?
Jake Haines
> nothing about me, other than that I am offended by your shallow, racist,
> airhead take on the world of art. And, no, a "guy like me" is not Jewish,
> at all, if that's what you're trying to imply.
>
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I must finish chapter 4 of the "Protocols of the
> Elders of Zion" before kissing my color glossy of Hitler goodnight.
You are incapable of defending your position. To sink to your low
level, I can call you a kind of Thought Gestapo etc. etc. etc. But
that doesn't lead to an intelligent exchange. It's inane name-calling
and nothing else. You can't refute the fact that Jews dominate the art
world. But you declare that anyone who dares to investigate this
phenomenon is in forbidden territory.
What are your other censorial positions in the art world?
eli...@remgeocities.com
>First, none of this has anything to do with my posting: Jewish
>dominance of the art world. You curse me out for posting facts and
>start yelling about Nazis. This is apparently your own obsession and
>it has nothing to do with Jewish domination of the modern art world.
>
>> It was a small step from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor to Nazi boycotts
>> of Jewish run businesses;
>>
>> a small step from the boycotts to banning Jews from owning land;
>
>There are echos of this in today's Israel.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This also has nothing to do with "Jewish dominance of the art world"
and makes the "purity" of your questions very suspicious. I think
there are simple historical explanations for this relative "Jewish
dominance" in western culture, a privilege heavily paid after all. If
the field of competition remains sufficiently open, as it seems, there
is nothing to correct. This is not a question of dominating folklore:
when other minorities will reach the same level of cultural
sophistication I think their contributions will be appreciated as
well. But above all, if culture lose the value of universality, and
becomes a racial, religious, ethnic or national issue, is no more
culture.
Todd Strickland
> > A big leap from your talk of Jewish world domination to Nazi mass
murder?
> > It's not such a big leap; Hitler did it all within a decade. But I'm
sure
> > you already know all about that...
> >
> > If not, here's a link to a Holocaust timeline so you can study up.
> >
> > http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html#sturm1
> >
> > Todd Strickland
>
> We've got an entire chapter about the Holocaust:
>
I checked out your "chapter about the Holocaust." Funny, it doesn't say
anything about the Holocaust!!!
I tried to follow one of the links to an article at cnn.com but it was dead.
Not willing to take YOUR word that their ever was an article at the end of
that link, I visited their page and searched their COMPREHENSIVE DATABASE to
find the article you say was linked to; as far as I can tell, NO SUCH
ARTICLE WAS EVER WRITTEN! I knew that you guys were a bunch of slippery
weasels, but now I guess that you are flat out liars, as well...
No wonder organizations such as The Hate Directory have you listed.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
my
> > God!!!), but the conclusions you draw from such "facts."
>
> The point, of course, is not just that Clement Greenberg was one of
> the most influential art critics of his time but, more importantly,
> art critics of Jewish heritage are pre-eminent in the field. Greenberg
> also has some things to say about his Jewish identity, and we document
> that at our web site.
You mean Clement Greenberg was Jewish AND he talked about it! Shocking!!!
Are all of your "facts" this illuminating?
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
> > there are far too many facts for the individual to verify on his own,
ANY
> > site exploits this to make it seem reasonable that Jews really do
control
> > the world, which is patently absurd.
>>
check
> > each and every piece of information to refute silly arguments (an
impossible
> > task, as the new information piles up faster than anyone can take it
in),
> > but simply to develop a "crap detector," and just dismiss the nut cases
of
> > the world with common sense. My crap detector has been ringing off the
hook
> > since you arrived.
>
> What you are stating is that 1) there is too much information/evidence
> (that Jews are influential in popular culture) to digest, 2) you don't
> like what this evidence signifies, and 3) hence, your reject it all.
> How does this system of yours refute -- in any way -- the evidence? It
> is simply a system of negation based on your feelings. You insist upon
> ignoring the facts.
That's not at all what I (or Neil Postman) stated.
The point was that in a world of information overload one can make any
assertion, even ridiculous ones (such as Jews dominate the art world) seem
like legitimate facts. I actually did check out your web site and the VAST
number of references you list DO NOT support your contention that Jews
dominate the art world. Nor does the sheer number of articles make the
contention any more valid.
I could just as easily pile up a bunch of articles and information that
"prove" blacks, hispanics, asians, or even whites "dominate" the art world.
Of course, I don't have the payroll that you do to undertake such an effort
(nor the inclination).
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Todd - I didn't realize you couldn't read a lot of the posts here. In
case
> you missed my messages, I like your writing and the analysis of The
Blue
> Vase a lot, and hope you will post more of this sort of thing. You may
even
> move me to contribute some of my own thoughts on masterworks.
>
That would be nice!
I enjoyed the film about Goya that was out quite recently - I think
quite a few of his paintings would merit study.
I also think that people like John Ruskin have been unpopular for too
long and are also full of interest.
Chris Brobeck
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> You are incapable of defending your position. To sink to your low
> level, I can call you a kind of Thought Gestapo etc. etc. etc. But
> that doesn't lead to an intelligent exchange. It's inane name-calling
> and nothing else. You can't refute the fact that Jews dominate the art
> world. But you declare that anyone who dares to investigate this
> phenomenon is in forbidden territory.
>
I think a more general view is that any one who is overly concerned with whether
Jews dominate the art world is probably a certifiable loser who can't cut it on
his own without looking for some one else to blame his failure on. If you don't
like it, start wheeling and dealing in art, or write some intelligible
criticism. But don't whine just because someone does better than you.
Now it may well be that Jews are over represented on a population basis in
fields that demand intellectual competence, but if that is the case, I would
suggest you look at Jewish culture for how it encourages its young people,
particularly in education, self-reliance, and family support (something the rest
of us could learn from). As for your earlier mention of dragging the rest of the
worked into Jewish wars and terrors, I'd also suggest that had North Americans
paid more attention to supporting Israel's struggle to exist instead of kissing
Arafat's ass (as well as those running other oppressive states like Syria, Iran,
and Saudi Arabia), we wouldn't have had to deal with losers like the Taliban and
Al-Quaeda, and the WTC would still be standing.
Cheers;
Chris
Todd Strickland
> You say our evidence (with complete bibliographic citations,
> overwhelmingly from Jewish schoarship, the Jewish ethnic press, and
> the mainstream mass media) is "absurd." Why is such a vast cataloguing
> of evidence "absurd?" It's absurd because it troubles you?
Again, the conclusion you draw is what's absurd.
But on the subject of your "evidence" (nice word choice! It implies some
kind of "crime."), your web site is a joke, a vast one, but still a joke.
The links to "mainstream mass media" are almost all dead. The titles and
brief quotations you give often seem fabricated to me. For example, from
your "Holocaust" chapter:
Jewish Human Rights Group Condemns Holocaust Meeting.
CNN.com. May 14, 2001
"An influential Jewish human rights group [the Simon Wiesenthal Center]
condemned
Monday a group of Jordanian writers who had alleged that Jews exaggerated
the
Holocaust to gain world sympathy."
To begin, the link is dead and I couldn't find any reference to this article
at the CNN web site (and they have a very comprehensive database). But even
assuming this is based on an actual story, there is NO WAY that it was in
these exact words in the original. IF there was an actual story they would
not have bracketed the name of the organization, and they would not have
called it an "influential Jewish human rights group." YOUR ORGANIZATION has
REWRITTEN the article to insinuate certain ideas, namely that the Simon
Wiesenthal Center is dangerous because it's Jewish AND influential.
The other reason you mention this article (if there ever was such an
article) is, of course, because you want to suggest that Jews exaggerate the
Holocaust to gain world sympathy. You don't want to come out and admit that
this is YOUR OPINION on the matter, so you put the idea into the mouths of
"Jordanian writers," and then "objectively" site the article without any
commentary. Don't give me any bullshit that your purpose is to present
evidence "objectively" for the viewer to read and make his own judgement
beacause; 1) there is no article to read; 2) the quotation you have given is
fabricated or doctored.
Also, isn't it amazing with all the legitimate articles in the mainstream
press about Holocaust survivors, memorials, and remembrances you only link
to the few which seem to insinuate in the slightest way some doubt about the
Holocaust (again, I doubt that the original articles insinuated any such
thing, but your reworded quotations do)? If your organization was truly
unbiased there would be a few articles which affirm that 6 million Jews did
die in the Holocaust; your "Holocaust chapter" doesn't even bother to
mention that.
Now onto the "Jewish ethnic press." Here's one from Forward:
Survivors' Lawsuit Seeks 40 Billion from U.S. for Not Bombing Auschwitz.
[Jewish] Forward, April 6, 2001
"In a bizarre addition to the Holocaust-related suits now winding their
way through the courts..."
In this case the link works, but once again, your quotation from the article
is a cut and paste job, not a word for word quote. The quotation at your
web site deletes important information about the case, but includes every
line that makes the plaintif's position seem silly; VERY biased.
Why is it necessary to tag this publication as [Jewish]? You didn't put
[Gentile] before the CNN name? I hate answering my own questions but if I
leave it to you, you'll simply lie. So here's why you put the [Jewish] tag
here; first, so you can say that you're being "unbiased" in presenting
evidence from all points of view. This would be valid IF you weren't so
SELECTIVE in your "unbiased" presentation; of all the Holocaust related
articles you could have gotten from Forward, THIS is the one you chose? I
didn't see any links to stories about hate groups, or Holocaust deniers (of
which Forward has run many); maybe those kinds of articles hit too close to
home?
The second reason you put the [Jewish] tag on the article is because the act
of tagging itself carries a certain meaning. Under the Nazis, Jews were
forced to wear yellow Stars of David, and their passports were stamped with
a large red "J." The purpose of these acts was to stigmatize Jews as
different, and to insinuate that Jews were criminals who needed to be
watched constantly. Your organization never misses an opportunity to tag
some person, publication, or organization as [Jewish]. You do this for the
same reasons the Nazis did it.
As to why you chose to link to this article, it was obviously to imply that
Jews are greedy. Only problem here is that Mr. Wolz, the man who brought
the lawsuit, ISN'T EVEN JEWISH!!! But of course, your homepage has deleted
that bit of information...
Every link at your web site is like this. It amounts to a mountain of lies,
half-truths, and irrelevant facts, all to give the illusion that your
BULLSHIT hypotheses are objective "truths."
Todd Strickland
Jake Haines
> Jews dominate the art world is probably a certifiable loser who can't cut it on
> his own without looking for some one else to blame his failure on. If you don't
> like it, start wheeling and dealing in art, or write some intelligible
> criticism. But don't whine just because someone does better than you.
This is a typical response to the posting about Jewish dominance in
the art world. No one refutes its content, for they cannot. But you do
address something significant: "wheeling and dealing in art." The
creation of art has nothing to do with "wheeling and dealing."
Hustling, connections, self-promotion, etc. is what you are referring
to. And here people of Jewish heritage dominate.
>
> Now it may well be that Jews are over represented on a population basis in
> fields that demand intellectual competence, but if that is the case, I would
> suggest you look at Jewish culture for how it encourages its young people,
> particularly in education, self-reliance, and family support (something the rest
> of us could learn from).
You illustrate my original complaint. How is it that in popular
culture Jews are considered veritable saints, masters of "intellectual
competence," ad nauseum. Where does your socialization to this belief
system come from? "Intellectual competence" will not get you an
exhibiton at the Museum of Modern Art. If that was the criteria, "art"
would have nothing to do with getting a show. Nor will "intellectual
competence" sell one of your paintings.
All this stuff about saintly Jewish "self-reliance," "family support,"
etc. is legend, and it is foisted upon us all throughout popular
culture. What you are talking about is the very recipe for "success"
in the art world: networking, finding connections, etc. The art world
is nothing if it is not a of bunch of "movements," factions, cliques,
etc. One of the strongest currents throughout this is intra-Jewish
networking. It is not monolithic, but it is something real.
I refer you to the following realities, just for starters (from our
WHEN VICTIMS RULE: A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PRE-EMINENCE IN AMERICA at the
jewishtribalreview.org) :
Exploring problems in Jewish families (in a social work context),
Jewish social workers Herz and Rosen cut through defensive
smokescreens to note that:
"Success is so vitally important to the Jewish family ethos
that we can
hardly overemphasize it." [p. 368]
"Jews may have trouble allowing themselves to have a good time
without
'accomplishing anything.' " [p. 367]
"Today, in most Jewish families and communities, it is
obligatory that
all children go to college; graduate and professional studies
are often
expected as well. When this is not achieved parents frequently
perceive
it as a failure requiring therapy." [p. 368-369]
"Financial success is also highly valued in the Jewish family.
While
Jewish attitudes toward money are often stereotypically
portrayed, it
would be an error of omission to pretend that money has not
been an
extremely important status symbol for the Jewish family." [p.
368-369]
"Given the idealistic demands of the Jewish family system for
success
and achievement, it is hard not to feel a failure no matter
how much one
accomplishes ... A vicious cycle may develop in which family
members
devalue each other in order to bolster individual self esteem
... This
attitude is extended to the outside world as well, when Goyim
[non-
Jews] are viewed critically and often condescendingly...." [p.
370-371]
Jewish popular mythology for public consumption proclaims
exceptionally loving and well-adjusted nuclear family bonding.
"Mythmaking about the Jewish family, and particularly about the role
of women in that family, has become virtually a preoccupation of the
contemporary Jewish community." [HYMAN, p. 19] "Jews living in the
Diaspora," says Mimi Scarf, "have frequently spread much propaganda
about themselves in order to keep a low profile and as a consequence
have tended to downplay social problems of their own. Thus, Jews are
not alcoholics. Jewish fathers do not desert their children. Jewish
mothers do not batter their children, Jewish men do not beat their
wives ... " [SCARF, p. 51] "Although it is tempting to teach our
children that the Jewish family is superior to all others ... [we]
must admit that our idealized concept of the Jewish family is ... a
myth." [SCARF, p. 63]
>As for your earlier mention of dragging the rest of the
> worked into Jewish wars and terrors, I'd also suggest that had North Americans
> paid more attention to supporting Israel's struggle to exist instead of kissing
> Arafat's ass (as well as those running other oppressive states like Syria, Iran,
> and Saudi Arabia), we wouldn't have had to deal with losers like the Taliban and
> Al-Quaeda, and the WTC would still be standing.
Again, your world view reflects your socialization process. Where does
such a conviction generally come from? The air? The mass media and
popular culture. Israel is a brutal, racist nation, and we document it
meticulously at our web site. Unfortunately, your ignorance of the
Middle East is stupefying, and your anti-Palestinian perspective is
all too typical. Again, I ask why? How is the oppressed perceived as
the oppressor? And here I refer you back to my original posting for a
clue to the problem.
We have a ton of citations about Israel at our web site.
As South African Archbishop and anti-apartheid activist Desmund Tutu
has noted about the foundation of Israel: "Is Zionism racism? I would
say yes. It's a policy that to me looks like it has very many
parallels with racism. The effect is the same. Whether you call it
that or not is in a sense irrelevant."
[in HOFFMAN, p. 15]
Jake Haines
You illustrate my argument. I don't know who you refer to as "we" but
your own outrage about that the Catholic ideology running the art
world offends you. Why is another ideology, also powerful, not
offensive to your presumed democratic tastes?
- now
> you want to replace them with yourself and your own gang. Go and see Lord of
> the Rings and watch your friends from the dark side .
Our intention is to elicit public discussion about Jewish hegemony in
the art world (and elsewhere). The Lord of the Rings may entertain
you, but it means nothing to the issue at hand.
>
> We just don't want you ruling the art world.
You're off in the zone now. Calling for public discussion isn't
"ruling the art world."
Jake Haines
> On 26 Jan 2002 16:11:25 -0800, sil...@yahoo.com (Jake Haines) wrote:
>
> >First, none of this has anything to do with my posting: Jewish
> >dominance of the art world. You curse me out for posting facts and
> >start yelling about Nazis. This is apparently your own obsession and
> >it has nothing to do with Jewish domination of the modern art world.
> >
> >> It was a small step from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor to Nazi boycotts
> >> of Jewish run businesses;
> >>
> >> a small step from the boycotts to banning Jews from owning land;
> >
> >There are echos of this in today's Israel.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This also has nothing to do with "Jewish dominance of the art world"
> and makes the "purity" of your questions very suspicious.
1) People of Jewish heritage verifiably dominate the art world. 2) A
recent survey of Jewish Americans by Jewish Week and the Wilstein
Institute found that 89% of those surveyed at least "somewhat support"
the state of Israel. (5% didn't answer the question). One of the
foundations of Jewish identity today is rooted in support for modern
Israel, and we document this at our web site. The issues are related.
Although, again, for purposes here, that need not be the central point
of debate. The issue, rather, is how ANY ethnic group's hegemony
reflects collective bias. And that would be true WHOEVER ran the art
world.
I think
> there are simple historical explanations for this relative "Jewish
> dominance" in western culture, a privilege heavily paid after all.
How have Jewish Americans "heavily paid" for their pre-eminence in
modern art, the mass media, the publishing industry, US foreign
policy, and being the wealthiest ethnic group in America?
>If
> the field of competition remains sufficiently open, as it seems, there
> is nothing to correct.
Why do you think the "field of competition" is "sufficiently open?"
There is a blanket censorship even within the Jewish community about
criticizing Israel. And, aside from the politics of that, ANY power
elite, whoever they are, has biases. There is no such thing as a truly
"open" "field of competition?" There have been ethnic battles going on
(Affirmative Action, etc. etc.) about this issue for decades now. What
planet do you live on?
This is not a question of dominating folklore:
> when other minorities will reach the same level of cultural
> sophistication I think their contributions will be appreciated as
> well.
By proclaiming that Jews have a higher "level of cultural
sophistication" you defame EVERYONE else on the planet. This is a
chauvinist, and possibly racist, statement. Why is Islamic art any
less valuable? Why is Guatemalan folk art any less "sophisticated?"
Who are you to declare what art is more "sophisticated" than another?
Again, the ideology of even what art is, what QUALITY art is, etc.
etc. is part of socialization process. Those who are entrenched in
power determine these things. Norman Rockwell, for instance, has
always been disdained by the "High" art establishment, at least until
well after he was dead and gone. I'm not arguing that his work is good
or bad, I'm just saying there are corridors of power in the art world
establishment. And these people have enormous influence.
>But above all, if culture lose the value of universality, and
> becomes a racial, religious, ethnic or national issue, is no more
> culture.
This is your value judgement, of course. I support the concept of
universality, but this kind of thing is not something we are afforded
the opportunity to vote upon. There are racial, religious, ethnic and
nationalist currents in every corner of popular culture. The
multicultural society we have EMPHASIZES DIFFERENCES, not HOMOGENEITY.
The Jewish American (and Zionist) community has had an influential
hand in establishing this situation.
Jake Haines
> anything about the Holocaust!!!
1)There are two sections at our web site. Jewish Tribal Review has
links to online articles. (In the Holocaust section, if a link is
dead, you can do a google.com search and find it, even cached). 2) In
the section called WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PRE-EMIENCE
IN AMERICA we have over 150 pages about the Holocaust
( jewishtribalreview.org/18holo1.htm ) More than you want to know
about it.
>
> I tried to follow one of the links to an article at cnn.com but it was dead.
See above.
> Not willing to take YOUR word that their ever was an article at the end of
> that link, I visited their page and searched their COMPREHENSIVE DATABASE to
> find the article you say was linked to; as far as I can tell, NO SUCH
> ARTICLE WAS EVER WRITTEN! I knew that you guys were a bunch of slippery
> weasels, but now I guess that you are flat out liars, as well...
Nonsense. Check the URL. Go to the home page of origin or do a
google.com search. Conveniently, you don't mention which article you
couldn't find.
>
> No wonder organizations such as The Hate Directory have you listed.
We're listed there because ONE person (and a volunteer, no less) as
"editor" makes the decisions about categorizing web sites. The person
who reviewed our site was obviously someone with your world view. You
will also find listed there as a "hate site" the USS Liberty home
page. The USS Liberty was a US Naval ship attacked by Israeli jets in
1967. Nearly 40 sailors were killed. The crew of the USS Liberty has
been struggling a cover-up about this story for decades. Again, some
individual, no doubt a pro-Israel Zionist, decided they were a "hate
site."
If I am presented the opportunity to "edit" your web site for a search
engine, I can formally categorize you as a "hate" site too. There's no
appeal. There's no vote by anybody. There's no inquiry. No discussion.
No debate. I do what I want with you. That's how it works.
Bob & Dale Ford
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> > Again at the national gallery in Ottawa anti-Isreal works (Last
> > November..... might still be on).
>
> I will research this and see what I find.
> >
> > Well I have a few in my studio but in fact the works take on the whole
> > stupidity of the entire situation, including parents sending their 10
> > year old children to shoot rocks and martyr themselves for a political
> > cause.
>
> This is false and reflects your own misunderstanding of the situation.
> The notion that parents send their children to die is total
> propaganda. It's absurd and reflects your complete lack of knowledge
> about the situation. Again, this illustrates part of my general point.
> Throughout popular culture we are sensitized to the Israeli
> perspective, not the Palestinian one.
Hey look kids get killed all the time throwing rocks at the soldiers.
Who are you kidding. This is a big Palestinian complaint that rubber
bullets can and do kill kids and why would the soldiers fire on kids any
way. Some times real bullets are used. Yet these activities where still
encouraged. No they don't send their kids to die, they send them to
fight. Dying is just an unfortunate by-product. One dead kid=excellent
anti-Isreal propaganda. My problem is that THE PARENTS SHOULD BE THE
ONES THROWING THE ROCKS. But it doesn't get the same coverage as a cute
ten year old with a bullet in the head.
But you know what it really doesn't matter. You know damn well that the
problem is hate. Radicals don't want peace they want to kill. Iraq was
actively working on a nuke that is why Israel carried out a massive
pre-emptive air strike, about 10 years ago. If the radicals get a
mushroom maker ( probably a backpack nuke carried by a suicide bomber),
Israel will pave the middle east with bigger nukes. And you know what
the Palestinian question won't be a problem anymore. I don't want to see
that. It is every ones worse nightmare. But this is the path that
conflict is taking. And You by pushing a program of suspicion will make
that happen. You can't be anti one side and achieve a solution to this.
You have to be pro peace, pro people (all of them) and then a solution
that doesn't involve mass destruction will evolve.
>
I hope to hell that is soon.
Dale
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
means everything to the discussion at hand. I would not expect you to
understand that because you have gone over to the dark side and don't know
it.
All you think about is Jew taking over the world. The world is too big for
one group to dominate and for you not to realise that is to have your head
in the sand.
Your technique of question question question until you reach a point of
confusing a person is as old as the hills. The Christians used it in the
inquisition. Your idea of open discussion on a single topic is designed to
spread confusion and doubt. Just because you are jealous at their success
and want to tear them down doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow in
your path.
And as to your comment as to who this "we" is that I am referring to then
you are an arrogant condescending ass) maybe you should spend more time
learning about metaphor and less time hating Jews - then you may understand
what the other half of humanity is saying.
Our discussion is now terminated.
keith
Jake Haines <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
Bob & Dale Ford
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > News flash:
> > > > 1. This is a free society. People can go and do what they please. That
> > > > means if Jewish people want to collect art GOOD ON THEM.
> > >
> > > The point is to step back on wonder what is happening in our "free
> > > society."
> >
> > Well I don't like the fact that people are being categorized by their
> > religious beliefs.
>
> You are missing the point. There is no "categorization by religious
> belief."
>
You are doing exactly that.
Secular statehood is very important. I do not live under a Christian
government. Christianity is merely part of the mosaic.
Why do you think that. In dying they receive a martyrdom. They become
famous and praised. They bring glory to their families and hopefully
reap rewards in the after life. It is an incredibly selfish act, if you
look at the concept of jihad as a whole and not from a western
perspective. In reality these poor people are being used by there own
governments/organizations as bombs. You don't see any leaders committing
these suicide attacks, why? Because they don't want to die so they get
some brainwashed person to do it for them. It is sick. And for
what.......politics.
Dale
Yes but they haven't blow any one up with them. You might even think
about American influence in the area as one major reason why. Certain
organizations/countries will use the nukes, and have stated so, to
destroy Israel as soon as they get them. Their words not mind. Why don't
we listen. Hitler said what he was going to do and did it. Wow we were
surprised. The Rwandan government said they were going to commit
genocide, and guess what they did. No one listened a head of time when
Osama said what he was going to do and did it. And wow every one was
surprised. Why? Now the goal is to nuke Israel. People are saying they
are going to blow Israel off the globe and you call it an arms race. No
that isn't what the people trying to get the nukes for are saying. Why
don't you listen to them for once.
>
> > No hope for peace when you are actively trying to commit genocide at
> > whatever cost.
>
> Palestinians are committing genocide? Your prejudice is beyond belief.
> Check the numbers of Palestinian murdered , versus Israeli: 5-8 times
> greater.
Hamas's objective is to annihilate Israel and Jews. That's genocide who
cares about the score, one death in such utter stupidity is enough.
You hit it on the head..... every third world nation.
And
> > > that's because Israel IS a racist state. There wasn't anything at the
> > > Durban conference about "getting rid of Jews."
> > There was this great pamphlet handed out that listed the pros and cons
> > of Hitler winning the second world war con was the new beetle would of
> > never been built, pro was there wouldn't be any jews and Palestine would
> > be a state.
>
> If this is true, you make it sound as if this was institutionalized.
It is true and it is institutionalized.
In Canada there was quite the out cry at some of the text books that our
money was used to buy for Palestinian schools. The were so utterly
anti-semtic, racist, war mongering, promoting martyrdom etc.... that
many people were outraged. I know I was. I give money to help educate
kids, not brainwash them to turn them into the next generation of
suicide bombers.
No I don't visit sites that are probably monitored by the FBI.
> >
> > >
> > > > 8. There is one race, the human race. We all bleed the same colour, love
> > > > our children, and strive to survive in this world. What's even more sad
> > > > here is that Jewish people, Christian people, and Muslims worship the
> > > > same God. All the arguing is about the lousy rules.
> > >
> > > There is indeed only one human race. But you have not done your
> > > homework. The origin of Jewish identity is "the Chosen People."
> >
> > From the old testament, some thing the big three religions have in
> > common, meaning they are all the chosen people.
>
> Sorry, I haven't got all the time in the world to here correct your
> ignorance. We've documented the Chosen People tradition, and how it's
> quite different from the other major religions, at our web site.
Documented means you wrote about it. That hardly makes it true. All
people belong to a religion because they feel it is the right one. The
don't become Catholic (for example) because they think Catholicism is
not the right path.
> >
> > > document the implications of this concept at our web site. Based on
> > > this old concept, there even is a vast difference between modern
> > > Jewish collective identity (popularly known in Jewish circles as
> > > "particularism" -- i.e., chauvinism and ethnocentrism) versus what
> > > you're talking about -- pan-human universalism. Judaism was NOT
> > > founded as a universalistic religion.
> > Pan human universals sans jews sound good to you. Hmmmm not exactly
> > universal rather biased I'd say.
> > >
> > > That's why we built our web site. To educate people about the issues
> > > here which, again, with all do respect, you obviously have no inkling
> > > about whatsoever.
> >
> > They put up a poster saying we're worth more than you
> > Cause they're working for the clampdown.
> > Teach our twisted speech to the young believers.
> > Train our blue eyed men to be unbelievers.
> > The judge says five to ten and I say double that again
> > I'm not working for the clampdown.
> > No one born with a living soul could be working for the clampdown.
> > (The Clash)
>
> Do you live and breathe musical acts? Does your CD define the world
> for you? Have you lost the capacity to express yourself except through
> commercial lyrics? (And "punk" was indeed commercial).
>
> Why not think for yourself for a change, and not mimic what popular
> culture pours into your head?
Well I like to draw inspiration and knowledge from all facets of human
nature. You should try it. I stack my degrees, personal knowledge, and
IQ against your any day. But you know what? It really doesn't matter
what I say you believe you are right. You are hardly a receptive
audience for knowledge now are you.
BTW Artists like music.
DAle
mdeli
> For decades Jews have been in the vanguard of agitation in the
>deconstructing of the WASP power establishment in some sectors of
>American society.
The bullshit is finally revealed!
>Why is it OK for them to complain about THAT power
>elite, yet -- when the tables are turned -- they are immune from
>criticism for their profound socio-cultural-political influence?
No one is immune from criticsm including you.
>
>Look. Hitler's political opposite, Karl Marx (who was born Jewish),
>said some of the same things Hitler said.
You may not like Marx but you are stupidly ill informed and blinded by
your prejudice.
>
>You condemn my criticism of a power elite in the art world as
>tantamount to agitating for genocide.
I never said the word genocide. I guess we are dealing with a paranoid
here.
> The origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen
>People." Check your Old Testament. You will see that the Jewish
>community traditionally understands itself as a "nation apart" from
>all others.
It doesn't and few except religious cranks still believe this.
> That's their self-conception. I didn't invent it. Look.
>Arabs and Jews are VERY closely related. Both claim the patriarch
>Abraham as one of their own people. In traditional lore, Abraham's
>child with Sarah was Isaac, which beget the "Jewish" lineage.
>Abraham's child with his slave/servant, Hagar, produced the Arabic
>line. This is the origin of the Jewish/Arabic divide.
And most Jews and even Christians don't believe this Bible BS.
No religion dominates art.
>
>Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Islamic art? Micheangelo and
>all those guys functioned almost purely in a religious tradition. Do
>you know that in Orthodox Jewish religious tradition it is forbidden
>to do most kinds of human figure "art?" And those who these days are
>nihilist/atheistic/hedonistic in their convictions are no less
>"religious" in their expressions of their "faith," in art or
>otherwise.
Which goes to show that art is universal and that no religion
dominates art.
> People of Jewish heritage dominate the art world. Period.
In your paranoid mind.
>> >Jewish artists are distinct from non-Jewish artists.
>> And women are distinct from men and Kosher pickles are distinct from
>> holy waffers, so what?
>
>You're getting ridiculous. Differences are differences. Turn left or
>turn right: the consequence is not the same. Eat a pickle or a holy
>wafer. The experience is not the same.
This guy is pretty stupid and can't reason.
>> >When ANY ethnic/racial/social/political group dominates ANYTHING, this
>> >should be cause for public discussion.
You said it ten times already.
Don't obfuscate, your point is that there is that there is something
WRONG with it. This why most here to feel that there is something
wrong with you.
...no skill no art
Bob & Dale Ford
He isn't being creative here. And it has every thing to do with the
issue at hand although to see that you would have to have the ability to
grasp the BIG PICTURE here and you don't.
I would say to you that the Palestinian people currently live under a
dictatorship. A dictatorship that places hate above the future of its
people. This dictatorship is faced with a neighbour that has a tendency
to be a bully (Israel). The Palestinian authority denounces the suicide
bombings on CNN today but was calling for jihad, jihad jihad on arabic
stations two days earlier ( Arafat). Did you think we didn't know? What
translators live in North America? And now they watch Arabic TV ...NO.
The every day Palestinian person is caught between a neighbour that
fears them and restricts their movement, and a government that represses
them and uses them as human ordinance to gain political points. No
wonder they aren't happy. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. I would
suggest to you that people on this news group are more aware of the
situation than you could ever be, because our minds are open and we can
see more than on side of the story. Some here have lived in the middle
east or have friends there now. The situation is complex but there is a
solution besides blowing people up but in order for that solution to go
through people must demand peace and the radicals to stop murdering
innocent people.
Dale
Now if you want a really good story I hear that Scotland is dominating
the production of single malt, haggis, bagpipes and Kilts. Those
bastards!!!
Bob & Dale Ford
and demand peace instead of war. Even if that means over throwing their
oppressive governments. Demagogues and nukes don't mix.
I would give you a lesson regarding nuclear power, nukes, and delivery
systems here but I am afraid you might learn some thing. So how about
you just realize that the people on this news group are artists and
artists are too knowledgeable to buy your simplistic BS and bugger off
to alt.pangobal.racist.org and find some poor feeble minded people that
have their head shoved so far up their ass that they think you make
sense??????
Just trying to help you out so you don't waste any more of your time.
Dale
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> > Every country has a dark history. But if you want to blame the Jews for
> > everything then blame them for taking out Iraq's nuclear station. We would
> > have been in one hell of a mess if they had not done that.
>
> I thought artists prided themselves upon being worldly astute. What
> you refer to is not so simplistic. Whether Iraq gets a nuclear bomb or
> not, Iran is close to getting one, Pakistan has one, etc. And the
> troubling ingredient in all this Middle East trouble is the arrogant
> state of Israel.
>
> If you think Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear power plant solves our
> increasing dilemma in the Middle East, please think a little harder.
Bob & Dale Ford
Dale
Todd Strickland wrote:
>
> "Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > Our site has over 1,000 links to articles about Jewish/Zionist racism,
> > power, etc. and, in another section, over 10,000 citations from 4,000
> > bibliographic sources. It's as "legitimate" and "objective" as any
> > site can be.
> >
>
> It isn't a question of your "facts" (Clement Greenberg was Jewish!? Oh, my
> God!!!), but the conclusions you draw from such "facts."
>
> Neil Postman once wrote that in a world of "information overload," where
> there are far too many facts for the individual to verify on his own, ANY
> statement begins to seem just as valid as any other statement. Your web
> site exploits this to make it seem reasonable that Jews really do control
> the world, which is patently absurd.
>
> Postman's suggestion for dealing with this state of affairs was not to check
> each and every piece of information to refute silly arguments (an impossible
> task, as the new information piles up faster than anyone can take it in),
> but simply to develop a "crap detector," and just dismiss the nut cases of
> the world with common sense. My crap detector has been ringing off the hook
> since you arrived.
>
> When I was in high school my algebra teacher once "proved" to the class that
> 0=1. He wrote a lengthy proof on the board, with many apparently simple
> steps, which lead to this very surprising conclusion. Our task was to find
> the error; we couldn't. It was such a small point, buried deeply in this
> overwhelming tangle of mathematical statements (each one of which looked
> valid), that we couldn't catch it.
>
> Trying to dispel your World Jewish Domination theory by looking for the
> errors at your voluminous web site is a similar problem. It's pointless to
> try. No doubt, that's why you and your colleagues cram so much POINTLESS
> information into your web site.
>
> Todd Strickland
RBrac53660
in the past century. although all policies of the us gov are not perfect we do
not single out peoples for there religous and or ethnic origins. although you
might like to.
We are guilty of useing peoples for capitalistic purposes.
RBrac53660
ŠżŠ & ÔĄÔ
leslie
Bob & Dale Ford
Jake Haines wrote:
>
> > I think a more general view is that any one who is overly concerned with whether
> > Jews dominate the art world is probably a certifiable loser who can't cut it on
> > his own without looking for some one else to blame his failure on. If you don't
> > like it, start wheeling and dealing in art, or write some intelligible
> > criticism. But don't whine just because someone does better than you.
>
> This is a typical response to the posting about Jewish dominance in
> the art world. No one refutes its content, for they cannot. But you do
> address something significant: "wheeling and dealing in art." The
> creation of art has nothing to do with "wheeling and dealing."
> Hustling, connections, self-promotion, etc. is what you are referring
> to. And here people of Jewish heritage dominate.
>
Why don't you write an article on white men dominating professional
Hockey? I think that is very significant. Or how about black males
dominating professional Basketball (that's probably more up your alley.)
They are both as equally significant as Jews in the art world. In fact I
would bet more people care about the dominating of professional sports
than the dominating of art world.
Dale
silverpoint
hate Jews and kill them (there I go again, being more of a Nazi than an
actual card-carrying Nazi, even.) It is obvious he is not welcome on this
newsgroup, and the differences of opinion that normally exist here are truly
put in their place by this racist vitriol.
I'm still waiting for news as to how some historians, theorists, and
collectors of modern art are also Jewish is supposed to alarm or bother
anyone, like this is a revelation that's supposed to mean something.
What an asshole, this Jake Haines. If he has anything the least bit
insightful or revelatory about art itself, asides from its, (cough, cough)
'Jewish influences', we should all be completely shocked. To think-- I
previously had no idea that obviously Jewish people, some of whom I respect,
and some don't, are, just to set set the record straight, are actually
Jewish. And there's IMPLICATIONS from that, mind you, serious
implications.....
Sieg, heil!!!
Interesting read--
http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2002/hn01-11-02.htm
"silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2v0p3$ji5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Yikes, I've 'defamed' a racist Nazi, which makes me somehow even more of a
> Nazi than an actual Nazi.
>
> Makes perfect sense. Now, can we actually discuss art, or am I late for
the
> cross burning?
>
>
> "Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > >
> > An avalanche of vulgarity and defamation. And completely ignoring the
> > facts. You can't refute the original post, because it's true.
> >
> > And posting true facts about Jewish influence has nothing to do with
> > "Nazis," etc. If you're a supporter of brutal, racist Israel these
> > days, you're a lot closer to being a "Nazi."
> >
> > How about some hot art that condemns Israeli's many, many terrible
> > injustices?
> > I don't see it on the horizon. How come?
>
>
Todd Strickland
"Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C54E955...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> I like the idea of a crap detector. Must work on that.
> Dale
Isn't that a good idea?
I'd recoment reading Neil Postman's "Technopoly." He'll help you build it
;-)
Todd Strickland
Jake Haines
> means everything to the discussion at hand. I would not expect you to
> understand that because you have gone over to the dark side and don't know
> it.
I don't think the Hobbit has much bearing on this discussion. Is Star
Wars also a metaphor for "human interaction" for you? Haven't read the
Lord of the Rings. But the "Dark Side" may be expressed even by those
who maintain the illusion that they are basking in rays of light --
you. This "Dark Side" is the most troubling, because it is illusorily
configured as moral enlightenment.
>
> All you think about is Jew taking over the world. The world is too big for
> one group to dominate and for you not to realise that is to have your head
> in the sand.
The issue is not Jews "taking over the world." The issue is that a
small, ethnocentric ideology wields profound influence in enormously
wide realms of public life. This forum is about art, which is part of
this matrix. How can I "have my head in the sand" when our research
about this subject is gigantic, and your research about it is
apparently nothing? Who's head is in the sand?
>
> Your technique of question question question until you reach a point of
> confusing a person is as old as the hills.
Is the notion of "queston, question, question" not part of the very
foundation of modern art? Isn't one of the main currents in modern art
to question the existing status quo? Isn't one of the main currents of
modern art to tell the truth? Isn't one of the main currents of the
noble artist to go against the grain of anitiquated convention? Per
"confusion," life is not also simple. Right?
The Christians used it in the
> inquisition.
So, the responses I get for posting some facts about Jewish hegemony
in the art world is that I'm a "Nazi," I echo the "Inquistion," etc.
This is all quite ridiculous, as anyone who read the material at our
web site would discover. Inquisitional thinking is to censor material
for HERESY, questioning the status quo. That is exactly what you, and
some others at this discussion forum, are doing. You represent an
Inquisitional mode, not us.
Your idea of open discussion on a single topic is designed to
> spread confusion and doubt. Just because you are jealous at their success
> and want to tear them down doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow in
> your path.
1) We are "jealous" of nothing. The quest for social justice is not
"jealousy." 2) We suggest no "path." 3) We tear nothing down, unless
-- for you -- the mere act of criticism is morally reprehensible. 4)
As any artist knows, life itself is rife with "confusion and doubt."
It seems that your personal world view is threatened by the
information we present. Great art challenges people to think. We
follow that dictum.
>
> And as to your comment as to who this "we" is that I am referring to then
> you are an arrogant condescending ass)
Why must you lean on vulgarity and defamation, which weakens whatever
argument you attempt to muster?
maybe you should spend more time
> learning about metaphor and less time hating Jews - then you may understand
> what the other half of humanity is saying.
Who is the "other half of humanity?" You. What are you talking about.
You need to sharpen your expressive skills. We know all about
metaphor. This dialogue itself is metaphor. This entire post, and the
responses, can be seen as a metaphor for art and how ignorant
conventions seek to destroy new thinking. True in the art world. True
here.
> Our discussion is now terminated.
Those who cannot sustain their argument have nothing to gain and rely
on the last resort of self-censorship and denial.
Jake Haines
> hate Jews and kill them (there I go again, being more of a Nazi than an
> actual card-carrying Nazi, even.)
Your defamatory hysteria is astounding.
It is obvious he is not welcome on this
> newsgroup, and the differences of opinion that normally exist here are truly
> put in their place by this racist vitriol.
At an art forum, of all places, the full range of public dialogue
about human existence is highly merited. If not, this forum -- and
whatever "art" you champion -- is fraudulent.
>
> I'm still waiting for news as to how some historians, theorists, and
> collectors of modern art are also Jewish is supposed to alarm or bother
> anyone, like this is a revelation that's supposed to mean something.
Your underlying presumption here (it appears) is the notion that all
ethnic groups are, within their communities, entirely homogenous to
all OTHERS in world view. While there are broad perceptual differences
within any respective group, there are cores of general consensus (if
not, what makes a "Jew" a Jew? What makes a "Muslim" a Muslim? If
these terms meant nothing, they would have long ago eroded. Each
concept of identity is charged with historical, and contemporary,
meaning.)
> What an asshole, this Jake Haines. If he has anything the least bit
> insightful or revelatory about art itself, asides from its, (cough, cough)
> 'Jewish influences', we should all be completely shocked.
One of the central premises of modern art, at least as it is
institutionalized, is that there is a continued deconstruction and
devaluation of past forms of thought. (Past art may be historically
respected, of course, but expressing the same forms today is not
value. Art must be "new." Our web site follows this paradigm. We
criticize (like much great art) the existing status quo and seek to
instill in an audience the capacity to genuinely THINK -- against
enforced convention.
To think-- I
> previously had no idea that obviously Jewish people, some of whom I respect,
> and some don't, are, just to set set the record straight, are actually
> Jewish. And there's IMPLICATIONS from that, mind you, serious
> implications.....
There are many fine Jewish people. That has nothing to do with our
argument. The fact that Jewish hegemony is evidenced in the art world,
the mass media, US foreign policy, etc. etc. etc. is very, very
MEANINGFUL and should be subject to increased public discussion. This
is not, in a truly free society, where people like you should be able
to shout it down without first going through evaluation of evidence.
> Sieg, heil!!!
You are living a fantasy life. Come back to the real world.
Jake Haines
> Hockey?
Dale, we have done our homework and you have not. This is our point.
The information we provide at our web site is all that is forbidden
from populer discussion.
Yes, who "dominates" hockey?
The current National Hockey League Commissioner, Gary Bettman, is
Jewish (this makes the current commissioners of professional baseball
[Bud Selig], basketball [David Stern], and hockey [Bettman] all
Jewish). Under criticism during a 1994 strike, New York's
Jewish-dominated Village Voice reported that
"Bettman has confided that his discomfort is increased by the
tinge of anti-Semitism that hovers in the strike rhetoric.
Toronto
columnists have referred to Bettman as 'nebbish' and complain
the league is now run by 'New York lawyers,' and players have
joked that Bettman's wife would rather 'go shopping' than watch
a hockey game -- all of which can be construed as a code word for
'Jew' ... Some the game's patron saints, such as the Leaf's Conn
Smythe and broadcaster Foster Hewitt, the original 'Voice of
Hockey,'
were known by associates to harbor anti-Semitic sentiments."
[EXTON/
SKOLNICK/KLEIN, 10-11-94, p. B28]
>I think that is very significant. Or how about black males
> dominating professional Basketball (that's probably more up your alley.)
> They are both as equally significant as Jews in the art world. In fact I
> would bet more people care about the dominating of professional sports
> than the dominating of art world.
Dale, you have not done your homework. And we have:
In 1999 the Jewish Week worried about an "ugly racial clash"
between striking professional basketball players (85% black) and the
team's owners, of which "nearly half of the 29 team's owners were
Jewish ... [Also] most top NBA officials are Jews, beginning with
Commissioner David Stern ... [Today's Jewish presence in the NBA is
that of] landlords and shopkeepers ... Jewish sports executives as a
group are unusually devoted to Jewish causes. Most are major UJA
donors. David Stern has been honored by both UJA and Israel Bonds, and
personally supported a [Jewish] Soviet refugee family. New Jersey Nets
owner Henry Taub is a former national chairman of the United Jewish
Appeal. Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin actually changed his
team's name from the Bullets after [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak
Rabin was assassinated." [GOLDBERG, J.J., Going, p. 14]
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Jews also dominate the "sports
agent" world, etc. We document all of this at our web site. Who heads
ESPN? Who runs the behind-the-scenes boxing world? Take a guess. We
document it at our web site.
What's your next point of argument?
Jake Haines
YOU are a bigot.
when was the last time your race was singled out for genocide
> in the past century.
You don't even know what my "race" is. Genocides have happened for
centuries. How come the Jewish one gets special consideration over all
others?
although all policies of the us gov are not perfect we do
> not single out peoples for there religous and or ethnic origins. although you
> might like to.
Of course this society singles out people for ethnic origins. Go apply
for a job. How often are you going to get a piece of paper that asks
whether you are Native American, African-American, white, etc.?
Jake Haines
This has to rank as one of the most inane comments I've ever heard.
Because we seek a forum to discuss the profound disbalance in our
multiethnic society, you slander this as equivilant to genocide. You
have white bed sheets? Ah, you must be a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
Same perverse logic.
eli...@remgeocities.com
Thanks for the answer, but I think that blurring politic and
principles, explanations and moral judgements (my fault too) generates
only misunderstandings: I think the question is too complex for the
current terms of debate. Thus I reply only defending myself about the
worse accusation: I don't consider myself racist because I don't
believe the genetic differences that are related to "races" can
explain anything. In other words I think that among humans the
hardware is too similar and the real differences are related to
"software", that is culture.
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Jake Haines" <sil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cab5ca7.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > Fuckin' troll...
>
> This, in its splendid entirety, is a typical response we get to the
> tons of facts we post.
>
> > William Barkin - Fine Artist
>
> "Fine" artist? Do you paint the way you write?
William Barkin
This asshole is the classic fuckin' internet troll...dragging everyone into
ludicrous responses to his bilge...everyone on this NG should IGNORE this
jerk immediately...you'll notice how Mani doesn't give this creep the time
of day...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:a31ed...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Jake Haines
What is your problem? Why are you so vulgar and vitriolic? Have I
violated you personally? Why are you so wrapped in hatred? I post a
series of verifiable facts (which you don't even try to refute because
they're true) and you go berserk.
dragging everyone into
> ludicrous responses to his bilge...
Do call your response here intelligent, informed, civil, challenging,
enlightened, or educational? Yours is a kind of thoughtless savagery.
You also declare that everyone should think like you.
everyone on this NG should IGNORE this
> jerk immediately...
Are you God? Are you the Thought Police? When you step in a room, is
everyone expected to kneel?
you'll notice how Mani doesn't give this creep the time
> of day...
Who's Mani?
> William Barkin - Fine Artist
Again, what is "fine" about your response here?
Jake Haines
>
> Are all of your "facts" this illuminating?
It is not possible to educate you to the issues in two sentences. It
is a profoundly expansive topic. That's why we have an entire web site
to examine all this. That you are content to be ignorant is your own
choice.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to
investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
Jake Haines
> On 26 Jan 2002 22:11:20 -0800, sil...@yahoo.com (Jake Haines) wrote:
>
> > For decades Jews have been in the vanguard of agitation in the
> >deconstructing of the WASP power establishment in some sectors of
> >American society.
>
> The bullshit is finally revealed!
>
> >Why is it OK for them to complain about THAT power
> >elite, yet -- when the tables are turned -- they are immune from
> >criticism for their profound socio-cultural-political influence?
>
> No one is immune from criticsm including you.
Of course not. It would be nice if the criticism was intelligent and
informed.
> >
> >Look. Hitler's political opposite, Karl Marx (who was born Jewish),
> >said some of the same things Hitler said.
>
> You may not like Marx but you are stupidly ill informed and blinded by
> your prejudice.
Again, you haven't bothered to attempt the original posting: Jewish
dominate the art world. How is it "ill informed" to state something
that is true, and verifiable? How is telling the truth "prejudice?"
> >
> >You condemn my criticism of a power elite in the art world as
> >tantamount to agitating for genocide.
>
> I never said the word genocide. I guess we are dealing with a paranoid
> here.
>
> > The origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen
> >People." Check your Old Testament. You will see that the Jewish
> >community traditionally understands itself as a "nation apart" from
> >all others.
>
> It doesn't and few except religious cranks still believe this.
Sorry to pop your bubble. We have tons of citations about this, mostly
from Jewish scholarship, at our web site.
>
> > That's their self-conception. I didn't invent it. Look.
> >Arabs and Jews are VERY closely related. Both claim the patriarch
> >Abraham as one of their own people. In traditional lore, Abraham's
> >child with Sarah was Isaac, which beget the "Jewish" lineage.
> >Abraham's child with his slave/servant, Hagar, produced the Arabic
> >line. This is the origin of the Jewish/Arabic divide.
>
> And most Jews and even Christians don't believe this Bible BS.
As usual, you miss the point completely. The origin of the historical
conflict is this "Bible BS." The "Bible BS" is the FOUNDATION of
Jewish identity. Prove otherwise.
>
> No religion dominates art.
> >
> >Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Islamic art? Micheangelo and
> >all those guys functioned almost purely in a religious tradition. Do
> >you know that in Orthodox Jewish religious tradition it is forbidden
> >to do most kinds of human figure "art?" And those who these days are
> >nihilist/atheistic/hedonistic in their convictions are no less
> >"religious" in their expressions of their "faith," in art or
> >otherwise.
>
> Which goes to show that art is universal and that no religion
> dominates art.
Your statement is nonsensical. In different places, in different eras,
religion dominates art, as it surely does in some places today. What's
"universal" is the expression of human experience in object form
(art). But religion has always been part of it. You're an atheist?
Fine. Your conviction I'm sure is no less than anyone with a parallel
religious conviction.
>
> > People of Jewish heritage dominate the art world. Period.
>
> In your paranoid mind.
No. We evidence it in our posting here (you can't read?), and much
more in depth at our web site.
>
> >> >Jewish artists are distinct from non-Jewish artists.
>
> >> And women are distinct from men and Kosher pickles are distinct from
> >> holy waffers, so what?
> >
> >You're getting ridiculous. Differences are differences. Turn left or
> >turn right: the consequence is not the same. Eat a pickle or a holy
> >wafer. The experience is not the same.
>
> This guy is pretty stupid and can't reason.
This is a retort?
>
> >> >When ANY ethnic/racial/social/political group dominates ANYTHING, this
> >> >should be cause for public discussion.
>
> You said it ten times already.
I sense an echo from your assertions also.
Jake Haines
> assertion, even ridiculous ones (such as Jews dominate the art world) seem
> like legitimate facts.
Reread the original posting. Which fact stated can you prove is false?
I actually did check out your web site and the VAST
> number of references you list DO NOT support your contention that Jews
> dominate the art world.
They do indeed support the "argument." You don't offer much of a
rebuttal here. In fact, your rebuttal is nothing at all. You say: "No,
it's not so." That's not an argument. That's nothing whatsoever.
Nor does the sheer number of articles make the
> contention any more valid.
More evidence of course does support the "contention."
>
> I could just as easily pile up a bunch of articles and information that
> "prove" blacks, hispanics, asians, or even whites "dominate" the art world.
No you can't. The chairman of the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney
Museum is not Pakistani. And that's just the introduction to the
story. It's ludicrous to even joke, let alone assert, that a case
could be made that blacks run the art world.
> Of course, I don't have the payroll that you do to undertake such an effort
> (nor the inclination).
You don't need to. We've done all the work at our web site for you.
Surprise: Blacks don't dominate the art world. Disappointed?
Jake Haines
> you just realize that the people on this news group are artists and
> artists are too knowledgeable to buy your simplistic BS and bugger off
> to alt.pangobal.racist.org and find some poor feeble minded people that
> have their head shoved so far up their ass that they think you make
> sense??????
One of the very premises of modern art is to challenge convention. You
are completely reactionary in your censorship about this issue.
Jake Haines
> On 27 Jan 2002 15:26:40 -0800, sil...@yahoo.com (Jake Haines) wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answer, but I think that blurring politic and
> principles, explanations and moral judgements (my fault too) generates
> only misunderstandings: I think the question is too complex for the
> current terms of debate.
In any debate or discussion, there are no pure realms.
Politics/art/sociology/economics etc. etc. all inform one another.
"Art," however one defines it, does not exist in a void. It is in the
best interests of no one that because a question is "complex," it
therefore must be avoided.
>Thus I reply only defending myself about the
> worse accusation: I don't consider myself racist because I don't
> believe the genetic differences that are related to "races" can
> explain anything.
I am not stating that Jewry is a "race." Jewish collective identity
configures in a number of permutations: racial/ethnic/relgious etc. It
is, however, clear that there is an common ideology that is "Jewish."
Being Jewish is a world view, if it is anything. If not, if one merely
emphasizes differences within the Jewish community, how do Jews define
themselves as a collective group from all others? And if it is
irrelevant to examine this Jewish "ideology, why is there a nation
(created in very recent history) called Israel?"
In other words I think that among humans the
> hardware is too similar and the real differences are related to
> "software", that is culture.
Sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Life as a
computer?
Jake Haines
> > overwhelmingly from Jewish schoarship, the Jewish ethnic press, and
> > the mainstream mass media) is "absurd." Why is such a vast cataloguing
> > of evidence "absurd?" It's absurd because it troubles you?
>
> Again, the conclusion you draw is what's absurd.
The "conclusion" is that people of Jewish influence are profoundly
influential in the art world. We have tons of evidence about it. Why
is that absurd?
>
> But on the subject of your "evidence" (nice word choice!
"Evidence" is the word used in legal debate, no? What word would you
prefer?
It implies some
> kind of "crime.")
You've never used the word except when you're at a jail?
, your web site is a joke, a vast one, but still a joke.
No. It's very serious. True, it is vast.
>
> The links to "mainstream mass media" are almost all dead.
If this is so, the original site has changed them. This situation is
discussed on the first page of our web site. In the URL, a researcher
can usually negotiate the host site's revised article system. The
problem, as you surely know, is that web sites often change their
links. And, while we have copied virtually all of the articles we
site, we don't know the legalities of posting them in their entirety.
And, even if we did, guys like you wouldn't believe they were real
unless they could find them at the original site.
The titles and
> brief quotations you give often seem fabricated to me.
That's fine. Some of the stories are incredible. They are all real:
all "clip and paste" excerpts.
For example, from
> your "Holocaust" chapter:
>
> Jewish Human Rights Group Condemns Holocaust Meeting.
> CNN.com. May 14, 2001
> "An influential Jewish human rights group [the Simon Wiesenthal Center]
> condemned
> Monday a group of Jordanian writers who had alleged that Jews exaggerated
> the
> Holocaust to gain world sympathy."
>
> To begin, the link is dead and I couldn't find any reference to this article
> at the CNN web site (and they have a very comprehensive database). But even
> assuming this is based on an actual story, there is NO WAY that it was in
> these exact words in the original.
You can find reference to this article, and these exact same words at:
http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=1174
This is a Jewish web site, which references -- like The Jewish Tribal
Review -- other articles on the web. The second article down -- which
they excerpt like us -- has the exact same wording from an article by
the Associated Press. Their link too is probably dead.
IF there was an actual story they would
> not have bracketed the name of the organization, and they would not have
> called it an "influential Jewish human rights group."
See the Jewish web site.
YOUR ORGANIZATION has
> REWRITTEN the article to insinuate certain ideas, namely that the Simon
> Wiesenthal Center is dangerous because it's Jewish AND influential.
We didn't rewrite anything at all. We inserted the name of the
organization that the article was about, because it wasn't mentioned
in the paragraph we excerpted.
>
> The other reason you mention this article (if there ever was such an
> article) is, of course, because you want to suggest that Jews exaggerate the
> Holocaust to gain world sympathy. You don't want to come out and admit that
> this is YOUR OPINION on the matter, so you put the idea into the mouths of
> "Jordanian writers," and then "objectively" site the article without any
> commentary.
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the issues here. Read The Holocaust
in American Life by Jewish author Peter Novick or The Holocaust
Industry by Jewish author Norman Finkelstein (Finkelstein has a
website -- I think it's normanfinkelstein.com) These authors (and many
others), but especially Finkelstein articulate in great detail what
offends you here.
Don't give me any bullshit that your purpose is to present
> evidence "objectively" for the viewer to read and make his own judgement
> beacause; 1) there is no article to read; 2) the quotation you have given is
> fabricated or doctored.
1) The article exists, as I have "evidenced" for you. 2) The quotation
is excerpted exactly as if was published (except to correctly mention
that it was the Wisenthal Center that was the organization in
question).
>
> Also, isn't it amazing with all the legitimate articles in the mainstream
> press about Holocaust survivors, memorials, and remembrances you only link
> to the few which seem to insinuate in the slightest way some doubt about the
> Holocaust (again, I doubt that the original articles insinuated any such
> thing, but your reworded quotations do)?
Now YOU are fabricating. We don't present any evidence anywhere that
the Holocaust didn't happen. Our concern is how it used, and
exploited, as a political tool. And YOU are fabricating the notion
that WE fabricated something. Never. All our online excerpts are real.
If your organization was truly
> unbiased there would be a few articles which affirm that 6 million Jews did
> die in the Holocaust; your "Holocaust chapter" doesn't even bother to
> mention that.
We discuss the Holocaust -- over under, sideways, down -- for over 150
pages as a chapter in WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH
PRE-EMINENCE IN AMERICA, which is at jewishtribalreview.org
>
> Now onto the "Jewish ethnic press." Here's one from Forward:
>
> Survivors' Lawsuit Seeks 40 Billion from U.S. for Not Bombing Auschwitz.
> [Jewish] Forward, April 6, 2001
> "In a bizarre addition to the Holocaust-related suits now winding their
> way through the courts..."
>
> In this case the link works, but once again, your quotation from the article
> is a cut and paste job, not a word for word quote. The quotation at your
> web site deletes important information about the case, but includes every
> line that makes the plaintif's position seem silly; VERY biased.
Not true. We excerpt sections of the article we think are relevant and
post a link for the reader to go see the original. We encourage
viewers to look at the original. Why else would we have the link to
it, right at the top?
>
> Why is it necessary to tag this publication as [Jewish]?
Because the Forward is an ethnic Jewish journal. It is for, and by,
Jews. And, for our purposes, any article there gives the piece all the
more credibility, at least per what the Jewish community is saying.
You didn't put
> [Gentile] before the CNN name?
I addressed this. It is relevant if a newspaper is published expressly
for the Jewish community.
I hate answering my own questions but if I
> leave it to you, you'll simply lie.
You are doing your best to invent lies from us. I have refuted here
all your charges. At the Jewish Tribal Review we only post exact
excerpts from online articles.
So here's why you put the [Jewish] tag
> here; first, so you can say that you're being "unbiased" in presenting
> evidence from all points of view.
I noted earlier why the [Jewish] tag goes up. It affirms deeper
credibility per the Jewish issue. And it underscores the fact that the
article is part of an intra-Jewish media discussion.
This would be valid IF you weren't so
> SELECTIVE in your "unbiased" presentation;
What is not "selective" on this planet? You write a book, you select.
You paint a painting, you select what to show. I mean, what is your
problem? We "select" the way anyone selects, and invite
anyone/everyone to do their own research. It's to your credit that
you've tried to pathologize our web site. But everything you state is
false.
of all the Holocaust related
> articles you could have gotten from Forward, THIS is the one you chose?
Yes, because it addresses the issue/issues that we are concerned with.
If you want to create a web site to further codify Jewish suffering as
more important than anyone else's suffering, go ahead. But that field
is very, very, crowded.
I
> didn't see any links to stories about hate groups, or Holocaust deniers (of
> which Forward has run many); maybe those kinds of articles hit too close to
> home?
Our interest isn't in "hate" groups, except the Jewish versions of
those things. And this entire field of "hate" groups is rife with
political intrigue. When it is popularly deemed "hate" to dare to
criticize the Jewish power elite in this country, the term "hate" has
lost all its meaning except as a political tool. The Jewish version of
"hate" is immense, and it forbidden to discuss it. Our web site aims
to balance the scales. I mean, come on, why are you dictating the
perameters of our concerns? Make your own web site.
>
> The second reason you put the [Jewish] tag on the article is because the act
> of tagging itself carries a certain meaning. Under the Nazis, Jews were
> forced to wear yellow Stars of David, and their passports were stamped with
> a large red "J."
Sorry, you're really off the deep end. The Forward IS a JEWISH ethnic
newspaper. You seek to brand us Nazis for calling the color blue
"blue."
The purpose of these acts was to stigmatize Jews as
> different,
You're a bit crazed here. There are JEWISH journals called JEWISH
CHRONICLE, JEWISH WEEK, JEWISH ADVOCATE, and on and on. Again, the
Forward is an old Jewish ethnic newspaper. You're argument here is
really bizarre. Am I a veritable Nazi to say that Taj Mahal was a
Black musician, even if it doesn't say so on his album cover? Don't
ever go into Law. You'll never win a case.
and to insinuate that Jews were criminals who needed to be
> watched constantly.
You're really in a zone now, and still going! Wild!
Your organization never misses an opportunity to tag
> some person, publication, or organization as [Jewish]. You do this for the
> same reasons the Nazis did it.
No. Much of our citations of "who is Jewish" is from Jewish sources.
By your logic, the online website JewHoo is a Nazi organization (they
list famous Jews).
Our interest is in social justice. The Nazis wanted a singular Aryan
domination of Germany. Our interest is that such domination by ANY
kind of group is detremental to a truly democratic society.
>
> As to why you chose to link to this article, it was obviously to imply that
> Jews are greedy. Only problem here is that Mr. Wolz, the man who brought
> the lawsuit, ISN'T EVEN JEWISH!!! But of course, your homepage has deleted
> that bit of information...
Who is Mr. Wolz? Are you still talking about one of the over 1,000
article links at our site? What does Mr. Wolz's ethnic identity have
to do with anything? (And how do you know he isn't Jewish, for that
matter?)
>
> Every link at your web site is like this. It amounts to a mountain of lies,
> half-truths, and irrelevant facts, all to give the illusion that your
> BULLSHIT hypotheses are objective "truths."
Sorry to refute here all you've said. But I appreciate your gumption.
And I pay tribute to you for trying. It was a good effort. Most people
scream "anti-Semite," "Nazi," "racist" etc. etc. etc. and that's all.
You actually tried to make a case to defame our web site based on your
own set of falsehoods, "half-truths," etc.
But, since I've put to rest all of your objections, do you have any
other complaints?
Jake Haines
given issue so you shut down.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to
investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
> Neil Postman once wrote that in a world of "information overload," where
Jake Haines
> of the other people you named here, and at your warped website, gasp! was
> JEWISH?
What is your fetish for Greenberg? We list THOUSANDS of pieces of
information about the Jewish influence in the art world, and Greenberg
is merely one of them.
>
> Guess what-- everyone already knows that!! Duh.
Most people DO NOT know this. Greenberg's ethnicity is rarely
highlighted in conventional discourse. (It is of course discussed in
in-depth volumes and articles about him).
There are entire threads
> on this newgroup, plus newspaper and magazine articles, even entire books
> about Clement Greenberg, a lot of it derogatory, yet not a one takes the
> peculiar slant that your take on him does. These mind blowing facts no one
> is refuting or contradicting-- we already know this, but just don't care.
You SHOULD care. And there is obviously much you DON'T know. Jewish
identity and influence in the art world has a lot of avenues to
explore.
Margaret Olin, for example, suggests that widespread Jewish early and
mid-twentieth century championing of formalist art (art denuded of
social, political, cultural, and religious reference) had -- until
recent years when celebratory Jewish "particularism" has been
unleashed-- been rooted in their self-interest in downplaying publicly
their Jewish identities. Prominent Jewish art critics Clement
Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg, for example, were especially prominent
in the encouragement of "Abstract Art." Occasionally, however, latent
counter-attitudes to abstract universalism could indiscreetly surface.
Greenberg, for example, once remarked that "it is possible that by
'world-historical' standards the European Jew represents a higher type
of human being than any yet achieved." [OLIN, p. 51] This Jewish
elitism, lingering just behind a universalistic front, was also
manifest in critic Bernard Berenson. Despite his own professed
"tendency toward universalism and timelessness" and "the same human
quality in every individual," he further proposed to "erect the same
qualities into ultimate standards, and to appraise societies as well
as individuals by the extent to which they have possessed these
qualities." "Thus [for Berenson]," notes Margaret Olin, "like George
Orwell's Animal Farm, which found some animals more equal than others,
he found some societies more universally human than others." [OLIN, p.
48]
By the 1980s, art critic Peter Halley found some intriguing
historical essences in what he calls a Jewish American artist
renaissance:
"Art in the 80's has been consistently labeled as ostentatious,
garish,
extravagant, garish, extravagant, vulgar, and over-scaled. These
are
the epithets of the parvenu or nouveau riche. However, they are
also
terms that, in earlier decades, were used to characterize
Jewish-American
taste and style. I want to be very clear that I am not making any
claim
that anti-Semitism has entered the critical debate. I would
suggest
instead that the commentators who have thus defined the 1980s
have
been blind to the meanings that this aesthetic of extravagance
may
have for Jewish artists of the 80s." [HALLEY, p. 28]
Why do you think you speak for EVERYONE at this discussion forum? Or,
for that matter, in the art world?
>
> Few people, if any, in this discussion group or elsewhere are the least bit
> astounded to learn that BERNARD BERENSON WAS A JEW!!
How do you know that? Have you asked each one? And "elsewhere?" Are
you talking artistic, geographic, political, class, or what kind of
domains? You're in over your head, pal.
I've read plenty of
> Berenson, yet see no reason how his religious background gave him the
> Svengali-like powers of evil mind control over the field of art history that
> you attribute to him-- that was due to his expertise, insight, and
> professionalism, not to mention in-depth knowledge of the Renaissance and
> art in general. Or so I thought. How much of Berenson a Jew-hating
> bastard can actually assimilate and understand is not on the radar here,
> obviously, though I'm sure the further insight would be even more
> overwhelming than the first wave of revelations.
Berenson was profoundly influential and he was a fraud. His partner in
fraud was prominent Jewish art dealer Joseph Duveen. These men were
important influences in what became known as the "art market."
"Notoriously dishonest," [WATSON, p. 166] Joseph Duveen was another
prominent Jewish art dealer in the early decades of the 1900s, "the
most successful art broker of the twentieth century, this trade --
thanks to his undoubted charisma and his gift for salesmanship, laced
with lavish doses of corruption." [SIMPSON, ARTFUL, p. 1] Upon his
move from Europe to New York City, Duveen was charged (in a legal
"case that attracted enormous publicity") with evading customs duties
of -- at today's values -- $102 million. Connections with several
United States Senators and other men of influence helped Duveen evade
the law. [WATSON, p. 166]
Duveen had a long -- and secret -- association with the very
prominent and influential Jewish art connoisseur, critic, and esthete,
Bernard Berenson. Berenson (whose original name was Bernhard
Valvrojenski), an expert on Christian art, converted to Protestantism
and then Catholicism, but noted in his diary,” At times I seem
to myself to be a typical 'Talmud Jew.'" He also wrote that he longed
to drop "the mask of being goyim and return to Yiddish reminiscences
..." [RUBIN, p. 75] In 1944, Berenson wrote a piece called, "Open
Letter to American Jewry." In it, notes Barry Rubin, "Berenson warned
that envious Christians would persecute them, 'even if you were
innocent as the angels ... and you are far from that.'" [RUBIN, p. 76]
For his less than innocent part, Berenson regularly colluded
with Duveen over a twenty-five year period in perpetuating continuous
fraud and deceit upon unsuspecting art collectors. "Berenson was a
genius," writes Colin Simpson, "who early in life channeled his gifts
into the study of that finest flower of Christian art: Italian
Renaissance painting. By the age of 35 he had become the world's
leading authority ... The curators of many of world's greatest
museum's were either his former pupils or his disciples ... They came
to hear his opinions, take his advice, and pay homage to his
scholarship and his intellectual integrity. A small minority saw him
as a disgustingly rich, opinionated, spiteful tyrant ... But only a
handful were aware that it was Berenson, not Duveen, who was probably
the most successful and unscrupulous art dealer the world has ever
seen." [SIMPSON, ARTFUL, p. 1]
"The raw truth about both men," notes Peter Watson, "... is...
complex and considerably ... sordid." [WATSON, p. 167] For his part,
from 1911 to 1937 Berenson's hidden association with Duveen netted him
alone the equivalent -- in our day -- of $150 million. [SIMPSON,
ARTFUL, p. 2] "Berenson,' notes Eunice Lipton, "shaped the very
terrain of Renaissance studies, not to mention the market for what
became its masterpieces." [LIPTON, p. 285]
> Next, you'll be trying to tell us that Albert Einstein was Jewish, too.
> What a revelation.
Comparing public knowledge about Berenson to Einstein is ridiculous.
The only people who probably have ever even heard of Berenson are
those who take specific art history courses. The fact that he was
Jewish will not be highlighted in general overview courses of art
history.
>
> How many folks out there already knew this, show of hands, please? How many
> actually care? Yet, for some reason, only Nazis like you go around crowing
> about it.
Your continuous defamation of a legitimate investigation of a power
elite in the art world as "Nazis" is totally inane. Your efforts to
censor are not far from the Nazi strategy.
> How are most people on this newsgroup-- working artists and art buffs of
> various backgrounds and interests-- affected by these truly cosmic
> revelations? Or how are they affected by some Jewish conspiracy to control
> the art world? You claim that this is some issue of the most vital concern
> to all artists today. How?
If you were raised in, say, Syria, those that dominate the "art" world
there would profoundly influence your world view about that field. If
you were born in 18th century Prussia, those that dominate the art
world there would have profoundly influenced your perception of the
possibilites, and limitations, of the art genre. In today's art world,
which is largely an ecomic entrepreneurial field, "he that pays the
piper calls the tune," in every possible way. If I and my family own
most of the art galleries in the town where you live, and my family
has a specific world view, this world view will be expressed in the
art we choose to show (versus those we DO NOT show) in our gallery, in
the lectures our experts give about art, where we spend money to
support our idea of what art is, etc. When you take a course at the
local college, and it's my cousin who teaches the class, the latent
network has effect upon everyone. Art does not exist in a vacuum.
Social, political, economic, and many other forces are integral to its
shaping.
The mere fact that some important thinkers and
> movers/shakers in the world of modern art happened to be Jewish means just
> that, and there's nothing inherently bad, evil, nor even mysterious about
> it.
It is not just "some." Jews are pre-eminent in the field of art. They
dominate important parts of it. Jews have a distinct world view (per
their "martyrological" heritage, per the Holocaust, per Israel, etc.
with few exceptions). Whether you define this influence as "bad, evil"
or "mysterious," it is real. And, if there is nothing "bad, evil" or
"mysterious" about it, why your vitriolic censorship in addressing the
issue as a free, open, democratic, and ethical inquiry?
Everyone already knew this, honest.
People are overwhelmingly ignorant about all this. Honest. And it is
an enforced ignorance. By people like you.
The only point here being is that
> if there's Jews, they must be up to something, which must be inherently
> evil, apparently. I do not call you a "Nazi" lightly, nor with the least
> bit of humor or sarcasm.
Nor do I call you a "Nazi" lightly. I stand for freedom. Open
discussion. Free debate. Honest inquiry. You stand for censorship. The
gagging of free speech. Defamation. Insult. The Thought Police.
> How does pointing out that things you're supposedly bowling us over and
> blowing our minds with are things we already know, but simply couldn't care
> less about, means that I'm the one advocating a "Thought Police." Makes
> perfect sense.
Yes it does. You claim to "know" all this stuff, and that everyone
else does. That's nonsense. The information we post is known by few
because people like you crawl out of the woodwork screaming "Nazi,"
"racist," et al, guaranteeing an iron lid on open inquiry. It appears
that you may well have a strong vested interest in the status quo.
It's astounding that even the supposedly liberal, open art field a
Thought Police member like you can rush to fore in an eager effort to
censor realms of inquiry that threaten your own comfortable pardigm of
the socio-political art world. Do you treat people who make paintings
you don't like the same way? God help us all if you're in any position
of power in the art establishment.
>
> Art is a profession, an avocation, or an interest or hobby. People with no
> real interest in it, only in bashing those of a particular background, have
> no business showing any further concern in it.
Art is none of those things you list. Art is a deeply-felt (and
necessary) expression of the human soul. Period. The stuff you list is
garbage. Profession? Art has nothing to do with a profession. A
profession is where you get money to perform a job. Real art
transcends that. Avocation? Similar to profession. You're stuck on the
art-making as kind of a career -- paycheck, daily work hours, etc.
Interest? Does that mean with the passion of reading Dear Abby each
morning? Hobby? Like collecting spoons, giving it up, and collecting
different colored sponges the next week?
YOU don't have a clue what art is, my friend. Except per the shadowy
entrepreneurial realm that I am complaining about. Hence, you are
probably the director of an eminent museum or lawyer for a rich
artist.
Jake Haines
You want to talk genocide?
For an outside observer to both groups, traditional Judaism and
German Nazism, the the original intention of the two belief systems
seems similar: each seeks to maintain group privilege and exclusivity
through racial lines of its own. (The likes of Patai, Cantor, Kahane
and others extend racist self-glory, one way or the other, to our own
day). Each anticipates in-group domination over others. And each
ideology -- in origin -- aims to clear their respective land claims of
foreign elements. By any means necessary. The Nazi's idea of Aryan
supermen stems from a secular, pre-Judaeo-Christian pseudo-pagan
revival, tinged with nihilism; the Jews special grace is religiously
sanctioned from God, who was originally conceived as a brutal and
vengeful Lord of a Kingdom. Each group envisions a special destiny,
above all other people.
"The fact remains," says Harold Cruse, "that the European
experience shows that when it comes to playing the role of the Chosen
People in history, the danger is that two can play this game as well
as one. When that happens, woe be to the side that is short on
numbers." [CRUSE, p. 483]
For those who might decry with indignation a comparison of
oppressed and oppressor as being ridiculously unwarranted, largely due
to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust epoch, we need only turn to
history to confirm where the atrocious deeds of the Nazis and Jews, in
both action and attitude, merge:
When the Lord your God gives them [the Hittites, the
Girgashites,
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites
and the
Jebusites -- all contestant tribes against the Jews for
parts of the
ancient land of Israel] to you and you defeat them; then
you must
utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them
and
show them no mercy ... [Deuteronomy 7:1-6]
This, of course, is from the Jewish Torah, known in Christian
tradition as the Old Testament. This is not just ancient history, or
legend about ancient history, but part of the most sacred of Jewish
religious texts. It is the origin of Judaic belief per their claims
to the land of Israel. Many Jews to this day believe such material to
be the infallibly dictatorial Word of God, as do many Christians who
accept the Old Testament as part of their own religious foundation.
For anyone who takes the time to wade through the avalanche of
esoteric minutia in the Old Testament, examples of religiously
sanctioned cruelty and atrocity by the Israelites are found to be core
to their dogma of "specialhood" and land conquest. The eminent and
popular scholar Joseph Campbell (who, of course, is vilified by some
indignant Jews as just another in the endless parade of anti-Semites;
Jewish scholar Sander Gilman, for example, calls Campbell's work
"tainted with the rhetoric of anti-Semitism." [GILMAN, Psycho and, p.
101] spent a lifetime studying world myths and belief systems and
calls the Torah tradition "one of the most brutal war mythologies of
all time." [CAMPBELL, P. 181] Slave labor, rape, and genocide are, for
example, encouraged in the following Old Testament passage:
When you draw near to a city to fight against it,
offer terms
of peace to it. And if its answer to you is yes, then
all the people
who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and
shall
serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but
makes war
against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the
Lord your
God gives it into your hand you shall put all its
males to the
sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle,
and
everything else in the city, all its spoils, you
shall take as booty
for yourself. [Deuteronomy 20:10-14]
When God reputedly gave the land of Israel to the Jews, there
were, of course, people already living there. And what, according to
the most sacred of Jewish texts, was deemed necessary to clear the
place of non-Jews? The text from the Torah quoted above continues:
Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very
far from you,
which are not cities here. But in the cities of the
people that the
Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you
shall save
nothing alive that breathes, but you shall utterly
destroy them,
the Hittites and Amorites, the Canaanites, and the
Perizzites,
the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord has
commanded.
[Deuteronomy 20:14-18]
Could Hitler and his henchmen improve much on this?
The violent wresting of the Holy Land from others is led by
Joshua and begins with carnage at the city of Jericho:
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both
men
and women, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass,
with the edge of the sword ... " [JOSHUA, 6-21]
The genocide continued:
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the
south, and of
the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left
none
remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the
Lord God
of Israel commanded." [JOSHUA 10:40]
The parallel between the Israelites' scapegoating of their
archrivals, the Canaanites, as prelude to their extermination, and the
Nazis' contempt for, and mass murderer of, Jews is striking. "Canaan,"
says Eric Friedland, "is transformed [by Jews] into a cipher for the
worst elements of Israel's social and religious life, a major
contributing cause of its degeneration and downfall. A finishing touch
is furnished by Isiaiah (23:8) and Zechariah (14:21) when they debase
the term 'Canaanite' into a synonym for a merchant or trafficker.
Haven't we heard this canard before?" [FRIEDLAND, p. 79]
Modern Jewish reflection upon, and moral reckoning for, their
own genocide of the Canaanites, Friedland concludes, has not been
forthcoming:
"The ... difficult task is to come to terms from a
religious
perspective with that part of our past that, under a less
developed
moral standard, was for a long time condoned but in the
present
age raises serious ethical questions with profound
repercussions."
[FRIEDLAND, p. 81]
As Robert Carroll notes:
"Total war can make sense from a strategic point of view,
but it
raises serious moral problems; and the genocidal war
against
the Canaanites in the Bible has bothered sensitive readers
of a book
often thought to express perfect, divinely ordained
morality."
[CARROLL, R., 1989, p. 159]
"I remember," notes Joshua Cohen, "[in fifth grade] asking my
[Jewish religion] teacher how it was possible for Jews to have behaved
like Nazis, and being told that the attempted genocide in [Torah
chapter] 1 Samuel was different in that the Israelites were carrying
out a holy command ... [This] is itself an example of the appalling
bigotry that can subsist in canonized texts. The biblical paradigm,
moreover, confirms our fear that canonization of texts might confer a
moral authority on bigotry. For many Jews, the text of the Bible and
particularly of the Torah is sacred ... My fifth-grade teacher is
hardly alone in regarding the Command to exterminate Amalek as the
word of God." [COHEN, J. p. 293]
eli...@remgeocities.com
>>In other words I think that among humans the
>> hardware is too similar and the real differences are related to
>> "software", that is culture.
>
>Sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Life as a
>computer?
Oh, that was a metaphor: hardware=DNA, software=education.
elio
====
http://web.tiscali.it/elio_copetti
RBrac53660
Bob & Dale Ford
I agree with Spencer the problem is your definition of investigation
allows for predetermination of bias.
And I don't agree with censorship at all, I think that freedom of speak
allows us to know exactly where the nut cases are.
Jake Haines
> >
> > "There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is
> > proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in
> > everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to
> > investigation.
> > -- Herbert Spencer
> I agree with Spencer the problem is your definition of investigation
> allows for predetermination of bias.
Read the Spencer quote again. It fits your position perfectly.